[CaptWillard]

"We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again"

Interesting way to put it. For the past decade or so, many flavors of bigotry have been lauded and socially rewarded.

At the same time, many valid viewpoints and statements have been mislabeled as "bigotry" by the incurious and hivemind-compliant.

These things are balancing out lately, but quite a lot of damage was done.

[jakeydus]

Care to elaborate on what flavors of bigotry have been lauded and socially rewarded/what valid viewpoints and statements have been mislabeled as bigotry? I feel like you're being intentionally vague to avoid taking a stance here.

[CaptWillard]

No, I think my stance is pretty clear.

If you don't recognize the patterns of incuriosity, groupthink and misguided confidence that have permeated western society in the last ten years, nothing I say here is going to enlighten you.

[spankalee]

Your stance isn't clear at all. Do you have any specifics?

[jakeydus]

Ah, so you're socially conservative, support Trump but probably consider yourself a libertarian, secretly a big fan of the moves ICE has been making? I'm assuming you've used the term "liberal media" unironically in the last year. You didn't storm the capitol, but you consider the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to be worse than January 6. Antifa is more of a danger than far-right agitators. Charlie Kirk's death hit hard. No social identity group is more persecuted than white, heterosexual, cisgender Christian men.

Any of those resonate? You're welcome to correct me.

EDIT: in light of another reply to this same thread I recognize that much of this comment was written sneeringly. I apologize for the snark and am leaving it as is in the interest of transparency.

[CaptWillard]

Out of respect for your effort to keep it civil, I'll answer some of that:

I'm a liberal as defined up until 2012 or so.

Never been socially conservative at all. I'm not a libertarian, as I do support some social safety nets. That being the case, I am strongly against open borders and unchecked fraud.

You're actually right about a lot of the rest (minus the snark.)

[jakeydus]

Hell yeah I love being right. Thank you for being civil in response.

Also I was not implying that you are a libertarian, I don’t think that there are many true libertarians. I have just met so many fiscal conservatives who consider themselves to be libertarians and use it as an identifier because they feel libertarians are more intellectually respected than conservatives (which is very funny imo)

[sprucevoid]

> These things are balancing out lately

What measures and data do you base that claim on?

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts "lives lost based on the decline in outlays (current spending) may be in the range of 500,000 to 1,000,000 and potential lives lost based on the decline in obligations (commitments to future spending) are between 670,000 and 1,600,000."

What is your best estimate of deaths due to "woke" or whatever you consider the scourge of the "past decade" to be?

How many visas revoked due to the holder being not woke enough? How many people were deported from the US for being insufficiently woke? And so on. "Woke" may not be what you meant. Whatever you meant, present your measure and data.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Sure. People only lost their jobs and what not ( which in US means.. well, slow, and without health insurance, likely unpleasant demise ). Totally different. On this very forum, I had someone tell me in a very subtle way that it is a good idea that I stay quiet if I know what is good to me. But pendulum swings. It always does. Only difference is,we are forcing people to live up to the world they have ushered in. I hope you said thank you, because wokeness got you to this very spot.

[sprucevoid]

On the one hand ~1,000,000 deaths and on the other hand some people lost their jobs and you got a mean comment online?

> lost their jobs ... which in US means ... slow, and without health insurance, likely unpleasant demise

Those you would label "woke" are famously supporters of universal health care. Universal as in would cover everyone including every single Jan 6 participant. On the one hand people striving for health care for all. On the other hand https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/20/hospitals-s...

> we are forcing people to live up to the world they have ushered in

No, wht you are doing is supporting an administration killing ~1,000,000 people and taking away health care from everyone, including people in the group you identify with.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Those you would label "woke" are famously supporters of universal health care.

Here is a problem of sorts. Some of us happen to live in the real world. Our lives do not exactly depend on some imaginary future state we advocate for. As such, a threat to alter my habitat now is of bigger import as opposed to some potential future benefit. Can you understand that perspective?

And that is before I remember that 'your' ( quotation very much intended, because we both know it is not yours; you may not even know why you aligned with it ) side would not exactly be above, say, denying said universal healthcare to republicans..

<< No, wht you are doing is supporting an administration killing ~1,000,000 people << On the one hand ~1,000,000 deaths and on the other hand some people lost their jobs and you got a mean comment online?

Eh.. hyperbole will not get you far here. May I refer to you site FAQ? I can't tell if I am wasting my time with you or not.

[sprucevoid]

> denying said universal healthcare to republicans

How many do you claim hold that view? Can you cite some prominent examples? I want health care for all, including you.

> hyperbole

I posted https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts "lives lost based on the decline in outlays (current spending) may be in the range of 500,000 to 1,000,000 and potential lives lost based on the decline in obligations (commitments to future spending) are between 670,000 and 1,600,000."

and asked for data on the original "balancing out claim". You jumped in with mumblings of some unspecified number of lost jobs and vague claims about said job losers demise and then one mean online comment to you. That's where we're at, that's the tally based on the data you provided.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<<I posted

You posted a blog of some organization unhappy about the cuts. Not exactly a gold standard for unbiased opinions. YOu want to convince me? Do your own calculations. Show me your work. Show that you can think critically. Am I not seeing that now.

<< You jumped in with mumblings of some unspecified number of lost jobs and vague claims about said job losers demise and then one mean online comment to you.

So ... you can understand my perspective, but choose to minimize it. I guess its ok. At least you are honest about effectively saying 'anyone who complains about it is a loser'. I will admit that it does not sound like the best way to win hearts and minds, but what do I know.

I would like to say that you have achieved nothing by not convincing me, but you did manage to do something remarkable. You actually motivated me to vote for a republican this election cycle. I suppose I am no longer center.