Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[MK14]

...
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously.
...

Someone had posted a link at the top of this thread but the message was removed right away.  I don't have a twit account but sounds like the you or admins did not pull it. 

Wasn't me.

It was ME!

I wasn't sure if Dave wanted it discussed or not, and decided not to mess up the flow of this thread, by making the post.  So, I deleted/removed the post, perhaps within 10 or so minutes, of it being public.

The mods/admins didn't contact me or have anything to do with its removal, I did it myself.

EDIT:
The link/image, was probably like this:
With me making a post, that said things like that some parties (maybe on social media), had objected to it.
Another reason for me removing the post, is that I'm NOT sure of the proper/full story behind what happened.

[ebastler]

I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal

Yes, 100% accurate.

How about 60% accurate?

I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.

How about "affordable cars for all and generous roads and highways for an accessible city", for example? With resource and environmental concerns, this is no longer considered a progressive stance today. And in general, as basic needs are fulfilled for most people, their focus turns towards the next wave of "needs". This went from food/shelter/health to travel/entertainment/fun and currently, at least for some, to mindfulness/non-discrimination/sensitivity...

I also struggle with some of the "modern" positions, and sometimes feel that we are addressing decadent pseudo-problems instead of the real issues at hand. But I also don't rule out the possibility that I am simply getting older, and some of my comfortable, well-worn attitudes no longer cut it. My grandparents' generation might have found a vacation in Italy "decadent", which became totally normal for the younger generation. And I am pretty sure that some of my opinions and positions fall into a similar category from the point of view of today's youngsters.

[newbrain]

I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal

Yes, 100% accurate.

You can mirror that picture, and it would also be 100% accurate. So, it is at best 50% accurate, i.e., pointless.

[TomKatt]

I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.

An example of this might also be church attendance falling to lowest levels ever.  So, on the one side you've got folks pushing to mandate the US as a 'Christian' nation government, while others are moving away from organized religion altogether.  That the Church seems to be intolerant to many modern social issues is not - and has never been - a big surprise.

And that will have to end my participation in this thread, because while I'm generally pretty easy going all that hypocrisy ties me up in knots. 

[vk6zgo]

Nah,Dave, you're none of that shit---you are a bit of a "rightie", but who gives a damn!

No actually, I consider myself left wing, as in old school left wing.
At one point in my life I would have been considered far or even extreme left.
But because the overton window shifted and the "left" has now gone batshit crazy, I'm still standing in the same place I always have politically, but now I'm constantly called "right" or "alt-right" for holding the exact same values.
These days I'd be closest to what you'd call a classical center liberal. And not Liberal in the Australian meaning of it, as in liberal party. For those outside Australia, the "Liberal party" here is the right wing christian conservative party, roughly equivalent to the US Rupublican party.

Dave, I am much older than you, & your "old school" left wing is probably well to the right of mine.
I wouldn't call the modern Liberals "conservative" in anything other than the US use of the word.

Bob Menzies was a real "old school" conservative, & like most of the conservative parties around the world at that time, the original Liberals effectively ran a Social Democrat state, not a long way off that the ALP of the time would have run.
Public utilities were owned by the taxpayer, Unions were strong, & we had central wage fixing courts.

Those large corporations which existed actually had some interest in what they did for a living, rather than just being in it for the profit, so were efficient, as were the large government enterprises.

The Libs & Country Party weren't angels, though, they were as ready to use dirty tricks as anyone else, but at least they were fairly competent, unlike some of their Coalition successors.

[daqq]

I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.

Thing is, change can be good or it can be bad. Just because someone has a new idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea - at some point every idea that we today consider idiotic was new and doubtless there were people seeing it as progressive.
Resisting change by itself does not qualify a person as a foaming at mouth conservative afraid of new ideas looking to the comfort of the Dark Ages and burning witches. I myself am all for the idea of, say, gay marriage, I'm not for the idea of drag queens reading to kids in kindergarten.

[EEVblog]

With me making a post, that said things like that some parties (maybe on social media), had objected to it.
Another reason for me removing the post, is that I'm NOT sure of the proper/full story behind what happened.

