This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Turning the corner on "woke"?  (Read 45732 times)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #690 on: May 24, 2022, 04:40:45 PM »
It was quite common for people to be killed for insulting a man. Did everyone that behaved in such a manner get killed? No, of course not. However, it was a frequent, and well-understood reality of the time. I've also read history books--not fucking Wikipedia--that described the culture of dueling, and blood-vengeance. Insulting a man easily could get you into a duel and run the fuck through with a man's sword. Such deeply-held traditions resulted in so many men being killed as a common occurrence that it inspired newly-organized laws and civic codes to restrict, and eventually ban honour duels. That reality is not some kind of misconception or over simplification. it was a historical reality in America.

I'm not disputing that honor duels happened. I'm disputing that honor duels meant that everyone was polite to each other back then. As far as I can tell from the time, people were still pretty fucking rude to each other.

  Well, that is because the duels made history and were annotated.  There was a direct cost to being really rude.  Now there is zero cost for the most part.  MUCH more of the population then understood what it meant to be in a fight, and generally if they were rude, they understood it could lead directly to violence and possibly a duel.   That most certainly made people more polite as a general measure, but people will be people and people are always going to have conflict.  The biggest difference is you could have to actually cash the checks your mouth wrote then, and society would generally be fine with it. 

    It had two effects, almost all men understood they should understand how to handle their business if called to do so, and that running your mouth was something you better mean before you did it.

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3827
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #691 on: May 24, 2022, 05:45:44 PM »
It was quite common for people to be killed for insulting a man. Did everyone that behaved in such a manner get killed? No, of course not. However, it was a frequent, and well-understood reality of the time. I've also read history books--not fucking Wikipedia--that described the culture of dueling, and blood-vengeance. Insulting a man easily could get you into a duel and run the fuck through with a man's sword. Such deeply-held traditions resulted in so many men being killed as a common occurrence that it inspired newly-organized laws and civic codes to restrict, and eventually ban honour duels. That reality is not some kind of misconception or over simplification. it was a historical reality in America.

I'm not disputing that honor duels happened. I'm disputing that honor duels meant that everyone was polite to each other back then. As far as I can tell from the time, people were still pretty fucking rude to each other.

  Well, that is because the duels made history and were annotated.  There was a direct cost to being really rude.  Now there is zero cost for the most part.  MUCH more of the population then understood what it meant to be in a fight, and generally if they were rude, they understood it could lead directly to violence and possibly a duel.   That most certainly made people more polite as a general measure, but people will be people and people are always going to have conflict.  The biggest difference is you could have to actually cash the checks your mouth wrote then, and society would generally be fine with it. 

    It had two effects, almost all men understood they should understand how to handle their business if called to do so, and that running your mouth was something you better mean before you did it.

Greetings!

Exactly, Ogg!

I recall in my research--I had to do a whole thing on Honour Culture, Blood Vengence, and Dueling in America, with a side-focus on the war hero Stephen Decatur. Yes, the famous US Navy Commander, hero of our wars against the Barbary Pirates and Tripoli. Further out west, of course, more people used Colt pistols. We often hear about famous people, like Jackson, Burr, Adams, and Decatur--though my sources made frequent testimony to the great many "no-name" common people that died in honour duels, getting shot down for calling a man "Yellow" or insinuating some kind of insult about his family. That kind of thing very much could get you fucking killed in a matter of moments. Also, of course, being caught--or perceived--as cheating in cards, which likewise could get you stabbed or shot and killed in very short order. Social punishment was swift, often lethal, though sometimes merciful. Many men out West, for example, would demand that the offender make an immediate apology, and fucking grovel, in broad public daylight--or else go to the street and draw down. Time to pay the fuck up. And the local law enforcement didn't often intervene, either, as it was considered a man's right and *duty* to defend his honour or his family's. On occasion, witnesses or friends of some moron would seek to intercede, say if the fucking offender was drunk, very old, or considered to be "a boy". Sometimes, mercy would be shown to such, but showing mercy was not required. A man was in his rights to "Demand Satisfaction". I recall reading many tales of women--mothers--as well as fathers--lamenting they had a hot-headed, smart ass son, that as a teenager insulted a man, a grown man, and got called on the spot. The man would very often draw down and shoot the fucking punk right there, in the saloon, the market, or the street. That happened to many wannabe members of ANTIFA back in the day. It was a constant and very real danger to anyone that ran their fucking mouth and didn't show good manners and proper respect. This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him. Even arrogant rich men who ran their mouth's would risk getting gunned the fuck down, so they too, had to behave and speak in a proper, respectful manner, whether to the barber, a farmer, a banker, or a wealthy landowner or social peer.

