"Vibe" of CIS-White men [Road Split from: Sexual Misconduct in the CAF

[Brad Sallows]

People do things about the plight of others all the time. Part of "ordinary"...

What people can't be expected to do is cater to every thin-skinned person's demands for attention and submission to whatever is on the honey-do list. That is the mistake made by activists, who insist on fighting every battle and punishing every person in their way. I won't waste time plugging thumb-holes in a dyke when elsewhere there are activists breaking it down with picks and shovels. When I see evidence of serious engagement - no more "my culture is a [whatever] culture" excuses, no more counter-productive derision against "acting white" or sh!t-lists of ordinary valuable human behaviours, no more hate mobs, and acknowledgement that the ideals of western civilization are one of the few sets of ideals that do provide the master's tools that can be used to alter the master's house and are therefore worth preserving - then I might be convinced to put in some effort. For the tear history-and-everything down crowd, I have nothing.

BTW, the frequency of vibration of CIS males is the range of the opening bars of "Smoke On The Water".

 

[mariomike]

BTW, the frequency of vibration of CIS males is the range of the opening bars of "Smoke On The Water".

For a "cis white men vibe", I enjoy the Red Foley version from 1944-45.

They don't call them "The Greatest Generation" for nothing.

 

[tomydoom]

For a "cis white men vibe", I enjoy the Red Foley version from 1944-45.

They don't call them "The Greatest Generation" for nothing.

I was thinking “Fortunate Son” by CCR, “Small Town Bringdown” by the Hip also causes me resonate.

 

[OldSolduer]

Actual privilege, or angry pitchfork mob decreed privilege?

Well its an actual privilege to have served with many of you have served and who continue to serve.

CIS white man vibe? Lazy by Deep Purple - best song they ever recorded. No disrespect to Smoke on the Water.

 

[Bluebulldog]

Whoever needs to shout down intelligent debate.

^^This.

The typical debate / discussion method that is employed by the woke.

A. Distract / deflect from any salient points or facts that are in opposition to theirs.

B. Attempt to impugn and discredit the character of those in opposition to them, ensuring it is done in a passive aggressive manner, so when held to account, one can claim they were "misunderstood" and thereby held blameless.


Without digression too much from the intent of the OP. Yes, it is unfortunate that there is a growing trend in SA reporting. There is an even more disconcerting trend in false accusations ( correlated? Perhaps). Unfortunately in the wake of the "me too" movement, there are a lot of people who seek to use their identity as a victim, or moral outrage as currency. The outcome is often a race to the bottom as to whom can identify as the bigger victim in any debate.

I have seen firsthand the unfortunate outcomes of a falsely accused individual, simply because the aggrieved party / accuser felt wronged....not that an actual crime had taken place. After years, and a ruined life and reputation, he was exonerated, but the accuser had zero to account for.

One of the other unfortunate outcomes is that we live in a society that by and large does not factor consequence of action. In fact, when
consequences are outlined and clearly stated, many choose to ignore them in favour of their own narrative.

As far as privilege goes. Yes it exists. Not to the same extent, nor to the same degree that many would actually like to believe. As a counter point however, go ahead and participate in any debate / discussion of opposing viewpoints, and have a CIS White Male not be discriminated against based on those principles that our Charter says shouldn't occur. The woke seem to want to ignore the fact that a persons standing and opinions can't be devalued based on their race, sexual orientation, or gender.......

 

[Lumber]

^^This.

The typical debate / discussion method that is employed by the woke.

A. Distract / deflect from any salient points or facts that are in opposition to theirs.

B. Attempt to impugn and discredit the character of those in opposition to them, ensuring it is done in a passive aggressive manner, so when held to account, one can claim they were "misunderstood" and thereby held blameless.


Without digression too much from the intent of the OP. Yes, it is unfortunate that there is a growing trend in SA reporting. There is an even more disconcerting trend in false accusations ( correlated? Perhaps). Unfortunately in the wake of the "me too" movement, there are a lot of people who seek to use their identity as a victim, or moral outrage as currency. The outcome is often a race to the bottom as to whom can identify as the bigger victim in any debate.

I have seen firsthand the unfortunate outcomes of a falsely accused individual, simply because the aggrieved party / accuser felt wronged....not that an actual crime had taken place. After years, and a ruined life and reputation, he was exonerated, but the accuser had zero to account for.

