I’m libertarian* and found boycotting Chick-fil-A one the easier ones becaise I didn’t like the food much, anyway.
*But voting Democrat until That Other Party gets its sanity back – if ever.
The way I see it, being too PC or too woke is a self-limited phenomenon.
Despite what I often see claimed, nothing is being “banned”. There is no regulatory body in existence that can compel what words you use.
What’s actually happening is a struggle for public opinion. What people are doing is trying to form a consensus. They’re trying to convince people that certain words are offensive and people should use different words.
And that’s what limits political correctness. It can only lead as far as public opinion is willing to follow.
Proponents of political correctness have been able to convince the public that using words like nigger or faggot or cunt is wrong. But when some extreme proponent of political correctness tries to push for terms like people with vaginas or says that white people can’t eat Chinese food, then they will not convince anyone to follow their lead.
Zealots can act in ways that silence or severely restrict the rights of others. Many folks don’t want to deal with the ire of the woke mob.
My perception of ‘wokeness’ is that it has to do with the language of self-determination, which I view positively. I support that kind of wokeness. I’m less supporting of it when it’s tied to boycotting (i.e. cancelling).
What woke mob? The only mob that’s been a problem is the right-wing mob that tried to overthrow the government on January 6. And they certainly weren’t woke or PC.
The domestic threat to our country and our rights comes from the conservative right not the liberal left.
That’s not an accurate depiction of recent history with all the politically motivated violence in several cities over several months from the ‘progressive’ wokesters being conveniently forgotten.
You support installing a left wing dictatorship, but you’re against boycotts?
I support left wing pragmatic authoritarianism where appropriate. I am certainly for boycotts where it’s truly warranted, but boycotts and threats of boycotts are overused. People will have their own opinions but mine is that you don’t necessarily resolve differences with people by threatening them.
No, it is an accurate depiction of recent history. It just doesn’t conform with the recent history that you’ve imagined.
The BLM movement is not about violent protests or breaking the law; it’s a movement that opposes violence and lawbreaking. It was often targeted with violent attacks by the police but that doesn’t make it a violent protests movement. Being the victim of a crime does not make you a criminal.
But a whole city (Seattle)was taken over and burned down by the BLM just a few months ago (according to my coworker)!
So they claim. However the billions of dollars of damage says otherwise. The language of virtue is being exploited for power. Nothing more.
No, pigeons are to blame for all that property damage.
Sure, none of the property damage was actually done by pigeons. But they were in the area at the time that somebody else did it. And according to your logic, that’s enough to say it’s their fault.
You really believe it was pigeons? You really believe that blaming riot damage on rioters is analogous to blaming it on pigeons?
Screeching social justice platitudes while doing billions of dollars in arson damage and looting is more analogous to the Robespierre thread than it is analogous to the movie Birds.
No, but blaming riot damage on protesters is.
The subset of protesters that were rioting and causing damage is much larger than the set of pigeons causing the damage. The analogy is a fail. The cult of woke excuses political violence and excuses the suppression of individual liberty when nominally those acts are in the service of so-called ‘equity’ or so-called social ‘justice.’ The reason I mentioned Robespierre is precisely because he is an example of someone who used the language of virtue in order to justify monstrously evil acts. The language used to justify the acts should not be such an effective ruse as it has proven to be. But humans are emotionally susceptible that way unfortunately…
Which leads to an interesting observation… out of the classical forms of oratory rhetoric may trump logic by an order of magnitude in effectiveness.
So who is/are the Robespierre of the left who are demanding violence in the name of wokeism? Are the prominent in the Democratic party or BLM, and can you point to their rhetoric in support of violence, or at the very least portraying those specific individuals arrested for committing the violent acts as heroes?
The beauty of modern communications is the potential universal reach and diffuse nature. It’s not hard for those who share an affinity to work in a particular direction even without the once obligatory organizational chart.
This question has been posed, and been unanswered, for years. Don’t hold your breath.
I don’t think the violence was politically motivated or that ‘progressive’ wokesters were responsible. Can you back this up or is it an article of faith for you?
These things are not true. But I am sure you believe they are true.
The people who tell you these stories are lying to you. They are doing this because it is useful for their own self-interest to have people like you worried about a vast army of enemies. They tell you that if you support them blindly, they will defend you from these imaginary enemies.