Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Godot Responds to Mass Banning - No Apology, Blames Banned Users" video.

@imacmill This is absurd, we're not censoring anybody so where is the equivalence?
6
@imacmill "What is woke?" "Woke" is the successor to "politically correct". "Politically correct" is a translation of a Russian phrase from the Soviet era. It was a recognition of Soviet enforcement of dogmatic "truth". When official non-acceptance of a fact is causing a problem, and your friend is contemplating saying the unsayable in public, you say, "You may be factually correct, but you are politically incorrect." This usage filtered its way into the Western left, and, as leftist authoritarian memes tend to do in a freer society, began to become so noxious that nobody would use it outside of dark sarcasm as a contemptuous term of ridicule. And we all would have lived happily ever after. This tends to happen to leftist euphemisms once the sane folk figure out what the cryptic terminology means. Hence the restless reinvention of new leftist euphemisms. The waxing leftist power bloc, deprived of "politically correct" needed a new euphemism for their suppression of "wrongthink". Since they were more and more indoctrinating young folk in their causes du jour as a result of the "long march through the institutions" having locked down key institutions of higher learning and the teacher's unions for primary and secondary schools, it was convenient to couch the party line as an awakening to inspire and relate to their new charges/victims. They needed a shibboleth adjective to separate the sheep from the goats, and settled on the stylishly hip-hop sounding "woke". It was a shortcut for the authoritarian notion that anyone who challenged the establishment position on various issues calculated to divide the society and empower the authorities, such as alphabet "community" dogma, discrimination on the basis of race or sex, certain "environmental" issues, should be slandered, marginalized, cancelled, fired, jailed, or killed. Residual love of freedom in the West resulted in this euphemism sharing the fate of former euphemisms, being used ironically or sarcastically by their intended victims, to the point that they could no longer use the term in public without risking being laughed out of the room. Since the term is now used almost exclusively by freedom loving folk, some latecomers and youth quite innocently get the impression that the term was coined by conservatives as a derisive term for leftists. No, the leftists coined and defined the term and now that their intended victims are wise to it, will have to devise another (and so on, lather, rinse repeat). In the meantime they will have to make do with calling their victims names, suing them, censoring them, arresting them, and assaulting them. I hope you found this lesson helpful, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. It may take me a while to reply. The side which tries to settle a question of fact by the use of force is the obscurantist side, every time. That's how you know who the bad guys are.
3
@acf2802 "so deep." Hip deep and rising.
1
@alexander1055 You are trying to defend fraud by concentrating on the actions of the victim.
1
@AbstractObserver Like a typical leftist, you are equivocating around words. If the moderators had any actual harassment to justify this action, they would have shown it. No harassment occurred, except that by the moderators. This is the established fact you must refute to make a case for this outrage. To hijack funds and labor solicited for a computer project to promote a marginal authoritarian political movement is fraud, and it is not oppressive for the victims of this fraud to object to it. Not only the majority of the world would recognize this fact, but the majority of the homosexuals you fraudulently claim to represent would do the same. No election has taken place which validates disingenuous radical idealogues like yourself as spokespersons for homosexuals.
1
@z1DEv_ag " US, that still, and always did, recognise China as the official government of Taiwan?" This is incorrect. Nixon agreed to withdraw recognition of Taiwanese independence as a diplomatic gesture to court China as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. You seem ignorant of recent history, so let me remind you of who "Taiwan" is. Going back to the 20th century, the Kuomintang ( KMT ), [I] also referred to as the Guomindang ( GMD ), [17] the Nationalist Party of China was our WW2 ally against Imperial Japan. After the war we cut off arms supplies to the battle-weary Nationalists while Stalin was supplying full support to Mao's communists. The Nationalists lost the civil war and were exiled to the island of Formosa or Taiwan. (This was our first betrayal, without it there probably would not have been a Korean or a Vietnam War.) When Soviet supported North Korea invaded South Korea, precipitating the Korean War, the Republic of China (Taiwan), despite our recent betrayal, sent troops to support us along with our other allies. When Soviet supported North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and we tried to do the same thing we had done in Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and Taiwan sent troops to support us while virtually ALL our NATO "allies", including the UK and Canada, stabbed us in the back diplomatically, condemning our efforts. In the midst of Taiwan's support the Nixon administration, wanting to take advantage of the political friction between the Chicoms and the Soviets after the death of Stalin and play mainland China against the USSR, transferred US diplomatic recognition from our ally to our enemy. (Second betrayal) In the aftermath of our refusal to supply South Vietnam with the arms promised in the peace treaty ending the Vietnam War (Yes, children, we won the war before we lost it, North Korea never signed a peace treaty, North Vietnam DID - third betrayal), the North Vietnamese Army invaded the South with more Soviet tanks and planes than the US deployed against the Normandy beachhead in WW2. Then the purges began. The situation in Vietnam was so bad that Vietnamese were trying to escape the country by trying to TRAVERSE THE PACIFIC in anything that could float, however marginally. (web search "vietnam boat people") Democratic reforms were implemented in the 1980s in Taiwan, and now Taiwan is a prosperous and thriving democracy. Taiwan is the world's main supplier of computer chips, a CAPITAL GOOD that undergirds our modern economy. The voters have indicated their desire to remain free. With respect to the "one China/two Chinas" issue, if our criterion is the "consent of the governed" then there is one China, the Republic of China (Taiwan). The mainland, the People's Republic of China is a renegade province. If our criterion is NOT the "consent of the governed", we owe King George an apology. Now others have gone on at length to explain the economic national interest we have in Taiwan. I'm not an economist. I am a moralist. Taiwan has been an active, loyal, and steadfast ally of the US for 80 years, for all her political history. They were our allies when we didn't have many. "But the Chicoms have nukes!". Yea, they'll have more the next time, and the next. We won the Cold War with containment and readiness, not appeasement. Appeasement is surrender on the installment plan.
1