Are gamers anti woke

[Faster With Feeling]

Are gamers anti woke and what the hell is woke anyway?
Original Star Trek in the 60s was woke before that even was a word.....

[Crix]

social media is going to be the fall of humanity. Not a nuclear war although that is still on the table too.

[K̴̦̋ids Love ⁧⁧C̷iggies]

im so woke that im barely awake

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

引用自 Not Big Surprise：

affirmative action doesn't "treat white people as if they were bad", it seeks to directly compensate for socioeconomic disadvantages of certain marginalized groups due to their marginalization reducing the opportunities they could feasibly have access to
saying affirmative action is discrimination against the majority is like saying a ramp for people in wheelchairs is anti-walking– after all, couldn't the money spent on making streets more accessible to people with disabilities be used for other purposes?

Any systemic discrimination against someones race is wrong. The personal motivations of people doesn't change that it's putting up a sign saying "X people need not apply." It is a breach of human rights to put up "whites need not apply" or "men need not apply," any more than "Irish need not apply." They are all discrimination against someone. Putting a ramp doesn't cost the citizen or owner anything compared to a set of stairs (pending on the property but that's an issue with ADL laws.). Giving the job to a woman over a man, means the man is getting hurt, he's getting denied the job on basis of his sex or race.

Affirmative action is illegal in the U.S. for a reason. It's a form of open systemic discrimination.

引用自 󠀡󠀡strawberry milk：

引用自 Siluva：

Y'all litteraly the first ones to cry out about how the game is made by Hitler himself whenever there is not a trans-black-attack-helicopter-female-body-type-2 character as the main plot.

Pot and keettle my man.

Nobody ever gets mad at videogames not including minorities. To people who like minorities being included it's just a nice thing to have, not a necessity.
It's always the opposite, people always immediately start whining when a minority is included, saying how the game is completely ruined because that one character is confirmed to be gay despite it not being obvious.

Agreed. I remember the time I was criticizing a webcomic for including an entire chapter on "is X character bisexual?" I said that the character has outright anti-chemistry with every male character, and the chapter was repeating itself to shove a point down, that this character being gay does nothing but waste our time.....que being called homophobic and told how I can't ever criticize "The image of gay people," for any reason. Hell I think anyone on the internet remembers the whole SCP thing, where even saying the multi-national apolitical organization shouldn't have ANY flag on it's header got you banned.(yes, I did get banned from somewhere just for saying that)

People get frustrated at replacement and forced inclusion where it doesn't belong. No one, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ no one ♥♥♥♥♥ on the tragic story of Subaru Sumeragi and Seishiro(Tokyo Babylon and X for those wondering.)

[Dom]

引用自 Snow ☯：

引用自 Not Big Surprise：

that's funny, most of the time when i look deeper into what's claimed to be "woke" it turns out to line up better with the definitions you gave of progressive and liberal

The definitions are wrong.

Look at moderan Liberals. They don't support equality. They support equity, which has roots in Jim Crow and treats people differently based on race. Which is more of the"white people suck" that they mentioned about being woke.

All the people who supported equality became conservatives.

Most liberals are actually fascists.

A fascist is someone who wants big government invovled in all aspects of their lives and is willing to support violence to achieve those goals.

Well the pandemic showed us nicely who those folks were as they even to the extremes of banning the sale of toys or gardening stuff inside stories because they weren't "essential" during the lockdowns.

A progressive is just a fascist who heavily supports equity/Jim Crow politics.

Wokeism is the quasi-religion/ideology that the left is told to blindly follow.

All of this is just plain wrong.

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

[K̴̦̋ids Love ⁧⁧C̷iggies]

引用自 Crix：

social media is going to be the fall of humanity. Not a nuclear war although that is still on the table too.

Youngboy stans finna take over the world fr

[Tommy Salami]

引用自 Dom：

引用自 Snow ☯：

The definitions are wrong.

Look at moderan Liberals. They don't support equality. They support equity, which has roots in Jim Crow and treats people differently based on race. Which is more of the"white people suck" that they mentioned about being woke.

All the people who supported equality became conservatives.

Most liberals are actually fascists.

