The one and true diversity: for the woke, fascists and the rest of us

[myata]

Only three rules:

1. One (everyone) has the right to physical safety (no violence)

2. Everyone the right to emotional and psychological safety (no harassment, threats, coercion)

3. Everyone can have an expectation of reasonable convenience (accommodation) as long as it doesn't significantly and unduly inconvenience others

Simple? And no need to update the books every so many years on every new ideology drive.

I can assure anyone that within these simple and natural guidelines a solution can be found to any practical problem (if skeptical, hire me for a demonstration).

Reality cannot be denied. The rules are universal and reciprocal. The majority exists. Majority is not guilty nor owes to minorities anything additional and extra to the universal rules. Accommodation of minority(ies) cannot happen via a significant inconvenience to the majority.

Extremes:

Wokism:

Majority doesn't exist (denial of empirical reality). Majority is guilty and/or owes more. Accommodation of minorities can be achieved via progressively increasing inconvenience to the majority. Ideological drives and/or agendas can be imposed and pressed onto the majority on a whim or by political expedience.

Fascism:

Minorities do not exist. Minorities are abnormal and potentially dangerous. Minorities can be inconvenienced, harassed, persecuted and so on. Minorities can be made scapegoats and distractions in fascist ideological drives and agendas.

For the rest of us:

Live and let live as an old golden rule. Simple, really?

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Only three rules:

1. One (everyone) has the right to physical safety (no violence)

 

Not true. If you threaten or conduct act of violence yourself or support such activities then you have no right to safety. That rate comes with responsibility. Break into my home and you were right to safety goes out the window

Quote

2. Everyone the right to emotional and psychological safety (no harassment, threats, coercion)

Not even a little bit. There is no right not to be offended. Which is why we let a piece of crap like you post here

Quote

3. Everyone can have an expectation of reasonable convenience (accommodation) as long as it doesn't significantly and unduly inconvenience others

No. That is something that we generally agree on as a society because it is generally beneficial but that is not a right. It's like if my neighbor comes and asks to borrow a cup of sugar 99.9 times out of 100 if I have sugar I'm going to lend them some. But they don't have a right to it.

 

Quote

Simple?

Simple minded. But that's not surprising coming from you. And you're just going to declare what you think everybody's rights are without even discussing it with anyone else, this is just how it is because myata is the only voice that matters

Yeesh. The one time you post something that's actually legible to a degree and it turns out to be garbage.

 

People do not have the right to be unoffended. People do not have the right or should not have the right to demand that others accommodate their particular interests. We may choose to be polite. We may choose to be non offensive. We may accuse to accommodate others to the point of hardship. But those are choices

[taxme]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

Only three rules:

1. One (everyone) has the right to physical safety (no violence)

2. Everyone the right to emotional and psychological safety (no harassment, threats, coercion)

3. Everyone can have an expectation of reasonable convenience (accommodation) as long as it doesn't significantly and unduly inconvenience others

Simple? And no need to update the books every so many years on every new ideology drive.

I can assure anyone that within these simple and natural guidelines a solution can be found to any practical problem (if skeptical, hire me for a demonstration).

Reality cannot be denied. The rules are universal and reciprocal. The majority exists. Majority is not guilty nor owes to minorities anything additional and extra to the universal rules. Accommodation of minority(ies) cannot happen via a significant inconvenience to the majority.

Extremes:

Wokism:

Majority doesn't exist (denial of empirical reality). Majority is guilty and/or owes more. Accommodation of minorities can be achieved via progressively increasing inconvenience to the majority. Ideological drives and/or agendas can be imposed and pressed onto the majority on a whim or by political expedience.

Fascism:

Minorities do not exist. Minorities are abnormal and potentially dangerous. Minorities can be inconvenienced, harassed, persecuted and so on. Minorities can be made scapegoats and distractions in fascist ideological drives and agendas.

For the rest of us:

Live and let live as an old golden rule. Simple, really?

 

Woke/DEI nonsense will soon be gone and out of the picture once Trump takes office. Trump has pretty much told us all that those two programs are history. Trump wants to get back to common sense and logic and that works well for me. 

It will happen in America then it will happen in Canada because wokeism/DEI is in every private institution and government bureaucracy's in Canada and it will take time to get rid of it. A conservative government in Canada should work and be able to get rid of those two Marxists programs and agendas once and for all. It's time once again for common sense and logic to once again prevail in Canada. Liberalism and socialism has shown us all that those two Marxist programs do not work in a freedom loving society. Those two only destroy all things decent and moral. 🤗

[suds]

44 minutes ago, myata said:

Only three rules:

1. One (everyone) has the right to physical safety (no violence)

2. Everyone the right to emotional and psychological safety (no harassment, threats, coercion)

3. Everyone can have an expectation of reasonable convenience (accommodation) as long as it doesn't significantly and unduly inconvenience others

Simple? And no need to update the books every so many years on every new ideology drive.

