Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[IKnowNothing]

They often have not "identified the issue" They have been told what issue they should be offended about or ascertained that criticising a certain issue will result in increased social approval by their peer group. Most are sheep/mob and led by agitators. The issues used are often complex and require sustained effort by multiple groups and levels of government to resolve and the solutions are completely unsexy or even unappetizing to the "Woke".

Key point the bold. There are existing issues that need solving. Complex issues.

So who are "they" and how are they defined relative to the issue?

Are "they" the agitators dishonestly exploiting existing issues to create chaos as part of a Marxist style take over?
Are "they" the sheep that only express care about a given existing issue to gain social approval?
Are "they" people that are genuinely concerned about the existing issues and do want to fix them?
Are "they" people that merely acknowledge that certain existing issues do in fact exist?


All 4 groups exist. All 4 are very different. Your post that I first quoted expressly defined "woke" as the topmost. The post I'm quoting now implies that the "woke" are actually the second group. Are latter two groups also "woke"?
If so, what pulls them under the term?
If not, how do we tell them apart from the top 2?

Or is "woke" just the catchall to bundle up a given opinion about an existing issue and dismiss it as coming from either a marxist agitator, a sheep, or a self righteous simpleton, and therefore not worthy of discussion?

 

[Lumber]

They often have not "identified the issue" They have been told what issue they should be offended about or ascertained that criticising a certain issue will result in increased social approval by their peer group. Most are sheep/mob and led by agitators. The issues used are often complex and require sustained effort by multiple groups and levels of government to resolve and the solutions are completely unsexy or even unappetizing to the "Woke".

Dude you just described Trumpism.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Key point the bold. There are existing issues that need solving. Complex issues.

So who are "they" and how are they defined relative to the issue?

Are "they" the agitators dishonestly exploiting existing issues to create chaos as part of a Marxist style take over?
Are "they" the sheep that only express care about a given existing issue to gain social approval?
Are "they" people that are genuinely concerned about the existing issues and do want to fix them?
Are "they" people that merely acknowledge that certain existing issues do in fact exist?


All 4 groups exist. All 4 are very different. Your post that I first quoted expressly defined "woke" as the topmost. The post I'm quoting now implies that the "woke" are actually the second group. Are latter two groups also "woke"?
If so, what pulls them under the term?
If not, how do we tell them apart from the top 2?

Or is "woke" just the catchall to bundle up a given opinion about an existing issue and dismiss it as coming from either a marxist agitator, a sheep, or a self righteous simpleton, and therefore not worthy of discussion?

Generally I define a person by their abilty to answer how they would solve a issue or how much they know of a issue. that how I determine if a person is woke.
As I see it, there are four major types of agitators. The ones who are trained and on a specific mission are small in number but can have a significant effect. These are often trained by an opposing State, such as China, Iran, or going back the USSR. There are also the trained agitator on social media as well but with no footprint on the ground. The third group is made up of people who discover the sense of power agitating against the system gives them and are more addicted to destruction, chaos and revolution. These people generally do the dirty work of the first two groups who find and groom them. The fourth group is someone who has a legitimate grievance with a system and has lost faith in the legal tools to change things. They are generally laser focused on that particular issue. They comprise a very tiny percentage, but can have extraordinary results thanks, to their background, knowledge of the issue and determination to change things.

 

[brihard]

Key point the bold. There are existing issues that need solving. Complex issues.

So who are "they" and how are they defined relative to the issue?

Are "they" the agitators dishonestly exploiting existing issues to create chaos as part of a Marxist style take over?
Are "they" the sheep that only express care about a given existing issue to gain social approval?
Are "they" people that are genuinely concerned about the existing issues and do want to fix them?
Are "they" people that merely acknowledge that certain existing issues do in fact exist?


All 4 groups exist. All 4 are very different. Your post that I first quoted expressly defined "woke" as the topmost. The post I'm quoting now implies that the "woke" are actually the second group. Are latter two groups also "woke"?
If so, what pulls them under the term?
If not, how do we tell them apart from the top 2?

