[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Here's a serious Wokish-to-English dictionary that puts all my amateur work to shame.

This encyclopedia of Social Justice terminology exists for a simple purpose: to create in one place a first attempt to pierce the fog and expose the language used by the ideology of Social Justice in plain language so that people can better understand what it is, what it wants, and how it operates in practice.

Trojan Horse Terms

...in Social Justice’s usage, everyday terms have been redefined in specific, which is a strategic move that allows the common parlance understanding of the term to open the door and be a defensible point of retreat while the specific meaning of the term is allowed to do the real work desired of them by Social Justice activists. (We refer to such terms as “Trojan Horse” terms.)

[WWJDnow]

Liberal elites and Antifa terrorists always want to gussy up their language with euphemisms. Why can't they just call a spade a spade?

[MitzaLizalor]

In one of their topics they linked to Stanford, as follows:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ —Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School...

I've heard quite enough about "Marxism" for one lifetime and do wonder whether its proponents ever contemplated why such a bankrupt theory got off the ground in the first place. What combination of circumstances launched radicals to the forefront of movers & shakers? Why upon reading The Communist Manifesto in 1848 did anyone at all think “Mmmmmmm, nice..” (other than Marx himself) and then in Russia rather than London where the wretched pamphlet was published?

Exactly what you would expect to happen is precisely what did happen over the next century and a half with poverty and oppression directly proportional to the extent that Marxist theory was applied. Justice of any sort was eradicated and those who experienced its facsimile were themselves a manifestation of social injustice on a Herculean scale. Marxism is the last place to look for justice.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

Liberal elites and Antifa terrorists always want to gussy up their language with euphemisms.

This is another thing which puzzles me. Here are two pictures:



The euphemism would be cultural appropriation. Or would it?


When you adopt traditional clothing from a different culture:

.tick
.box
YES • I am a boorish Philistine pig dog

NO • I can wear whatever I want to

THAT'S RACIST • Philistine society was actually quite refined

If foreign gents adopt traditional clothing from your culture:

.tick
.box
NO • of course not don't be ridiculous

YES • they are trying to steal your identity

MARX • demands the proletariat be free from diktat by imperialist overlords

Can you see my puzzlement? On the one hand we hear about cultural appropriation everywhere, from a hairdo (such as dreadlocks) to footwear (moccasins?) yet when visiting tropical islands they're flogging you grass skirts and garlands while wearing the latest gear from western surf shops. Who is appropriating whom?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

This is another thing which puzzles me.

It's only puzzling because we're overthinking it. The left also had a problem with overthinking, and with infighting, until they solved it with these simple rules:

Rule 1: If an gang member is in a dispute with a non-gang member, everybody beats up the non-gang member, no questions asked. (Buzzword: intersectionality).

Rule 2: To prevent infighting, keep the hierarchy. In any dispute, the higher-ranking gang member is always right and the lower-ranking one is always wrong, no questions asked. (Buzzword: punching up)

Rule 3: No questions asked. (Buzzword: lived experience, other ways of knowing)

And that's it. that's all you need to know about power, and therefore all you need to know about how the left functions.

So, let's apply the 3 commandments to a Chinese person wearing non-Chinese clothes. Rule 2 says keep the hierarchy with no questions asked. Chinese people outrank white people, therefore rules that apply to white people don't apply to them. Unless a mob of white people wants to burn down a Chinese restaurant in support of BLM. In that case, BLM outranks the Chinese person, and the restaurant burns.

And if the Chinese person asks how a mob of white people burning a Chinese restaurant is supposed to stop white supremacy, refer to rule 1. Gang members fight the outsider, no questions asked.

[MitzaLizalor]

I see When I was looking for a picture of a nice suit I happened to get a picture of Mr Khrushchev [LEFT] several pictures actually, many with a smart tie and stylish hat.

Not knowing much about ancient history I looked him up and apparently he exemplifies what you've described. Punching up (?) to knock down Stalin's reputation, attempting to remove Stalinist ideas from Russia (which essentially means only murdering thousands rather than millions) but then, when he was due for criticism himself, needed to be reassigned somehow. Enter Brezhnev to dislodge him with misery all 'round except for suitably advanced officials who took over the palaces and got the fast cars. Otherwise it was the secret police and a trip to Siberia for anyone suggesting maybe communism was out of date or there were other ways of knowing..

Would this gif approximate to what you described?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

Punching up (?) to knock down Stalin's reputation,

As a southern ethnic minority(Georgian), Stalin outranks Khrushchev. So Krusty was punching down.*

If Crimean Tatars and/or other Muslims wanted to tear down his statues, that's punching up, because Muslims outrank Georgians.

But Krusty was not a Muslim, so he was being a bad "ally".

What is an "ally"?

The lowest-ranking member of a gang is called a "Prospect"

CycleFish: A Prospect is a person who would like to join the club but still needs to earn his patch....A prospect may have to engage in illegal activities in order to carry out the requests of the patch Members. A Prospect does not have voting rights...Prospects may be dealt menial tasks and have to endure some level of hazing by the club members.