IIRC the full story:
It started as a thread on the forum, probably talking about merch or something, I don't quite recall. The MAGA hat was all the talk at the time, and I think we had made the Make Electronics Great Again joke on The Amp Hour so I created the image as a joke. Then I posted it on my twitter, and as you can see, most people thought it was funny by the like ratio. No one seriously thought I was selling this as merch.
But all it takes is one person to remember that image exists and then use it as (out of context) ammunition later on.
That hat image combined with the FX-problematic calculator joke about that Candian woke math things posted eariler, and an innocent photo of a soldering iron with a hashtag people took the wrong way (they thought it was mocking BLM at the time, its wasn't), and some other image as combo image went viral and hundreds, maybe even thousands in the electronics community piled on an called me -ist -phobic etc.
That also started the attacks on my friends and colleagues for just being associated with me, even to the point of getting their talks cancelled, worse than Scott Adams had, at least only his own talks were cancelled AFAIK.
No individual post got me cancelled, it was only when someone trawed my history for everythign they could find and them combined them as "proof" I was this always this problematic bigot.
That's what happens, they go through your history and find anything to build up a case for their already made-up opinion of you.
And to this day that thread and combo image is still referenced as the proof that I'm a *insert slur here*
They'll still be using a decade from now, I'm absolutely sure of it.

The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.

Interestingly, the person who put up that photo montage and started it all, I chatted to them privately and it was a very cordial chat and they admitted that they knew I wasn't -ist and -phobic and all that stuff I was being called, but they still didn't take it down (and I didn't ask them to BTW), as they implied that it was imporatnt to somehow teach me a lesson or something like that.
I only deleted those tweets because my friends were being attacked, and that was red line for me. I had to limit the attacks on them as best I could.
I think you can still find them on Instagram where they didn't even raise a singe eyebrow or comment. This outrage mob attack thing is entirely a twitter based phenomenom.

[Zero999]

I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.

Thing is, change can be good or it can be bad. Just because someone has a new idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea - at some point every idea that we today consider idiotic was new and doubtless there were people seeing it as progressive.
Resisting change by itself does not qualify a person as a foaming at mouth conservative afraid of new ideas looking to the comfort of the Dark Ages and burning witches. I myself am all for the idea of, say, gay marriage, I'm not for the idea of drag queens reading to kids in kindergarten.

Sometimes I think change is just implemented for no reason. I don't like the way the meaning of words has been changed, for the sake of political correctness. This is why I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage. I'm completely in favour with same sex couples having exactly the same legal rights and legal protections as heterosexuals, just call it something else.

Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.

The horseshoe theory. I made this same observation quite a few years before I had a name for it. The far left and far right are diametrically opposed and yet nearly indistinguishable from each other in their behavior. A lot like the north and south poles of a magnet I suppose. You'd never know the difference without having an opposing pole to see how it reacts.

It's bollocks, I'm afraid. 

Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible. 

Radical left wing wants: any religion or none (not usually specified), open borders (varies), a controlled market which is centrally planned, maximal governmental involvement.

I think it is hard to say that those two ends are equal in any significant manner.

Are they similarly rabid?  Sure.  Can they use similar techniques (violence, intimidation, protest, authoritianism) to get their way?  Sure.  But they definitely are quite distinct groups, even at the surface level, with a diametric opposition in many areas.

I find it funny how radical leftists accuse those on the centre-right of being Nazis. Many of those on the radical left have similar ideas to the Nazis. Quotas for ethnic groups in high paying jobs and at university is one example of this. Affirmative action, to ensure a certain number of Hispanic and black people, and not too many whites and Asians, is similar to what Nazi Germany did at the start by limiting the number of Jews in positions of power. It stems from jealousy: hinder the most rich and successful races, to benefit the rest. 

[iMo]

I recently discussed the left-right topic with a group of younger people here (related to our local politics issues).. 
   
OMG, how easy it was 33+ years back:
Left - a communist, socialist, marx-leninist, maoist, anti-monopolist, anti-militarist, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist, freedom fighter, anti-colonist, anti-rasist, pro-sovietist..
Right - a capitalist, monopolist, militarist, monarchist, colonist, fasist, nazist, rasist, pro-americanist..
Frankly, today I understand a shit about what does left and right mean..
 

[TomKatt]

The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.

Sorry, can't help myself.  One last comment.

IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative.  I found that image hysterical, and even if you sold them under the banner of supporting Trump, I'd have no problem.  I think many Trump supporters have legitimate concerns that are worthy of discussion, and I don't write anyone off just because they don't support my opinions.

But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side.  IMO, the 'MAGA' type crowd is more likely to have full-on tirades against others they do not agree with.  The name calling and insults seem to me to fly from the right side much more than the left.  We're learning recently that Trump tried to pressure Disney to put the reigns on Jimmy Kimmel because he didn't like the jokes about him while he was president.  And it seems like the vast majority of conspiracy theories originate from the right extremists as well.