Or is "woke" just the catchall to bundle up a given opinion about an existing issue and dismiss it as coming from either a marxist agitator, a sheep, or a self righteous simpleton, and therefore not worthy of discussion?

I think the term ‘woke’ is nearly always used pejoratively and very loosely these days. I don’t think it has any real utility as a coherent descriptor of what any particular group of people thinks to any great degree of detail. Hasn’t for a long time. Generally when I see it enter a discussion and become an anchor dragging on the flow of ideas, I start tuning out.

 

[Furniture]

I think the term ‘woke’ is nearly always used pejoratively and very loosely these days. I don’t think it has any real utility as a coherent descriptor of what any particular group of people thinks to any great degree of detail. Hasn’t for a long time. Generally when I see it enter a discussion and become an anchor dragging on the flow of ideas, I start tuning out.

So much like "alt-right"... meaningless because its over used.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It goes the way of all popular words. The in-group chooses one to describe themselves. They aren't saints, so their behaviour which ranges from merely annoying through offensive to illiberal becomes associated with the word. Then they try to litigate the meaning of the word, "Alice In Wonderland" style.

 

[FJAG]

An absolutely brilliant speech by German Vice Chancellor Habeck on Germany's position on the Hamas v Israel issue and antisemitism and Islamist demonstrations in Germany.

Would that our government could be as decisive and leading the way.

Read German vice-chancellor's remarkable speech condemning Hamas, supporting Israel

Supporting Hamas in Germany will be met with criminal charges or deportation

nationalpost.com

 

[Kilted]

I pledge allegiance to the Queen, and to the flag, and to the country for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all. It isn't official but it certainly registered as so with a troop of 12 year olds

I did a year of private school based on an American system: "I pledge allegiance to the Canadian Flag and the Dominion upon which it stands. One Nation under God..etc" We sang the anthem in English, and French, and then sang the French version in English.

 

[Remius]

I did a year of private school based on an American system: "I pledge allegiance to the Canadian Flag and the Dominion upon which it stands. One Nation under God..etc" We sang the anthem in English, and French, and then sang the French version in English.

Ive always found it interesting that people pledge allegiance to the « flag » in Canada. I know a few Canadian anti monarchists that would prefer to see that over pledging allegiance to the Crown.

 

[FSTO]

At risk of continuing this tangent, most immigrant experiences change after the 3rd (if you’re counting the folks actually immigrating as 1st) generation.

1st generation: Tied to homelands generally
2nd generation: 50/50, trying to balance “old country” culture and Canadian culture
3rd generation: Pretty much Canadian culture, with smattering of ties to ethnicity

This is why the 2nd generation has a “bridge” mentality and is pulled in various directions - their parents want them to respect and follow the old country traditions, while their peers want them to be Canadian. I am a 2nd generation immigrant and while I can explain it to folks easily enough, it is tough to let go of those ”old country” traditions that may conflict with current Canadian culture.

OK, I’ll stop now.

So all the young ladies I see wearing a version of the Hijab are first or second generation?

 

[Remius]

So all the young ladies I see wearing a version of the Hijab are first or second generation?

A lot of the ones I know are 2nd and 3rd. And they sometimes switch from wearing to not wearing. A few chose not to and at some point decided to reconnect to their culture.

I guess it varies.

 

[YZT580]

So all the young ladies I see wearing a version of the Hijab are first or second generation?

or controlled by first & second generation fathers. Our neighbours in Rome were from Libya. The daughter explained to us that whilst they didn't follow the faith much, the siblings were very careful not to openly challenge the status quo. Family pride trumped all else

 

[Jarnhamar]

An absolutely brilliant speech by German Vice Chancellor Habeck on Germany's position on the Hamas v Israel issue and antisemitism and Islamist demonstrations in Germany.

Would that our government could be as decisive and leading the way.

Incredible.

 

[Good2Golf]

Incredible.

…and this part especially must be acknowledged and supported.

Our constitution provides protection and bestows rights, but it also imposes obligations that must be fulfilled by all. You cannot separate the two. Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance here.

