Anarchy and anarchism are two different things.
Anarchism is a fairly well defined political concept, and when i saw the start of this exchange, i thought, “i bet @MrDibble is an anarchist”.
Also, the “sovereign citizens” aren’t anything like anarchists.
This is after all the woman who posted a tweet saying “look at what a day in a mask does” and had a photo of a mask she’d apparently poured coffee onto:
So when Mandel claims she was in a panic because someone on the show “Spoke of parents in a negative way,” do you believe her, anyway? I don’t. No one is attacking her for being a parent; that isn’t a thing that happens, not from “the left” or anyone else. She was not “brac(ing) myself to be ambushed on air about my own life choices as a mother of six children.” That makes no sense at all. It’s a lie.
Mandel has made herself famous by lying. Why would anyone have sympathy for her?
Huh, if she was breathing air that filthy, it’s a good thing she was wearing a mask. You can clear some crap out of your lungs, but that’s a lot for a day.
Really drifting off-topic now, please don't reply to this post. {What Exit?
I don’t see the relevance of that. Corruption is relevant when it’s so pervasive that it affects the core function of government, like when you can’t get anything done involving government without bribing government officials, or a government makes a commitment that it fails to honour and there’s nothing you can do about it. Otherwise, some level of corruption is a kind of background noise that is ultimately an inevitable fact of life in any enterprise that involves human beings.
I’ve already said that I’m in no way trying to sanctify my own government and there’s been all kinds of incidents of corruption, and I sure wish we could do better, but ultimately it made no real difference to the ability of government to function and do its job. For instance, one of the “big” scandals involving the Liberal federal government was the so-called “sponsorship scandal” of 2004 that involved money earmarked for promoting the federal government via advertising in Quebec being diverted to Liberal-affiliated advertisers and to the Liberal party itself. Another in 2019 involved the SNC-Lavalin Quebec construction company being charged with bribing Libyan officials to win construction contracts there, and Prime Minister Trudeau pressuring the AG to offer a deferred prosecution agreement, fearing economic and political impacts to Quebec.
I acknowledged that reality already, but in the large scheme of things, these things don’t seem to me in any way to argue against the virtues of social democracies as a system of government. Churchill described democracy as something along the lines of the worst form of government, except for all the others. We live in a world that has to be pragmatic and pick the best system we know how to create, out of a non-ideal selection.
One word: presentism. It means judging actions of the past by contemporary standards. At the time that (for example) Britain was engaged in colonialism all over the world, its own citizens thought it was just a fine idea. Government was just reflecting the prevailing values of the time. Winston Churchill was a raving bigot against non-whites; again, a product of his time. Meanwhile, during the colonial era there was no end of bigotry and injustice within Britain itself. Presentism. It’s pointless except in the context of historical learning, and says nothing about the merits of social democracy.
The FBI can classify them as whatever it wants to, but an Anarchist would cast down the system rather than hold up various quotes from the legal books as magical formulas with powers of protection. In order to be a Sovereign Citizen you have to believe that the law is SO POWERFUL that if you use it the right way it can grant you any power you want.
Hey, @Moonrise, I was wondering if you wanted to address this question. White people are no longer the majority in Texas, why should Texas bow down to the demands of a minority in regards to history education, social customs, their minority views re: ‘social cohesion’, more?
Especially given our own worldviews and goals, even within the subset of people known as “white” (including myself), are often conflicting with each other?
In short: Do you still approve of Anglo cultural dominance for Texas?
Reply to off-topic now, please don't reply to this post. {What Exit?
And yet, you bring it up and continue to talk about it.
That’s not cynical
The proper response is “Be careful about government help, watch those orgs carefully. “We are with the government, we are here to help you” is often not true, or the help comes with a hidden agenda.”
The government is not evil or crooked. It is large, clumsy and run by bureaucrats. While reaching out to help, they may step on you.
Of the South African government?
Sure- one or two hundred years in the past. There is Iceland…
The Anarchists in America specialize in going to peaceful demonstrations and turning them violent. That is pretty damn evil.
This topic was automatically opened after 9 minutes.
Cite?
Because anarchists i know have been actively provoked by the police, while attempting to stay peaceful.
AFAICT, at least as of 2020, it was definitely the case that small organized groups were deliberately trying to escalate violence at peaceful BLM protests, but it is not clear what movement(s) the groups represented.