The reality is there are extremists on both sides.  But as I see it, the majority of vitriol and calls of destruction come far more from the right than they do the left.

[daqq]

But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side.

This is the problem with discussing politics in general and in particular in English - a whole multidimensional spectrum of opinions, values, ideas and whatever is imploded into a binary choice of Republican/Democrat, or Liberal/Conservative. Which is complete nonsense and leads to the extremes getting the spotlight, thanks to which one side can point to some extreme point of the other, while ignoring the discussion on legit points in their programs. I have opinions that are commonly associated with both sides and I've been named a "woke libtard" by one side and "fascist bigot" by the other. And note that I'm labelling them myself as two sides

Whatever else you can say about Slovakian politics, there's a fine grained choice between the political parties available, a fair amount of which actually get into the parliament. We've got everything including Communists (real communists) and Nazis (who did Nazi cosplay), many flavours of Socialists, Liberals, Christians, some who act as Libertarians, Nationality based parties...

[ebastler]

I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage.

Which part of the "definition" of marriage do you mean exactly?

The "til death do us part" bit seems to have been heavily eroded independent of the type of couple... The "love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health" part should work just fine for gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't recall anything in the marriage vows about having heterosexual intercourse and procreating...

[Nominal Animal]

I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.

I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.

That would depend very much on what you say (or write), wouldn't it? If you wrote a daily blog for a year, where you essentially kept repeating "xxx is so great, and I would know, since I am so great", I would probably dislike you.

Yes, but I was being literal, because you have said the same about me in another thread, having lost respect for me due to an opinion or statement I made.

This is related to the core issue at hand, that has been discussed here before: that one disagreement or stupid/idiotic/irrational/illogical opinion or belief should not be reason enough to completely ignore everything that person utters.

(The way political agitators start online campaigns and demonstrations to demand nobody should be able to listen what they have to say, and they should be fired and ostracized, like what happened to Scott Adams, is related but different: the extremist emotive mob reaction.)

Personally, I haven't read Scott Adams' blog or watched his videos (other than the one at the center of this furor), because his opinions on most things are irrelevant to me, and I want to enjoy the occasional good Dilbert strip without having the authors opinion taint the experience.  If they were talking about their own experiences, it would be a bit different.  But just having floating heads or "celebrities" spout their opinions is just not my cup of tea.

At this forum, I don't read the TEA threads, or even the recent purchases threads anymore, because I found it evokes slight jealousy in me, as I don't really have good test equipment, even a good oscilloscope, nor can I afford them right now.  The difference to "canceling" is, of course, that I am only controlling my own behaviour, not telling anyone else what to do, or even to not listen to those I kinda-sorta avoid.

(This is not to try and paint myself as somehow "better": I have to consciously do this, to work at it, to interact in a mutually beneficial way.  Otherwise, I would be just an annoyance, whether I intended it or not.  Other people do it instinctively and well, without conscious effort.)

As described in the first part of my earlier post (which you conveniently omitted), that is how I came to dislike Scott Adams. Very much based on what he said/wrote, as you seem to prefer.

Apologies about that. 
I did not intend to imply that that was not the case.  I just saw the exact same reaction from you towards him, towards myself in an earlier thread.
I was just trying to keep the quote as short as possible.

[Zero999]

I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage.

Which part of the "definition" of marriage do you mean exactly?

The "til death do us part" bit seems to have been heavily eroded independent of the type of couple... The "love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health" part should work just fine for gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't recall anything in the marriage vows about having heterosexual intercourse and procreating...

I don't mind language changing, but not when it's mandated from the top down.

Marriage originally started for the purpose of procreating. It has been defined as occurring between a man and a woman for the last couple of thousand years. There was absolutely no reason to change that definition. Same sex couples could have easily been given exactly the same legal right and protections, under a different name.

But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side.

This is the problem with discussing politics in general and in particular in English - a whole multidimensional spectrum of opinions, values, ideas and whatever is imploded into a binary choice of Republican/Democrat, or Liberal/Conservative. Which is complete nonsense and leads to the extremes getting the spotlight, thanks to which one side can point to some extreme point of the other, while ignoring the discussion on legit points in their programs. I have opinions that are commonly associated with both sides and I've been named a "woke libtard" by one side and "fascist bigot" by the other. And note that I'm labelling them myself as two sides

Whatever else you can say about Slovakian politics, there's a fine grained choice between the political parties available, a fair amount of which actually get into the parliament. We've got everything including Communists (real communists) and Nazis (who did Nazi cosplay), many flavours of Socialists, Liberals, Christians, some who act as Libertarians, Nationality based parties...