A fascist is someone who wants big government invovled in all aspects of their lives and is willing to support violence to achieve those goals.

Well the pandemic showed us nicely who those folks were as they even to the extremes of banning the sale of toys or gardening stuff inside stories because they weren't "essential" during the lockdowns.

A progressive is just a fascist who heavily supports equity/Jim Crow politics.

Wokeism is the quasi-religion/ideology that the left is told to blindly follow.

All of this is just plain wrong.

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

Equity is impossible. Only someone hopped up on propaganda would believe this is possible to achieve.

[Dom]

引用自 The Duce：

引用自 Dom：

All of this is just plain wrong.

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

Equity is impossible. Only someone hopped up on propaganda would believe this is possible to achieve.

Not really. Equity is done every single day in our societies.

I can give few concrete examples.

You have special classes in schools.
You have assistance to low-income families and individuals (that stops when earning enough).
And for example, in healthcare people go past you in waiting lines if they have worse conditions.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

引用自 Dom：

引用自 Snow ☯：

The definitions are wrong.

Look at moderan Liberals. They don't support equality. They support equity, which has roots in Jim Crow and treats people differently based on race. Which is more of the"white people suck" that they mentioned about being woke.

All the people who supported equality became conservatives.

Most liberals are actually fascists.

A fascist is someone who wants big government invovled in all aspects of their lives and is willing to support violence to achieve those goals.

Well the pandemic showed us nicely who those folks were as they even to the extremes of banning the sale of toys or gardening stuff inside stories because they weren't "essential" during the lockdowns.

A progressive is just a fascist who heavily supports equity/Jim Crow politics.

Wokeism is the quasi-religion/ideology that the left is told to blindly follow.

All of this is just plain wrong.

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

Look at how equity is implemented instead of just what it says on paper. Are equity laws and policies pushed out to those who need it, or are they generalizing entire races or groups as being less or greater then others?

One can't use person A and person b on equity examples...all equity at least in America separates people by groups. SO do that same example but instead of saying person A say it by race and see if the example still sounds like a good thing.


People have determine and blatantly stereotype all black people as having 1 dollar. Asians have been stereotyped as having 3 dollars. You give money to all black people but not a dime to Asians.

This is equity. Blatantly labeling people of a group that has been given a pre-determined value.

Look at it like this.

Person A is a a black kid, Saint West. Kayne West kid whose going to live a life of privilege. Society has determined that he has 1 dollar.

Meanwhile an Asian kid growing up to a single mother, in a trailer park whose on food stamps and the first generation to go to college has been determined to have 3 dollars by society, even though in reality the Asian kid is VERY poor.

So equity would give Saint West money, and tell the Asian kid that he's SOL. And that's fair?

[Zero, Dark Knight]

引用自 The Duce：

Equity is impossible.

Depends how low the bar is set.

[Triple G]

引用自 Dom：

And for example, in healthcare people go past you in waiting lines if they have worse conditions.

They also go past me if they have a better insurance which pays the doctor more money. Just needed to add this. :o)

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

引用自 Dom：

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

It's communist in this case, or socialist depending on the details. But ignoring that, cool, I earned my three dollars, under what right do you have to take it from me. That guy B didn't do ♥♥♥♥, I worked my butt off to give a grand portfollio. Thats why I got 3 dollars. Your spiritually concept of making sure no one ever had "significantly more" resources than another, whatever that means, does not give you the right to take my hard work with nothing in return. Taxes give me something in return, taking it just to give to someone elses bank account?Yeah thats not okay

[Chunk Norris ☯]

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 Dom：

And for example, in healthcare people go past you in waiting lines if they have worse conditions.

They also go past me if they have a better insurance which pays the doctor more money. Just needed to add this. :o)

They also go past people who didn't put an experimental vaccine into their bodies, and most of the pro-healthcare crowd whose totally not fascist supported denying care.

[Dom]

引用自 Snow ☯：

引用自 Dom：

All of this is just plain wrong.

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

Look at how equity is implemented instead of just what it says on paper. Are equity laws and policies pushed out to those who need it, or are they generalizing entire races or groups as being less or greater then others?