There were definitely small groups of people intentionally trying to turn BLM protests violent. As best as i can tell, most of these people are still unknown, but the ones who have been identified were right wing, and presumably trying to discredit the BLM movement. I see no motive for anarchists, and haven’t heard of any anarchists actually caught doing this.
There have always been people who act like assholes or idiots, I have never felt the need to define them. Like sounding out the classification and nomenclature of the grass you walk on at any given moment.
People use the word a bit now. How they use it, when and why on both sides of the political isle are something I’ve begun to notice says a significant amount about that person. That saves us all time.
Remember naming grass?
ETA: I’ll take my homespun wisdom and my country time lemonade and wander back to the porch now.
Blanket statements like this just don’t make sense.
In fact, some governments ARE evil and/or crooked. They’re not even necessarily all that small, or run by bureaucrats. In just your country, you are dealing with three tiers of government and at the local level, possibly more than one competing version of tertiary government between a city/town, county, school district, etc. I have immediate dealings with no fewer than four governments - Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, plus I have dealings with the Halton District School Board, which is technically beholden to the province but is kind of its own thing. They are all wildly different in terms of size and clumsiness, and even within any given level of government one is dealing with different organizations of varying levels of efficiency.
As luck would have it this is generally a non-crooked place, but that has not always been the case and certainly is not the case in other places. A Black person living in a small town may have very good reason to believe the local government is evil and crooked. The city of Ferguson, MO was preposterously crooked.
As a matter of interest, Bethany Mandel’s inability to explain what “woke” means despite having written a right-wing book about it, which resulted in an interview clip that went viral on Twitter, has now made it to CNN. And again, normally I’d feel very bad for someone in this position, but not in this case as she’s being blatantly dishonest in the service of right-wing ideology.
I think it was Einstein who said, “If you truly understand something, you can explain it simply”.
Conversely, I guess, if you’re just trying to bullshit, it’s a lot harder.
I guess I’m woke if it means having consideration for others that don’t look like me, have a different faith, are of a different gender or have a gender not based on their birth certificate, or have a different sexual preference than me. To me that’s all it is, a recognition that certain groups have been marginalized and oppressed and that we should try to be respectful of them and considerate to them.
What I don’t really understand is what makes “anti-woke” people tick. Is it because they see human rights as a zero-sum game where if those who are not heterosexual white Christians are treated with respect that somehow there’s less respect left to give to them? Do they think that any rights we recognized for gays or Muslims or minorities mean less rights for heterosexual white Christians? Is it that acceptance of alternate lifestyles and different cultures is a threat to their lifestyle and culture? I just don’t get the motivation. I get why Republican politicians are amping up the outrage- it motivates their base. When you don’t have any policy proposals to promote, then you gin up hatred and outrage and make your voters afraid of “the other”.
The fauxtrage over Dr. Seuss was quite silly. Dr. Suess may have been a beloved children’s author, but he was also prone to drawing demeaning racial stereotypes such as blacks with absurdly large lips or Asians with slanted eyes and buck teeth. The current owners of his works saw too many of such images in one of his books and pulled it from publication. It wasn’t the “liberal media” hounding the Seuss heirs, it was a decision on their part to be more sensitive to others. Tearing down statues of Confederate generals isn’t “destroying history”, it is acknowledging the absurdity of honoring those who took up arms against their country and did so in order to perpetuate the great evil of slavery. Calling it “art” is no defense, I recognize that both the Nazi and Confederate flags are both aesthetically attractive, but they represent evil ideologies and can’t be displayed without appearing to endorse that evil. In a museum they are fine but flying either on your house or car labels you as a terrible person and blaming “wokeness” for the bad reactions you get is searching for victimhood that you do not deserve.
These are the people that literally fought the National Guard during desegregation.
The “Christian” nationalists raison d’être, their hope, their whole platform is a insurrectionist dream to redo the civil war. They want to bring back slavery.
Anti-wokism, as a concept, is a product that is in high demand. I’ve never been one who understood the minds of reactionaries so I don’t know why its so highly desired, but I do know why personality-guru-pundits give vague allusions to the concept while being wholly unable to speak intelligently about it.
Its because these people are flimflam artists looking to personally profit from anti-wokism. Almost everyone banging this Moral Panic seek to profit somehow.