You damned right people back then were more fucking polite and civil!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14487
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #692 on: May 24, 2022, 05:47:19 PM »
Let's just hope all this rudeness, cancelling and hatred leads to civil war.

I'd much prefer peaceful secession, but the People of the Pronoun seem to really want to make life miserable for the People of the Gun and only one culture will survive as a nation divided cannot stand.

Plus this slow collapse into communism is lame.

3catcircus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 436
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #693 on: May 24, 2022, 06:28:27 PM »
Let's just hope all this rudeness, cancelling and hatred leads to civil war.

I'd much prefer peaceful secession, but the People of the Pronoun seem to really want to make life miserable for the People of the Gun and only one culture will survive as a nation divided cannot stand.

Plus this slow collapse into communism is lame.

One thing that the "buy large mansions" antifa groomer set fails to understand is that there is a vast number of people who just want to be left the fuck alone. A goodly amount of them are veterans --who have been shot at in anger and have taken life-- go ahead and push them (whether by burning their businesses because some animale didn't listen to the police, because corrupt government gets way  out of control, or because ivory tower types with no common sense want to groom their kids via school curriculum infiltration). I dare you.  Go ahead, but be advised that when they decide they've put up with enough shit from leftists, they'll run the country out of body bags.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 4983
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #694 on: May 25, 2022, 09:14:25 AM »
It was quite common for people to be killed for insulting a man. Did everyone that behaved in such a manner get killed? No, of course not. However, it was a frequent, and well-understood reality of the time. I've also read history books--not fucking Wikipedia--that described the culture of dueling, and blood-vengeance. Insulting a man easily could get you into a duel and run the fuck through with a man's sword. Such deeply-held traditions resulted in so many men being killed as a common occurrence that it inspired newly-organized laws and civic codes to restrict, and eventually ban honour duels. That reality is not some kind of misconception or over simplification. it was a historical reality in America.

I'm not disputing that honor duels happened. I'm disputing that honor duels meant that everyone was polite to each other back then. As far as I can tell from the time, people were still pretty fucking rude to each other.

  Well, that is because the duels made history and were annotated.  There was a direct cost to being really rude.  Now there is zero cost for the most part.  MUCH more of the population then understood what it meant to be in a fight, and generally if they were rude, they understood it could lead directly to violence and possibly a duel.   That most certainly made people more polite as a general measure, but people will be people and people are always going to have conflict.  The biggest difference is you could have to actually cash the checks your mouth wrote then, and society would generally be fine with it. 

    It had two effects, almost all men understood they should understand how to handle their business if called to do so, and that running your mouth was something you better mean before you did it.

Greetings!

Exactly, Ogg!