In rougher gangs the "menial tasks" include serving as a literal punching bag at times.

The different between a gang prospect and an "ally" is that "allies" are by definition incapable of ever becoming members of the gang.


*On punching directions, you'll notice that some forms of identity and power are conspicuously absent from the hierarchy. Wealth/poverty/class are rarely mentioned, and only treated as a consequence of oppression, never a cause of it. The poorest white man in the world is still complicit in oppressing Carlos Slim. Never mind that Carlos Slim is the world's richest man - he's Mexican, making him powerless next to the world's poorest white guy.

At different scales, minority status is either irrelevant, then the only relevant thing, and then irrelevant again. White minority in your area? Irrelevant. White Majority in your nation? Important. Whites a minority globally? Irrelevant. Whites a powerless minority in the future? Important: the future is brown, now be a good ally and get used to being the grovelling powerless minority that your descendants will be for generations to come.

Men a minority on Campus? The future is female. Be a good ally and submit like the powerless minority you are.

Is your minority ethnic group blocked out of national media? Is bigotry to your minority ethnic group common and socially acceptable? Not oppression if your ethnic group is American.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

As a southern ethnic minority

Correction: the word "minority" is no longer used and it will soon be hate speech to utter it:

...avoiding the term “minority” (which binaries with “majority”) taps into the same issue. Other attempts to get around this refer to them as “minoritized groups,” which strategically ascribes the theorized power dynamics into the term and also circumvents the possibility that they would lose their oppressed status should they become a plurality or majority.

The current term is Person Of Color, as in, Stalin was a POC, at least relative to Krusty, anyway. However, "POC" might become hate speech also:

...the term “people of color” is a way for white people to create a single identity group to be against, all of which is non-white, so they can proceed to ignore the legitimate racial variations therein (see also, BIPOC and erasure). That is, the term “people of color” is beginning to be theorized as yet another form of white supremacy.

This was my first thought when I heard POC, or it's earlier version, "African-American". Why would you want to be put in the same category as the world's most messed-up continent?

I think the same thought about replacing "Oriental" with "Asian": why would civilized Japanese people want to be put in the same category as Afghan savages?

But the whole point of a gang is to gang up, that is, to outnumber other people. Quality of people doesn't matter, it's all about raw cannon fodder.

Likewise, any admission of white identity is hate speech - gangs want to keep the "marks" isolated and therefore defenseless. Smaller ethnic identities like Polish or Scottish get tolerated, as long as white people stay divided into small groups.

But all of this is moot, because the whole point of problematics is to witch-hunt for whiffs of fascism, and if you wanted to do that to Stalin, you might want to talk about how he signed an alliance with Hitler in 1939, and was still trusting Hitler to keep the alliance even after Hitler had invaded in 1941.

Fascism: ...the Frankfurt School (Institute for Social Research) arose in the 1920s and 1930s specifically to do three things: explain the rise of fascism, on the one hand, explain why Marxism and communism didn’t work to prevent it, on the other, and agitate for social activism that would both prevent the rise of fascism in any of its forms while agitating for a communist-style revolution outside of the failed outline Marx had provided.

SJW oppose fascism because it's a rival. It's not about liberation, it's about killing the competition. Fascism is just a rival gang.

[MitzaLizalor]

..er, binary is now a verb?

Thanks for the update.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Sanewashing

Attempts to take a crazy idea and make it seem sane. This is how we get "moderate Islamist" "democratic socialism" "mostly peaceful" riots and so on.

First seen here: "the liberal sanewashing of “defund police”..."

Fascism

The world's most versatile word. George Orwell:

[Adam Fag]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/

What is BAME? I looked it up but it's not there.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

"Voices" as in "listen to black voices" = "spokespeople for rich white yuppies'' as in "listen to black spokespeople for rich white yuppies".

And by "spokespeople" I mean rhetorical human shields, (see the first post above.)

Ever wonder why the CTRL-Left says "listen to [identity] voices" instead of "listen to [identity] people"?

It's because [identity] people usually don't agree with the CTRL-Left. But the CTRL-left doesn't want to you listen to [identity] people.

They admit this. That's why they talk about "internalized oppression" and "false consciousness" and say "you ain't black" to people who obviously are.

Who gets to decide who has true consciousness? Who gets to decide who is black and who "ain't"? Rich white yuppies, of course.

When the CTRL-left looks at [identity] people, they don't see people - they see "voices": human shields and cannon fodder.

This is why black people riot: it's the only way they can get any sympathy from white yuppie democrats who control the cities. Blacks are saying "look at me, I'm violent, I'm good cannon fodder for your revolution." And then the white democrats do nothing beyond gestures, knowing that they can direct the anger at country people who have nothing to do with how cities are run. Then white yuppies keep mismanaging the cities. They see blacks as attack dogs who get more vicious the more you abuse them.

This is why republican riots don't work. If violence had ever becomes a part of our plan, we will simply shoot all the democrats overnight. Your ability to dress like a shaman and steal the Senate podium provides nothing to our coalition.