I can assure anyone that within these simple and natural guidelines a solution can be found to any practical problem (if skeptical, hire me for a demonstration).

Reality cannot be denied. The rules are universal and reciprocal. The majority exists. Majority is not guilty nor owes to minorities anything additional and extra to the universal rules. Accommodation of minority(ies) cannot happen via a significant inconvenience to the majority.

Extremes:

Wokism:

Majority doesn't exist (denial of empirical reality). Majority is guilty and/or owes more. Accommodation of minorities can be achieved via progressively increasing inconvenience to the majority. Ideological drives and/or agendas can be imposed and pressed onto the majority on a whim or by political expedience.

Fascism:

Minorities do not exist. Minorities are abnormal and potentially dangerous. Minorities can be inconvenienced, harassed, persecuted and so on. Minorities can be made scapegoats and distractions in fascist ideological drives and agendas.

For the rest of us:

Live and let live as an old golden rule. Simple, really?

 

Sorry to say this, but someone came up with something a little better...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, myata said:

Only three rules:

1. One (everyone) has the right to physical safety (no violence)

2. Everyone the right to emotional and psychological safety (no harassment, threats, coercion)

3. Everyone can have an expectation of reasonable convenience (accommodation) as long as it doesn't significantly and unduly inconvenience others

Simple? And no need to update the books every so many years on every new ideology drive.

I can assure anyone that within these simple and natural guidelines a solution can be found to any practical problem (if skeptical, hire me for a demonstration).

Reality cannot be denied. The rules are universal and reciprocal. The majority exists. Majority is not guilty nor owes to minorities anything additional and extra to the universal rules. Accommodation of minority(ies) cannot happen via a significant inconvenience to the majority.

Extremes:

Wokism:

Majority doesn't exist (denial of empirical reality). Majority is guilty and/or owes more. Accommodation of minorities can be achieved via progressively increasing inconvenience to the majority. Ideological drives and/or agendas can be imposed and pressed onto the majority on a whim or by political expedience.

Fascism:

Minorities do not exist. Minorities are abnormal and potentially dangerous. Minorities can be inconvenienced, harassed, persecuted and so on. Minorities can be made scapegoats and distractions in fascist ideological drives and agendas.

For the rest of us:

Live and let live as an old golden rule. Simple, really?

 

Sorry ?  Majority doesn't exist ?

"Ideological drives can be imposed" ... sure they can as long as your other precepts aren't contravened.  Right ?
 

Minorities do not exist ?

 

This view of wokism and fascism doesn't seem right.

Wokism hasn't been successfully defined here.  The closest we got is "extreme accommodation"...

[myata]

48 minutes ago, taxme said:

Trump wants to get back to common sense and logic and that works well for me. 

Except he has the fascist "common sense" on the opposite side of extremity. So no luck or salvation down that way.

[myata]

33 minutes ago, suds said:

but someone came up with something a little better...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Saying it wasn't enough though, was it? "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" forget 1790, forget 1860s forget 1950s, for a large part of the population? No, saying good words isn't enough - and importantly, they do not guarantee us anything. As playing out again right before our eyes.

[myata]

39 minutes ago, suds said:

Sorry to say this, but someone came up with something a little better...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Actually, having reflected on it a bit further I have to insist that my definition is slightly yet essentially better in one aspect, being more precise and specific.

The quoted, great words as they are depend and even were defined by the term "men". And men who consider themselves in the class but not some others were and are known to exist and even, at times, become violent justifying it by nothing other than their liberty and happiness.

The definition in the OP eliminates this weakness and closes all loopholes around it. Everyone has the right to be safe physically and from any form of abuse, persecution, coercion etc.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, suds said:

Sorry to say this, but someone came up with something a little better...

There's actually been something a whole lot better than this around for thousands of years.

Do unto others yadda yadda.

Heck, humans probably learned it from neanderthals.

[suds]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Saying it wasn't enough though, was it? "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" forget 1790, forget 1860s forget 1950s, for a large part of the population? No, saying good words isn't enough - and importantly, they do not guarantee us anything. As playing out again right before our eyes.

Rome wasn't built in a day either. And in the 1860's a million people died in civil war to set others free. Up to that point in time I doubt the world had ever witnessed anything quite like it. When the Declaration was written it was more of an inspiration to the type of country they wanted to create. And the present day Constitution reflects a lot of that.

[suds]

2 hours ago, myata said:

The definition in the OP eliminates this weakness and closes all loopholes around it. Everyone has the right to be safe physically and from any form of abuse, persecution, coercion etc.