One of the other unfortunate outcomes is that we live in a society that by and large does not factor consequence of action. In fact, when
consequences are outlined and clearly stated, many choose to ignore them in favour of their own narrative.

As far as privilege goes. Yes it exists. Not to the same extent, nor to the same degree that many would actually like to believe. As a counter point however, go ahead and participate in any debate / discussion of opposing viewpoints, and have a CIS White Male not be discriminated against based on those principles that our Charter says shouldn't occur. The woke seem to want to ignore the fact that a persons standing and opinions can't be devalued based on their race, sexual orientation, or gender.......

2 Things:

1. Agree with the vast majority of your post; however, I think you (and most people, really) are inflating the problem. Being marginalized in a debate for being CIS/white/male (or all three) simply does not happen that often. It's only when you encounter the most extreme believers/supporters that you actually get shot down and have your viewpoints ignored simply because you are CIS/white/male (or all three). I've had and seen many many debates about these topics that involved white men, and they weren't shot down and ignored. Youtube is full of examples of the opposite, but you have to remember Youtube, and social media in general, concentrate a little bit of content from across the entirety of a very large country/world and make it appear stronger and more prevalent than it really is. So, yes, it's absolutely bullshit to have your opinions ignored simply for being who you are, but it's not as far reaching a problem as some would be lead to believe; and,

2. Do you think it's a little ironic to say the part in yellow while also using the part in red?

 

[Bluebulldog]

Being marginalized in a debate for being CIS/white/male (or all three) simply does not happen that often

Sorry. Spend a lot of time on media websites and forums, as well as their social media platform pages, and you'll literally see it in every occurrence where different viewpoints occur.

someone posts a excellent argument supported by facts / research
Opposing viewpoint chooses to search their profile / previous post history, to then discredit them based on the fact that their "lived experience doesn't inform their opinion the same way

Do you think it's a little ironic to say the part in yellow while also using the part in red?

Not at all. Using a term like "the woke" adequately describes those that seem so seek offense on behalf of others, or seek to find Social Justice inadequacies where none were intended, or present.

Do you think it's a little ironic that you chose to refer to a "Privileged, whilte male vibe" in your first post on this thread, and yet seem to have an issue if another generalization is made?

 

[Lumber]

Sorry. Spend a lot of time on media websites and forums, as well as their social media platform pages, and you'll literally see it in every occurrence where different viewpoints occur.

someone posts a excellent argument supported by facts / research
Opposing viewpoint chooses to search their profile / previous post history, to then discredit them based on the fact that their "lived experience doesn't inform their opinion the same way

Look, we're both speaking anecdotally, so we'll have to agree to disagree. We both agree that when it happens it's wrong and extremely frustrating (I've never wanted to punch someone in the face more than when they are saying my opinion is invalid for reason X that has nothing to do with the debate).

Not at all. Using a term like "the woke" adequately describes those that seem so seek offense on behalf of others, or seek to find Social Justice inadequacies where none were intended, or present.

"Woke" literally just means "conscious and aware", but in the context of racism, it's accepted meaning is in that context is now "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)", or something similar to that.

You and others may interpret woke to be a way to describe people who would rather silence their critics than listen to them, but that is a false comparison (coincidence not being causality and all that). What I mean is, just because the assholes who try and shout down intelligent debate happen to also be "woke", does not mean it is their wokeness that is making them assholes, or that wokeness in general means "silencing critics".

 

[Bluebulldog]

What I mean is, just because the assholes who try and shout down intelligent debate happen to also be "woke", does not mean it is their wokeness that is making them assholes, or that wokeness in general means "silencing critics".

Tracking what you're saying now.

Unfortunately, generalizations are easy to make, on both fronts. I'm clearly guilty as well.

 

[Lumber]

Tracking what you're saying now.

Unfortunately, generalizations are easy to make, on both fronts. I'm clearly guilty as well.

So am I. Being "woke" should be a good thing. We should all endeavor to be aware of the plights of others. However, I've definitely used the term "woke" plenty of times in a pejorative since to define those who, in my opinion, have taken their conclusions regarding social issues and social justice measures way too far beyond the pale.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To the extent that "wokeness" is interpreted by its bearers as moral advantage (the "right side of history"), it DOES contribute to people becoming assholes and assuming the mantle of silencer-of-critics-and-arbiter-of-what-may-be-said.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think this belongs here: