Topic: Weird thoughts about modern activists I had

Do you think these activists of today's day and age are all doing this for a grift*¹ and that they are trying to pick fights with everyone*²?

And do you think it's harming the things they are fighting for? Actively making history loop in a cycle?

I need some other takes from this so I can form my own opinion.

*¹: Saying they're representing a protected or criticized group when they're trying to do it only thier own self benefit/ censor media they hate cause they hold a petty vendetta or just want to ruin someone's fun

*²:Protected groups of a race or subcultures like anime fans, furries, gamers, etc

maria_kauffman said:
Do you think these activists of today's day and age are all doing this for a grift*¹ and that they are trying to pick fights with everyone*²?

And do you think it's harming the things they are fighting for? Actively making history loop in a cycle?

I need some other takes from this so I can form my own opinion.

*¹: Saying they're representing a protected or criticized group when they're trying to do it only thier own self benefit/ censor media they hate cause they hold a petty vendetta or just want to ruin someone's fun

*²:Protected groups of a race or subcultures like anime fans, furries, gamers, etc

"Wokeness" is hard to define because its not a coherent ideology.
Its a performance enacted by a parade of attention seekers.
It works because they take positions that you cannot argue against without getting shouted down by the crowd.

I forsee this thread getting closed.

This is also vague in ways that are raising major red flags. Which activists? Picking fights with who? Harming things how? Usually when I see people be this vague it's because they know their opinions are at best unpopular and at worst bigoted.

regsmutt said:
I forsee this thread getting closed.

This is also vague in ways that are raising major red flags. Which activists? Picking fights with who? Harming things how? Usually when I see people be this vague it's because they know their opinions are at best unpopular and at worst bigoted.

i think they're thinking about those Australian Steam/itch.io activists and maybe whatever 'activism' is in favor of hardening European adult-content regulations. they prolly can't imagine other forms of activism exist

e621's userbase is too inept to deal with these issues tho

My shitty opinion:

The profits that are gained due to "regulating things" are always something that is inherent in politics (getting power of any kind).
Sometimes it's not about "ruining something" for others, sometimes it's because they genuinely believe they're doing something "good" from their moralistic perspective (Confusing what a faith dictates as a universal moral guide, is for example).
Within their vision of how things should be, you will find that movements that embrace words like "feminism" to define themselves, do not have to have any relation to what other people think the movement is, because within their perspective "they" are what the movement should represent and everything else is wrong.

regsmutt said:
I forsee this thread getting closed.

This is also vague in ways that are raising major red flags. Which activists? Picking fights with who? Harming things how? Usually when I see people be this vague it's because they know their opinions are at best unpopular and at worst bigoted.

What activists? Well nearly anything but there's two types I'll say. Equal rights activists and feminists. Do you think one can sabotage another for petty reasons?

quro said:
My shitty opinion:

The profits that are gained due to "regulating things" are always something that is inherent in politics (getting power of any kind).
Sometimes it's not about "ruining something" for others, sometimes it's because they genuinely believe they're doing something "good" from their moralistic perspective (Confusing what a faith dictates as a universal moral guide, is for example).
Within their vision of how things should be, you will find that movements that embrace words like "feminism" to define themselves, do not have to have any relation to what other people think the movement is, because within their perspective "they" are what the movement should represent and everything else is wrong.

I can actually understand that. Some I actually wish would gain better judgement however. I feel like power can corrupt as well as egos. It's kinda why I put myself down rather than build myself upm

To quote my friend

"We are all the same piece of shit we know and hate, and we just gotta be okay with that"

If this is about Collective Shout and OSA? Calling it woke irritates me. Labour is a right-of-centre party with Starmer and Reeves pushing it further right, OSA is performatively about child protection but it's actually about silencing pro-palestinian voices as Labour makes good money off of Israel. As for Collective Shout? Their major ties are to the far-right, fundamentalist/puritan Christian groups, and TERFs—so their goal was more about attacking LGBTQIA+ (trans especially) than anything else. This is why itch.io took down the LGBT tag, before people rioted over it and they quickly broight it back.

So no, this censorship is all very right-wing and not at all woke. If Reform achieves power, they'll keep the OSA in place regardless of their claims, as it'll help them shut down those who support palestine, immigrants, and asylum seekers.

quro said:
My shitty opinion:

The profits that are gained due to "regulating things" are always something that is inherent in politics (getting power of any kind).
Sometimes it's not about "ruining something" for others, sometimes it's because they genuinely believe they're doing something "good" from their moralistic perspective (Confusing what a faith dictates as a universal moral guide, is for example).
Within their vision of how things should be, you will find that movements that embrace words like "feminism" to define themselves, do not have to have any relation to what other people think the movement is, because within their perspective "they" are what the movement should represent and everything else is wrong.

lupinepariah said:
If this is about Collective Shout and OSA? Calling it woke irritates me. Labour is a right-of-centre party with Starmer and Reeves pushing it further right, OSA is performatively about child protection but it's actually about silencing pro-palestinian voices as Labour makes good money off of Israel. As for Collective Shout? Their major ties are to the far-right, fundamentalist/puritan Christian groups, and TERFs—so their goal was more about attacking LGBTQIA+ (trans especially) than anything else. This is why itch.io took down the LGBT tag, before people rioted over it and they quickly broight it back.

So no, this censorship is all very right-wing and not at all woke. If Reform achieves power, they'll keep the OSA in place regardless of their claims, as it'll help them shut down those who support palestine, immigrants, and asylum seekers.

It's more of just anything people try to also attach a political message to as well.woke has lost its meaning like so many words. It feels like a grift sometimes. I just wish people would call it what it is. An annoying grift that helps no one.

My friend said something very concerning but true I think.

"We all are in Jacobs ladder and yelling at another mentally ill person and the ones who attempted to stay sane have yelled at the next patient over. The ones that found Nirvana are laughing at the insanity."

I can pretty much guarantee "woke" had already lost its original meaning by the time you heard it. it dosn't feel like a coherent ideology because it wasn't conceptualised as an ideology. it's a term which was co-opted by braindead right-wingers looking for a bogeyman.

if you're using the term unironically you've probably been propagandised.

the grift was coming from inside the house.

lupinepariah said:
If this is about Collective Shout and OSA? Calling it woke irritates me. Labour is a right-of-centre party with Starmer and Reeves pushing it further right, OSA is performatively about child protection but it's actually about silencing pro-palestinian voices as Labour makes good money off of Israel. As for Collective Shout? Their major ties are to the far-right, fundamentalist/puritan Christian groups, and TERFs—so their goal was more about attacking LGBTQIA+ (trans especially) than anything else. This is why itch.io took down the LGBT tag, before people rioted over it and they quickly broight it back.

So no, this censorship is all very right-wing and not at all woke. If Reform achieves power, they'll keep the OSA in place regardless of their claims, as it'll help them shut down those who support palestine, immigrants, and asylum seekers.

You mean the same Starmer who's happily letting illegal migrants flood the UK? The same Starmer trying to cover up the migrant rape gangs? The same Starmer letting Muslems blast the call to prayer through sirens at 5 in the morning? The same Starmer who arrested people just for silently praying outside abortion clinics?

I'm sorry mate, but if Starmer is right leaning then I'm the king of England.

The cold hard fact is that this is an issue that's neither right or left. It's both sides of the isle doing this because bad faith activism has become the new political meta.

We can handle light political talk here in Off Topic, but when it serves no real purpose than to rile things up, and it has no basis around the activities of the site, then we'll be curtailing it pretty quickly. Hasn't taken much for this to devolve to mudslinging, so I guess we're already at that point.