It certainly does close all the loopholes. But what happens when people break laws or infringe on the rights of others? Does the state not have the right to use coercion then? You'd better maybe tidy that up a bit. And don't forget about the First Amendment as Fox has pointed out.

Edited January 15 by suds

[suds]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's actually been something a whole lot better than this around for thousands of years.

Do unto others yadda yadda.

Heck, humans probably learned it from neanderthals.

Yeah ok. If everyone lived their life that way the world would probably be a whole lot better place. Can't argue with you.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Yeah ok. If everyone lived their life that way the world would probably be a whole lot better place. Can't argue with you.

 

Actually I've often thought that wouldn't be the case.

For example, I would expect to have the snot beat out of me if I treated children the way some of the trans storytellers have. I doubt they would appreciate having the snap beat out of them. Likewise they would like to be treated well despite what they've done to some of the children. I would not be okay with that

I like steak. Would a vegetarian appreciated if I bought the mistake dinner? And so on

I've often thought the phrase should be do unto others as they would have you do unto them and they should do unto you as you would have done unto you. 

Or something less needlessly wordy  

But respect doesn't mean inflicting your values on others, it mean accepting their values and they accepting yours in return. 

And if we had THAT then for sure the world would be quieter. 

[myata]

6 hours ago, suds said:

But what happens when people break laws or infringe on the rights of others?

It comes with the assumption of application to normal, regular conditions and relations of human beings. In the times those great words were written it was common for the deviating men to hang in place of pursuit of happiness, so a natural assumption.

[myata]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do unto others yadda yadda.

Well let's see how it works in practice as we revisited recently. Say I don't care about certain orientation of human beings who have little or nothing to do with me. I'm perfectly fine with what they are doing where and how as long as I'm not involved. I'm absolutely on board with them not having to care about what I'm doing in my private time. Fair and fully reciprocal. Yadda?

Why then, after a certain happy hiatus we beginning to hear, here by the way our pronouns (OK sure if you like), wouldn't it be nice of you to give us yours (no but thanks for asking) but it wouldn't be nice of you (I can live with it) no but you really have to (now you're becoming annoying).

What's wrong with the do-gooders happy dreamers? Why couldn't they ever as it seems, stop where their sweet-talking mouths are?

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, myata said:

What's wrong with the do-gooders happy dreamers? Why couldn't they ever as it seems, stop where their sweet-talking mouths are?

I guess putting up with arseholes is harder than it looks.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I guess putting up with arseholes is harder than it looks.

The do gooders and dreamers ARE the arseholes most of the time. 

"Do the right thing!  As we define it! Or we'll lock you up!" 

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I guess putting up with arseholes is harder than it looks.

Aha, supreme goodness just can't rely on sweet-talking alone, eh? Goodness has to have fists, yadda yadda?

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The do gooders and dreamers ARE the arseholes most of the time.

Rubber and glue is just so you.

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"Do the right thing!  As we define it! Or we'll lock you up!" 

Sure you will, that's why Justin is in jail.

29 minutes ago, myata said:

Aha, supreme goodness just can't rely on sweet-talking alone, eh? Goodness has to have fists, yadda yadda?

No, a smile is far more disarming. Seriously, you don't have to say a word it takes so little effort.

Edited January 16 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Rubber and glue is just so you.

Yeah, that's not what the saying means    Congrats you've failed to grasp elementary school jargon  

 

Quote

Sure you will, that's why Justin is in jail.

I've never said anything about putting justin in jail.

As usual you can't argue with what i said so you create fake things i didn't say and argue with yourself. 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah, that's not what the saying means    Congrats you've failed to grasp elementary school jargon

Sure kid.

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I've never said anything about putting justin in jail.

That's right, you prefer catch and release justice for your betters.

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As usual you can't argue with what i said so you create fake things i didn't say and argue with yourself. 

Sure kid.

[taxme]

23 hours ago, myata said:

Except he has the fascist "common sense" on the opposite side of extremity. So no luck or salvation down that way.

Trump being a fascist? What a laugh. Let me be the first to tell you that you are full of chit. Ha-ha-ha! 

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure kid.

Sure kid.

Awwww -  butt hurt again are you?     All  you've got left is to mimick me? Congrats, you're as smart as a parrot now   

It must be hard being a loser in the presence of intelligent people. 

 

[myata]

16 hours ago, taxme said:

Trump being a fascist? What a laugh.

Yep, that's exactly how it happened the last time, almost a century back. You're a living proof that absolute zero learning is possible. Proud, eh?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, myata said:

Yep, that's exactly how it happened the last time, almost a century back. You're a living proof that absolute zero learning is possible. Proud, eh?

It really isn't. Read a book for god's sake