By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bdbdbd said:
sundin13 said:

Many of those Africans, Asians, Europeans and Jews are American, hence the confusion. Are you referring to indigenous groups here? How do you define who is American?

I'm talking about ethnicity, not where you were born or where you live. I know in USAn political rhetoric everyone needs to be an American with heavy identity politics. That's something that doesn't make any sense in wokeness. 

So actually being a citizen, born and raised in America doesn't define you as being an American?  Or does it have to be defined by some political lean whether you are a American or not.  Not sure what makes or not make sense in your use of wokeness here.  Can you define that better.



Around the Network
bdbdbd said:
Pemalite said:

"Jews" aren't a race. Not in the strictest sense.

They represent an ethnoreligious group.

You absolutely can be an American born "jew".
You can literally decide tomorrow to be a Jew.
It's a religion... Aka. Judaism that adheres to the Torah, the first and oldest of the three Abrahamic religions, the others being Quran/Muslims and the Bible/Christians.

And just like Christianity and Islam, people can be indoctrinated into that religion.

So in my eyes, diversity doesn't include religions or cults or beliefs.

It's ethnoreligious group, much like Hindus. In the US, it seems that the jews are considered an oppressed minority, whereas in Europe only a dead jew is a good jew - for the left atleast - because that's when you can call victimhood. The same people who chant "from river to sea", are people who are worried about increasing antisemitism. And that's wokeness.

What the fuck are you blabbering on about?

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 4 days ago

bdbdbd said:

Ok, after reading the thread this far: yes, the term woke doesn't make sense at all, because it largely refers to "social justice" policies you see the "left" wing in the USA supporting. However, the policies or rhetoric demanding the policies are often self-contradicting: people say they want sexism to end and demand equality, but at the same time "historical wrongness" needs to be corrected, so as long as there's been more men than women in positions of power, we need to choose only women to positions of power. Women are oppressed in the muslim world, so western women need privileges to combat global inequality. Minorities aren't represented as much as the majority, so we need DEI hires to have equal representations. Society needs atheism, but it's islamophobia. And so on.

It seems to me that some of your "contradictions" are either made up or are misunderstandings. 

I don't know anyone who is arguing "only women should be in power".

"Women are oppressed in the muslim world, so western women need privileges to combat global inequality" - like what privileges? 

"so we need DEI hires to have equal representations" - I don't think anyone has this expectation of "equal representation for everyone" 

"Society needs atheism, but it's islamophobia" 

This sentence is super vague, and could be talking about different things. But in general the difference is personal choice, and that's not a contradiction. 

If you want to personally be a Muslim or Christian, that's your freedom and you shouldn't be harassed or penalized for that. But if you want to try forcing someone else to be Muslim or Christian, that's a problem. That's not contradictive. I am personally opposed to smoking, but I'm not going to push for smoking to be illegal.

bdbdbd said:

Someone mentioned that people don''t complain about woke when a game (or a movie) is good, and I agree on that one. That's largely because good games and movies tend not to make a number about it's character's otherness.

You say that and yet people commonly criticize games/movie/etc for having "otherness" that they feel isn't justified. 

The apparent contradiction is that a movie has to justify a character being different in order to make sense, but if they do that, then it becomes a bad one.


Frankly I think a lot of these complaints are manufactured. People are more likely to make a bigger deal out of something when it is brought to their attention. 

bdbdbd said:

In the end, If you want to see Europeans in movies, you need to watch European movies, If you want to see Africans in movies, you need to watch African movies, If you want to see Asians in movies, you need to watch Asian movies, If you want to see Americans on movies, tough luck; there's DEI hires with Asians, Africans and Europeans, with the occasional jew in them.

How does this work? 
Can a white person make a movie about World War 2 where they show different scenes that include Japanese actors? Or is that getting too far into Asian movie territory? 

If I wanted to make a movie where an American moves to Japan and falls in love with a Japanese woman, am I allowed to do that? Am I allowed to write the woman's lines myself? Do I have to find a Japanese woman to write with to write her lines? 

The bizarre segregation is starting to feel kind of woke. 