Yes, it's BS. Libertarians have ideas typically associated with both the left and right in the US. They're in favour of low taxes, a position supported by conservatives and the legalisation of prostitution, which is supported by the left.

[MK14]

IIRC the full story:
It started as a thread on the forum, probably talking about merch or something, I don't quite recall. The MAGA hat was all the talk at the time, and I think we had made the Make Electronics Great Again joke on The Amp Hour so I created the image as a joke. Then I posted it on my twitter, and as you can see, most people thought it was funny by the like ratio. No one seriously thought I was selling this as merch.
But all it takes is one person to remember that image exists and then use it as (out of context) ammunition later on.
That hat image combined with the FX-problematic calculator joke about that Candian woke math things posted eariler, and an innocent photo of a soldering iron with a hashtag people took the wrong way (they thought it was mocking BLM at the time, its wasn't), and some other image as combo image went viral and hundreds, maybe even thousands in the electronics community piled on an called me -ist -phobic etc.
That also started the attacks on my friends and colleagues for just being associated with me, even to the point of getting their talks cancelled, worse than Scott Adams had, at least only his own talks were cancelled AFAIK.
No individual post got me cancelled, it was only when someone trawed my history for everythign they could find and them combined them as "proof" I was this always this problematic bigot.
That's what happens, they go through your history and find anything to build up a case for their already made-up opinion of you.
And to this day that thread and combo image is still referenced as the proof that I'm a *insert slur here*
They'll still be using a decade from now, I'm absolutely sure of it.

The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.

Interestingly, the person who put up that photo montage and started it all, I chatted to them privately and it was a very cordial chat and they admitted that they knew I wasn't -ist and -phobic and all that stuff I was being called, but they still didn't take it down (and I didn't ask them to BTW), as they implied that it was imporatnt to somehow teach me a lesson or something like that.
I only deleted those tweets because my friends were being attacked, and that was red line for me. I had to limit the attacks on them as best I could.
I think you can still find them on Instagram where they didn't even raise a singe eyebrow or comment. This outrage mob attack thing is entirely a twitter based phenomenom.

Thanks, for the really nice and detailed story.   

You raise a VERY good point, about the red line being breached, when it involves, even your friends being attacked, such as any financial/business's they run or are part of.  Especially as this sounds like a very small number of individuals, reacting to stuff you didn't really say (properly), or mean, just some fun, jokes and things.

I'm arguably a fan of Scott Adams, over a very long period of time.  I think I have a number of their books / comics (one or more, I'm not sure), and have seen a huge quantity of his comics and stuff.

But, I am disappointed in him making one (in particular), of his opinions, public, a number of months ago.  Perhaps August 2022.  But, that doesn't stop me from liking them and enjoying their works.

On the other hand, I believe in freedom of speech, and think it is extremely important.  So, if he had kept that (August 2022, approximately) opinion, secret.  People like me, wouldn't be able to offer alternative opinions.  Which could be much more hurtful, to society in a bigger longer term sense, than hiding much / all (free)speech.

E.g. Ending up like some countries, whose leaders (or should I say, dictators), essentially 100% (less in practice) control the news media, TV stations, internet and other sources of true / honest information (although in the West, a fair quantity of the stuff, is not genuinely independent or 100% factual, for various reasons, just not anywhere nearly as bad, as those dictator countries).

Scott Adams (around August 2022), was presenting an opinion, about parents of would be mass very bad things (attacks), should do very drastic things, to stop their offspring, from carry out such attacks in the first place.

One of the sources, of information:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/dilbert-scott-adams-kill-sons-b2117427.html

The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me.  I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.

I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population.  Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.

Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.

In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general.  As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others.  With terrible consequences.

[switchabl]

And you guessed it, the mere mention of the word woke triggered people into outrage, saying how dissapointed they are in us, and trying to "re-educate" us that it's not true etc etc. The usual stuff.

That word is burnt though. It has been appropriated by right-wing media as a label for "anything we don't like" and is essentially devoid of meaning now. It is the new "socialism". I think it is mostly perceived as saying you see yourself as a part of conservative culture war. At least in the US, the UK and increasing continental Europe as well. I don't know about Australia. I think many people consider it a way to signal that you are not interested in civil discussion and want to start an argument instead.

I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.