One can't use person A and person b on equity examples...all equity at least in America separates people by groups. SO do that same example but instead of saying person A say it by race and see if the example still sounds like a good thing.


People have determine and blatantly stereotype all black people as having 1 dollar. Asians have been stereotyped as having 3 dollars. You give money to all black people but not a dime to Asians.

This is equity. Blatantly labeling people of a group that has been given a pre-determined value.

Look at it like this.

Person A is a a black kid, Saint West. Kayne West kid whose going to live a life of privilege. Society has determined that he has 1 dollar.

Meanwhile an Asian kid growing up to a single mother, in a trailer park whose on food stamps and the first generation to go to college has been determined to have 3 dollars by society, even though in reality the Asian kid is VERY poor.

So equity would give Saint West money, and tell the Asian kid that he's SOL. And that's fair?

That type of equity falls under the diversity program and it is actually linked to socioeconomics because past racist actions committed have had a massive impact on how different households (on the basis of race, yes) have prospered or not prospered. And also on the opportunities or lack of opportunities. So fundamentally it is very much the right path to go for. And take my past example, and replace the goal of 2 dollars with 'diversity'. Then you understand why different backgrounds actually matter there.

What is shocking about separation by groups? We separate people all the time on the basis of groups.
You qualify for aid programs if you are poor (poor=group), you qualify for emergency care (ER patients=group), you make more than $X amount of money per year, you are taxed X% (tax bracket=group), etc. etc.

[Dom]

引用自 videomike_Ultimate_Plushie：

引用自 Dom：

And you even know what equity means? It means treating people on the basis of their needs, rather than treating everyone equally.

Let's say person A has 1 dollar and person B has 3 dollars.
You give person A 1 dollar and you give person B nothing.
Now, equity has been accomplished because both people have at least 2 dollars. Regardless of the fact that person B received nothing - because person B already had what was required to meet the threshold (2 dollars).

In a perfect case of equality, person B would also receive 1 dollar, as in equality = everyone's treated the same, regardless of starting point(s). Equality in its purest form, treating everyone the same, is actually a very very bad idea and equity makes way more sense.

Not everyone out there needs the same amount of assistance and support.

What is so "fascist" about acknowledging this?

It's communist in this case, or socialist depending on the details. But ignoring that, cool, I earned my three dollars, under what right do you have to take it from me. That guy B didn't do ♥♥♥♥, I worked my butt off to give a grand portfollio. Thats why I got 3 dollars. Your spiritually concept of making sure no one ever had "significantly more" resources than another, whatever that means, does not give you the right to take my hard work with nothing in return. Taxes give me something in return, taking it just to give to someone elses bank account?Yeah thats not okay

It depends because rights (just like obligations and rules) are socially structured factors.

You can reverse the question, too: under what right can you make money endlessly without paying the taxes and helping someone less fortunate?

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

引用自 Dom：

That type of equity falls under the diversity program and it is actually linked to socioeconomics because past racist actions committed have had a massive impact on how different households (on the basis of race, yes) have prospered or not prospered. And also on the opportunities or lack of opportunities. So fundamentally it is very much the right path to go for. And take my past example, and replace the goal of 2 dollars with 'diversity'. Then you understand why different backgrounds actually matter there.

What is shocking about separation by groups? We separate people all the time on the basis of groups.
You qualify for aid programs if you are poor (poor=group), you qualify for emergency care (ER patients=group), you make more than $X amount of money per year, you are taxed X% (tax bracket=group), etc. etc.

I'm not those past people Mr.Dom, I am an independent man who has done no such things and you have no right to take my money in name of punishing people who are not myself. The sins of the father not fall to the son, just like you didn't choose your race, I didn't choose my parents. Theft from me in name of punishing the sins of my parents is wrong, period.

Also, I dont qualify for "aid programs," if I don't provide to that fund first. Just as I don't receive education grants if I don't finish that education. I don't "qualify" for emergency care, I am in evident and clear need of emergency care. I literally will die without it. It is ridiculous to compare that to economic comfort. Progressive tax systems have been bashed on for a while now and are a contentious thing to begin with.