Or are we arguing for censorship here, where we aren't allowed to tell these kinds of stories? 

I know you're not trying to argue for those things. But we live in a very globally connected world, people both want to write all kinds of different stories, and people want to consume different kinds of stories. Even on the individual level, most people don't want to consume 30 varieties of the same story. So people are going to want to write diverse things. People are also going to want to ask for diverse things, and buy diverse things, which incentivizes companies to make diverse things. Sometimes that means different stories, different characters, different gameplay mechanics, etc.



bdbdbd said:
sundin13 said:

Many of those Africans, Asians, Europeans and Jews are American, hence the confusion. Are you referring to indigenous groups here? How do you define who is American?

I'm talking about ethnicity, not where you were born or where you live. I know in USAn political rhetoric everyone needs to be an American with heavy identity politics. That's something that doesn't make any sense in wokeness. 

So do all American movies need to star Native Americans to not be woke? 

I'm confused, as outside of indigenous contexts, "American" as an ethnicity doesn't really mean much. Just tell me who you consider to be American...



Pemalite said:
Cyran said:

You sorta have to seperate the Religion from the Ethnoreligious.  You can follow the religion tomorrow (most rabbi and synagogues wont accept you through till you go through conversion.  It dumb but it not like Christianity who will accept anyone, Judaism generally require you to go through all these steps to convert if you want to be a member of a synagogue.  Some synagogue are insane for example I had a cousin and when they went to get marry by a rabbi they made them prove that her mother was jewish, her mother Mother was jewish and her Mother mother Mother was jewish before he would do the marriage.  They less strict with men (he only had to prove his mother was jewish and not go back multiple gens) because if the mother jewish then the child is jewish(in the sense they will be welcome without needing to convert))

The Ethno part of Ethnoreligous is a shared heritage which means you need to be born into.  For example when I do a DNA test it came back 100% eastern European Jew.  I don't follow Judaism but nothing going to change the fact that my DNA connects me to that Ethnoreligous group.

The amount of steps to join a religion doesn't change it from being a religion, it's still not a race.

Conversely... The other two Abrahamic religions also have "steps" to join. I.E. Baptism for example with Christianity, with some denominations going to extreme levels like abstinence and so forth... And other denominations forbidding marrying of non-Christians or those that dont adhere to that specific denomination.
https://www.thecrosspensacola.org/membership-process

Jews originate from the "israelites" and share common ancestry with other middle-eastern peoples like the Arabs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews

Muslims can be even more extreme than Christians.

All three religions are cut from the same cloth, so it only makes sense that they share commonality with their rules like not eating pork.

Not a race but Eastern European Jew for example consider a ethnicity or at the very least there is something in my DNA linking me to that group of people.  I sent in a DNA kit and 100% eastern European Jew is what the results said so there clearly something in my DNA they looking at.  



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:

I have to disagree with the Baptism for Christianity as you do not have to do it to be a Baptist.  Christianity is probably the most lose when it comes to traditions and practices since there are so many different denominations.  Those denominations just teach in a different style more than anything else but there are no criteria you need in order to call yourself one of those denonminations. 

Baptist is a denomination... Aka. A "variant" of the Christian religion/Bible interpretation.
Baptism is a process for "recruiting" someone to join said religion.

And you are right, there are a ton of denominations... Over 45,000 in-fact using quick google-fu.
But Muslims and Jewish also have different denominations as well... And whilst not as many in sheer number as the Christian religion, they do have significant variances in traditions, recruitment and religious rules/requirements/regulations/expectations.

My parents forced me to join a Church when I was a child, 7th day Adventist to be exact which are extremely conservative in it's ideology, right down to requiring a baptism to join it. - I would even go as far to call this Church a cult.

Either way, their attempts at indoctrination failed on this Atheist... Likely made easier when they tried to preach to me that Homosexuality is a choice and that it is an abomination.

bdbdbd said:

It's ethnoreligious group, much like Hindus. In the US, it seems that the jews are considered an oppressed minority, whereas in Europe only a dead jew is a good jew - for the left atleast - because that's when you can call victimhood. The same people who chant "from river to sea", are people who are worried about increasing antisemitism. And that's wokeness.