This applies as equally in Canada as it does in Germany and other liberal democracies.

 

[dimsum]

So all the young ladies I see wearing a version of the Hijab are first or second generation?

Maybe?

There’s cultural wear and religious wear, which aren’t always intertwined. They could be wearing it because they’re devout Muslims, or wearing it because they wish to (re)connect with their culture.

 

[Eaglelord17]

…and this part especially must be acknowledged and supported.



This applies as equally in Canada as it does in Germany and other liberal democracies.

Disagreed strongly.

Saying tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance is saying you are intolerant and cannot be tolerated by same logic. All sorts of groups have used that same evil argument to control things to their advantage.

It is the pseudo logic of a demagogue not the difficult stance of the egalitarian.

Guaranteeing equal rights to all is difficult. There will be people who you disagree with. There will be people whose opinions you may hate. But it is their right to possess those opinions just as it is your right to hate them.

 

[Good2Golf]

Disagreed strongly.

Fortunately you live in a country where you can do so.

Saying tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance is saying you are intolerant and cannot be tolerated by same logic. All sorts of groups have used that same evil argument to control things to their advantage.

Nope. Double-negative fallacy. Your strawman is that truly tolerant must accept everything. Untrue.

Guaranteeing equal rights to all is difficult. There will be people who you disagree with. There will be people whose opinions you may hate. But it is their right to possess those opinions just as it is your right to hate them.

Not when those ‘opinions’ are explicit statements of support for eradication of another group.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Fortunately you live in a country where you can do so.



Nope. Double-negative fallacy. Your strawman is that truly tolerant must accept everything. Untrue.


Not when those ‘opinions’ are explicit statements of support for eradication of another group.

It is not a strawman to use words correctly. You either tolerate or your intolerant.

Being intolerant isn’t always a bad thing. There is lots of things I am intolerant of. But the ‘paradox of tolerance’ is nonsense of the highest order. If you cannot defeat a argument in the marketplace of ideas, that just means your argument is weak.

Considering many on here have made the argument for the eradication of other groups (such as Hamas), does that mean that according to the logic displayed they have no right to said opinion?

Its easy to twist the paradox of tolerance to suit your ends. It is why the government needs to take the hard path of actual tolerance.

 

[Good2Golf]

It is not a strawman to use words correctly. You either tolerate or you’re intolerant.

You seem to continue to miss the fact that non-acceptance of intolerance (and in the specific case of Hamas killing Israeli civilians, terrorism by all accounts) isn’t the same as intolerance itself.

Being intolerant isn’t always a bad thing. There is lots of things I am intolerant of. But the ‘paradox of tolerance’ is nonsense of the highest order. If you cannot defeat a argument in the marketplace of ideas, that just means your argument is weak.

‘Marketplace of ideas?’ Is that your phrase for a self-approved world where you justify intolerance of other ideas? Is not non-acceptance to consider the worth of different views and perspectives than yours, weak in and of itself?

Considering many on here have made the argument for the eradication of other groups (such as Hamas), does that mean that according to the logic displayed they have no right to said opinion?

Eradication of a terrorist organization that not only seeks the genocidal removal from the planet of another culture/religion while also manipulating and subjugating people of its own culture? Probably a few of us here can still sleep soundly on the logic that Hamas should be stopped from its actions against not only Israelis but many Palestinians as well. I good friend born in Gaza and now a naturalized Canadian is far harsher on Hamas than he has ever been of Israel. It was he who reminds me of two irrefutable facts: 1) Israel has on numerous occasions been part of proposing some form of two-nation solution; and 2) the only Arab nation to positively/demonstrably support Palestinians in any meaningful measure is Jordan, certainly not Egypt, KSA, UAE, etc.

It’s easy to twist the paradox of tolerance to suit your ends.

I can see that.

It is why the government needs to take the hard path of actual tolerance.

Looks like you’ll be waiting a long, long time for that here in Canada.

 

[McG]

Narendra Modi has shifted India from the Palestinians to Israel

The pivot reflects Indian domestic politics and new interests in the Middle East

www.economist.com