Something that I was thinking about seeing the reaction to the Dead Space remake (TDLR for my opinions on the game, looks alright but an inferior version of the original which you can buy cheaper).
I've seen more and more that media we term as 'woke' (which most of the time we are right about but a few false flags here and there) getting dismissed as us applying our political biases onto a product because of who made it, the characters being displayed etc than valid criticism of an inferior product usually belonging to a franchise that was usurped than built up.
We're risking the same issue the left did with Nazi and racist where it was overused to such a degree it became easy to dismiss. The best way to counter this really is just go tldr than just say 'It's woke'. Quick points to highlight issues (e.g. the writing is terrible, the sound design is poorly utilised) than writing a paragraph to explain your point. If people then respond you can go deeper if they're not being asinine (you only hate it because she no longer has big boobs etc)
So I'm not a hypocrite in this example, TDLR: We're overusing 'woke' that we risk being dismissed easily.
Not just false equivalency, it's opposite world.
They don't disagree with whether something is woke or not - they disagree that actual woke is bad. Woke became an insult because it accurately described their views. They want us to be more racist/nazi to hate us more.
We disagree with whether something is racist or not - we don't disagree that actual racism is bad. Racist became not an insult because it didn't accurately describe our views. We don't want them to be more woke to help them.
I disagree "racism" is bad. Because when gay commies say "racism" they really mean "white people".
Letting them redefine language is a mistake.
Agreeing with the enemy's premise is the real mistake.
This is why, at all times, you have to avoid all euphemisms and never, ever use exclusively leftist language to discuss their totalitarian project. Use leftisms only when criticizing them.
For one gigantic example, absolutely never, even tacitly, agree that such a concept as "hate speech" exists, never use the phrase unless criticizing it, and always trap it between quotation marks.
Be not afraid of using "nigger" when discussing its censorship or when discussing language generally, but remember not to fall into the trap of calling it "hate speech." "Slur" is about as far as I'd go. For god's sake, never use the infantile expression "N-word."
I like to substitute "race hatred" for "racist." It's more specific, it emphasizes the actual category of race, and it avoids the main word-weapon of the left.
This will get you banned from social media but being honest is worth it.
by accepting the term "racist" and agreeing that "it's bad", you already fell into the bolshevik trap. racism was coined by Leon Trotsky (lev bronstein) specifically to subvert and undermine the west. by accepting it's bad, you'd self censor topics about race and ideas of preserving your own race.
The term I used was "actual racism".
People that hate an individual for no good reason are different from those who point out that blacks commit over 5x more violent crime. Somebody of another race who has proven themselves a true patriot and respectable citizen - maybe you feel it's good to hate them because of others of their kind, but I don't.
Racism doesn't mean "hate an individual for no good reason"
It means recognizing that races even exist.
Nevermind the modern usage that means something like "races don't exist but also these good races have been oppressed by those bad races, and the oppression exists to this day and colors everything that everyone does at all times".
You can say that "discriminating on the basis on skin color alone is bad". Ok, that's one thing.
Even though it's natural for people to prefer to associate with others who are culturally and biologically like them. And it's perfectly fine to discriminate, it's necessary even, we discriminate successfully all the time. And skin color is just another data point, with meaning as long as groups with different skin colors act differently on aggregate, which they do, even if you hold that it's bc of some coincidence or consequence.
So maybe "discriminating on the basis on skin color alone is suboptimal, as sometimes it will lead you to avoid a competent or good person" is more accurate.
But as soon as you use the word "racism" you're a retard if you think you're not invoking the vast library of meanings that the predominant culture has dressed it with.
And notice there's no mention of hate, bc noticing things has nothing to do with hate.
The term has been coopted, it's just another brainwashing tool, and you should stop wanting to appease the empire by pointing out how racism is bad for brownie points.
Be concise in your language. Don't use a word that has a clear meaning in the dominant culture idiosyncratically. You can't walk around town with a swastika and claim it's an Indian peace symbol. You have to recognize the words the empire ideology is using to trigger its brainwashed cult members, and either avoid them or subvert them. Otherwise you come off as just another NPC, and modifying it just makes you sound like you're maybe slightly less of an idiot but you're still a fucking idiot.
"-ism" doesn't mean "against", either.
Capitalism means you're in favour of capital and view your economic situation through that lens, communism means you're in favour of the commune and view your situation through that lens.
Racism means you're in favour of (your) race, and view your socio-political situation through that lens.
Goddamned right. Avoid, subvert, and rationally criticize leftist language at all times. Never adopt their terminology, even if doing so would be easier or more convenient; never use it except as a target for criticism.
lol civic nationalism
Woke was a they used about themselves just like sjw and then we took it and made it an insult because it's ridiculous. We mock them with their shit and they try to unsuccessfully steal our insults