I have to admit I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter but people may overestimate its impact. I do not condone the offensive (and at times scary) way some act over there and I can only imagine what it feels like to find yourself subjected to it personally.

But I think the narrative that business decisions are driven by a fear of a crazy Twitter fringe is overblown; often on purpose, to fuel outrage and sell tabloids. In many cases, the simple question is "do we want our brand associated with what they said/did". In the case of Scott Adams, he essentially argued for segregation and I think most buinesses would come to the conclusion that large parts of their customer base do not look kindly on that. Yes, he may not have literally said that but it was heavily implied and he was clearly aware of that. You can argue endlessly (preferably elsewhere) whether that makes him a racist/contrarian/master of persuasion/whatever but from the publisher's perspective that would seem to be a distinction without a difference.

There is definitely a larger discussion to be had about freedom of speech, not just on a legal level but on a social one as well. About the role of platforms, shifting taboos and "opinion" media (see Dominion vs Fox News). It's fascinating and complicated and unfortunately there is so much noise from people who haven't actually thought about it seriously for 5 minutes and probably don't even care.

[Nominal Animal]

I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.

I believe so, definitely.

There is definitely a larger discussion to be had about freedom of speech, not just on a legal level but on a social one as well.

I for one like these threads exactly because they tell me how other people (with wildly different views and experiences to mine) perceive the world.

(I'm so curious about that that I sometimes trawl through even conspiracy sites, to find out.  It does not matter to me that I personally happen to not agree; the thing to me is trying to understand the viewpoint that generates the opinions and experiences.)

I also struggle with some of the "modern" positions, and sometimes feel that we are addressing decadent pseudo-problems instead of the real issues at hand. But I also don't rule out the possibility that I am simply getting older, and some of my comfortable, well-worn attitudes no longer cut it.

Me too!  Although, I think it is natural (and not something to "counter"); something like a balancing factor.  Like when becoming a parent, most people tend to shift a bit toward more conservative attitudes, because their values change a bit.  If we describe young people as explorers, older people are somewhat more like caretakers instead.

It also means that we need to understand how others perceive the world – the entire huge set of viewpoints – before we can even tell what changes we could do to the world to make it better, and what perceptions are just due to a limited viewpoint.  We absolutely have to listen to even those we disagree with, and apply logic and rational analysis, especially when emotions limit our ability to interact.

(Of course, there is a limit, when someone spouts nonsense or just tries to manipulate others.  But we don't determine that emotionally either, but through logical analysis and comparison of their statements.)

[fourfathom]

I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.

Well it certainly makes it difficult for us.  And not just in politics -- yesterday I was trying to track down the origin of a particular concept (ignoring authorial intent when analyzing content) and found myself deep into Derrida and deconstructionism, and all that followed.  What a load of crap!  There is may be some nugget of value there somewhere, but if so it's buried under a mountain of manure.  My STEM brain just isn't capable of making sense of it, and there is no way I could participate in a learned discussion on the topic (nor would I want to).  But for some other people this is the most important thing in their lives.

I shudder to think of what kind of person I would be now if I had somehow fallen into that quagmire when I was young. But that's assuming that nurture wins over nature.  I became an engineer, could have been a musician, but probably could never have been a competent philosopher. (Is there such a thing as a competent philosopher?  Perhaps "influential" is the appropriate term.)  Nurture helped me be good at what I do, but nature is what drove me in this direction.  Or so I believe.

[tszaboo]

I find it funny how radical leftists accuse those on the centre-right of being Nazis. Many of those on the radical left have similar ideas to the Nazis. Quotas for ethnic groups in high paying jobs and at university is one example of this. Affirmative action, to ensure a certain number of Hispanic and black people, and not too many whites and Asians, is similar to what Nazi Germany did at the start by limiting the number of Jews in positions of power. It stems from jealousy: hinder the most rich and successful races, to benefit the rest.

It's neomarxism. Mostly concerned about social inequality, and opression, by another class of people. It's repackaged to the 21 century, with a bit of racism on top, because instead of a working class vs rich, it's now whites vs minorities and intersectionality. It turns into oppressions olympics, where "just being gay" is almost like normal. And the only way it work is by force.

It's bollocks, I'm afraid. 
Radical right wing wants: ...
Radical left wing wants: ...

It's not what they want, which places them close to each other. It's the methods they achieve it. Both ideas are incompatible with our way of life, and ends up with the state forcing citizens to things they don't want (euphemism). For more info, read Europe's history cca 1940-1990.

IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative.