If you go back to my previous posts, I called it an ethnoreligious group.
And no. It's not "wokeness". Which is a bullshit term anyway.

As for Europe and the Jews... There has already been a war over it, world war 2 to be exact. Europe supported the Jewish.

Cyran said:

Not a race but Eastern European Jew for example consider a ethnicity or at the very least there is something in my DNA linking me to that group of people.  I sent in a DNA kit and 100% eastern European Jew is what the results said so there clearly something in my DNA they looking at.  

As per the evidence I provided earlier, they share common ancestry with the Arabs.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Cyran said:

Not a race but Eastern European Jew for example consider a ethnicity or at the very least there is something in my DNA linking me to that group of people.  I sent in a DNA kit and 100% eastern European Jew is what the results said so there clearly something in my DNA they looking at.  

As per the evidence I provided earlier, they share common ancestry with the Arabs.

I mean we all share a common ancestry if you want to go back far enough.  My point is there are different jewish ethics groups.  Ashkenazi = European Jew and while there common dna with Arabs there is also DNA that unique to Ashkenazi that allow them to be identified as Ashkenazi. When I submitted my DNA it did not come back as some middle eastern country even through clearly some of my DNA link me there but it came back as European jew because there are distinct markers for that also.  For example from your article "Richards et al. published work suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Ashkenazi Jewish maternal ancestry, estimated at "80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe, and [only] 8 percent from the Near East, with the rest uncertain"".  My point is there been enough time from the initial migration form the middle east for multiple ethics groups among jews to form. 



Machiavellian said:
bdbdbd said:

I'm talking about ethnicity, not where you were born or where you live. I know in USAn political rhetoric everyone needs to be an American with heavy identity politics. That's something that doesn't make any sense in wokeness. 

So actually being a citizen, born and raised in America doesn't define you as being an American?  Or does it have to be defined by some political lean whether you are a American or not.  Not sure what makes or not make sense in your use of wokeness here.  Can you define that better.

It does make you a national of some American country, but it does nothing to your ethnicity. 

What is woke here, is identity politics - at the same time everyone should "identify as American" everyone should identify by their otherness, which naturally doesn't exist, because everyone is American. Just take a look at US presidential elections for example: ethnic group A votes for canditate X, ethnic group B votes for candidate Y, ethnic group C votes for candidate Z and so on. And therefore we need DEI hires in government positions to have equal representation, because a minority would be minority in representation when treated fairly. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Ryuu96 said:
bdbdbd said:

It's ethnoreligious group, much like Hindus. In the US, it seems that the jews are considered an oppressed minority, whereas in Europe only a dead jew is a good jew - for the left atleast - because that's when you can call victimhood. The same people who chant "from river to sea", are people who are worried about increasing antisemitism. And that's wokeness.

What the fuck are you blabbering on about?

When jews are killed in masses, you can call them victims and blame nazis, so that the left can put favourable policies in place due to antisemitism. Every other time, they're the evil people who rule the world, so you can chant "from river to sea" and support their genocide.

Antisemitism didn't go anywhere after WW2, people just learned how to benefit from it. If recall Israelism by Army of Lovers was even banned in the US in the 90's, and that song is good representation of attitudes towards jewish in Europe - or atleast in the more left-leaning Northern Europe. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd said:
Ryuu96 said:

What the fuck are you blabbering on about?

When jews are killed in masses, you can call them victims and blame nazis, so that the left can put favourable policies in place due to antisemitism. Every other time, they're the evil people who rule the world, so you can chant "from river to sea" and support their genocide.

Antisemitism didn't go anywhere after WW2, people just learned how to benefit from it. If recall Israelism by Army of Lovers was even banned in the US in the 90's, and that song is good representation of attitudes towards jewish in Europe - or atleast in the more left-leaning Northern Europe. 

So you're confusing criticism of Israel's government and specifically, Netanyahu, with antisemitism?

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 4 days ago