So would you like to classify it? We write woke, because "postmodernist neomarxist, intersectional, fourth wave feminist" is a bit mouthful. And people can be conservative on both sides.

[newbrain]

[...] he was clearly aware of that. You can argue endlessly (preferably elsewhere) whether that makes him a racist/contrarian/master of persuasion/whatever but from the publisher's perspective that would seem to be a distinction without a difference.

He was clearly aware of the consequences because the man is an incurable troll.
He even tweeted (about a year ago) the he was thinking about retiring and going out with a bang.
These has been his modus operandi for years, and one of the reason (in addition to his hideous ideas) I despise him.
And, for me, the law of goats applies.
If you kiss a goat, but you are doing it "ironically" or "provocatively", you still are a goats kisser.
As They Might Be Giant put it in "Your Racist Friend":

Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding

[TomKatt]

IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative.

So would you like to classify it? We write woke, because "postmodernist neomarxist, intersectional, fourth wave feminist" is a bit mouthful. And people can be conservative on both sides.

The whole "woke" thing is a pet peeve of mine...  Like so many other things, I don't believe it has any commonly understood definition other than trying to label someone/something as oppositional to the users conservative viewpoints.  And I also find it ironic that people use a synonym of "conscious" as an insult, when the opposite meaning would align with "asleep" or "unconscious"...

woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.

 

[Nominal Animal]

But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.

I don't, nor do the kind of people I like to interact with.

The concept is complex, but at the core its use boils down to "what you are doing will not have the effect you hope it will, and will instead just make things worse"; and the reason that specific word is used is exactly because of the inherent irony.

(Just as important at the core is the concept of being offended on behalf of someone else they do not even know.)

What other word should we use?  I fear that any other word with the same message/connotations would still annoy you the exact same way, because it is not the word but the entire concept, the way it points out the utter illogic of the movement and ideology that spawned the term.  Perhaps your own model of the world does not allow for criticizing the effects separately from the intent; I see this in many people, regardless of their political leanings.

I myself am very interested in the reasons behind the opinions, and the viewpoints that support the opinions, even if I disagree.  I have read TomKatts posts with interest (regardless of whether I agree or not), but as with eBastler, I do fear that I might use a word or idiom that causes them to reject any further interaction with me.  This has happened to me in real world, you see: typically, when someone I'm not directly talking to/with, overhears something I said, and interjects that because I uttered that, nobody sane/professional/sensible should talk with me.

I really don't like the feeling that I should be watching like a hawk constantly around myself to make sure nobody will be vicariously offended on behalf of an imaginary person, by an out of context quote or mis-chosen word.

[Zero999]

woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.

Words change their meanings over time and this is governed not by the elites, but common usage. It is very true the original meaning of the word woke was to be awakened to racial and social injustice, but now the term is mainly used in the pejorative. This is a reaction to many nasty people who claim to be woke, falsely accuse those who disagree with them as being bigoted racist trans/homophobic etc. Many people who claimed to be woke would say anyone who isn't actively devoting their time to achieve equity for racial minorities, is an white supremacist. It's no surprise that most people didn't like this and conservatives were disproportionally targetted by the woke, which is why you see it being used more by those on the right.

[ebastler]

Yes, but I was being literal, because you have said the same about me in another thread, having lost respect for me due to an opinion or statement I made.

This is related to the core issue at hand, that has been discussed here before: that one disagreement or stupid/idiotic/irrational/illogical opinion or belief should not be reason enough to completely ignore everything that person utters.

On the second point I fully agree. I believe Dave had a thread on this a while ago, pointing out the absurdity of people stating in their Youtube comments that they "lost all respect" for him due to a single sentence they disagreed with. As pointed out earlier, my dislike of Scott Adams stems from his being so full of himself (and his self-proclaimed persuasion expertise) over a long period of time.

Regarding your first point: Are you sure you are remembering this correctly and not confusing me with someone else? You and I had different opinions in the "Diversity, Equity etc." thread, and I recall that I found your attacks quite personal. But I just looked back over my posting history (and in fact searcherd it for "respect", and then again for your user name, going back two years), and did not find any statement along the lines you mention above.

As it happens, I do value your posts a lot, since you are obviously a bright person and get your thoughts across very well. (Except when you are wrong, of course. )

[TomKatt]

I'll say this much - I'm not certain if it's the scientific / technical affinity of folks contributing to the EEVblog forum or something else, but it's nice to see that here even subject matter that tends to push emotional boundaries at other forums, for the most part everyone is respectful.   Too bad discussions like this aren't the norm.