I recall in my research--I had to do a whole thing on Honour Culture, Blood Vengence, and Dueling in America, with a side-focus on the war hero Stephen Decatur. Yes, the famous US Navy Commander, hero of our wars against the Barbary Pirates and Tripoli. Further out west, of course, more people used Colt pistols. We often hear about famous people, like Jackson, Burr, Adams, and Decatur--though my sources made frequent testimony to the great many "no-name" common people that died in honour duels, getting shot down for calling a man "Yellow" or insinuating some kind of insult about his family. That kind of thing very much could get you fucking killed in a matter of moments. Also, of course, being caught--or perceived--as cheating in cards, which likewise could get you stabbed or shot and killed in very short order. Social punishment was swift, often lethal, though sometimes merciful. Many men out West, for example, would demand that the offender make an immediate apology, and fucking grovel, in broad public daylight--or else go to the street and draw down. Time to pay the fuck up. And the local law enforcement didn't often intervene, either, as it was considered a man's right and *duty* to defend his honour or his family's. On occasion, witnesses or friends of some moron would seek to intercede, say if the fucking offender was drunk, very old, or considered to be "a boy". Sometimes, mercy would be shown to such, but showing mercy was not required. A man was in his rights to "Demand Satisfaction". I recall reading many tales of women--mothers--as well as fathers--lamenting they had a hot-headed, smart ass son, that as a teenager insulted a man, a grown man, and got called on the spot. The man would very often draw down and shoot the fucking punk right there, in the saloon, the market, or the street. That happened to many wannabe members of ANTIFA back in the day. It was a constant and very real danger to anyone that ran their fucking mouth and didn't show good manners and proper respect. This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him. Even arrogant rich men who ran their mouth's would risk getting gunned the fuck down, so they too, had to behave and speak in a proper, respectful manner, whether to the barber, a farmer, a banker, or a wealthy landowner or social peer.

You damned right people back then were more fucking polite and civil!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

All that was missing from your piece was "GLORY TO THE EMPIRE!" shouted in the original Klingon.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 887
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #695 on: May 25, 2022, 03:05:20 PM »
I’m also too young to have used the term colored, but it’s bewildering that colored is forbidden, but people of color is ok.

The theory -- derived, I believe, from some form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis about how words and language use shape habits of thought -- is that by placing the word "people" first in the term, the listener will subconsciously understand that the common "people-ness" is more important than the distinguishing epidermal tone.

Of course, if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is wrong -- and it has, I believe, been pretty conclusively debunked in linguistic circles, at least so far as I last heard -- then this is as nonsensical as attributing witchcraft based on the presence or size of skin moles. But those addicted to the rush of mob denunciation, like addicts of any sort, don't need reasons to chase their dragon -- only excuses.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 887
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #696 on: May 25, 2022, 03:21:53 PM »
This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him.

I was intrigued to read this because this addresses one of the issues I always had with duelling culture, despite admiring the way that (in principle) it demanded people back up public slander with public bravery: in practice, it was very easy for the wealthy who could afford better weapons and training time, or even to hire champions to fight on their behalf, to abuse the privilege of "calling out" those who "disrespected" them by deliberately "taking offense" at the words and actions of those too poor or friendless to be any kind of a dangerous opponent. This, in turn, served to disincentivize return challenges; as with today's cancel culture, by demonstrating what happens to the first person who dares to call out an established authority, most of the rest are strongly discouraged from being that first spark.

Was this dynamic less at play in the 19th-century USA? In a theoretically classless society, differences in class privilege should have been less of a protection, but I admit I still find it hard to believe a poor dockworker could challenge his wealthy shipping magnate boss to a duel and manage to accomplish anything.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #697 on: May 25, 2022, 03:27:43 PM »
This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him.

I was intrigued to read this because this addresses one of the issues I always had with duelling culture, despite admiring the way that (in principle) it demanded people back up public slander with public bravery: in practice, it was very easy for the wealthy who could afford better weapons and training time, or even to hire champions to fight on their behalf, to abuse the privilege of "calling out" those who "disrespected" them by deliberately "taking offense" at the words and actions of those too poor or friendless to be any kind of a dangerous opponent. This, in turn, served to disincentivize return challenges; as with today's cancel culture, by demonstrating what happens to the first person who dares to call out an established authority, most of the rest are strongly discouraged from being that first spark.

Was this dynamic less at play in the 19th-century USA? In a theoretically classless society, differences in class privilege should have been less of a protection, but I admit I still find it hard to believe a poor dockworker could challenge his wealthy shipping magnate boss to a duel and manage to accomplish anything.

  That scenario makes me think of the duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham.  The deck is stacked against Rob, and he is outmatched for the reasons you mention above (training time, money for expert teachers, etc) but it is literally the ONLY chance he will get for redress.  So would you prefer zero chance to little chance? 

  I also doubt the dockworker is challenging the shipping magnate to a duel, they have little reason to be at personal odds with one another, and honestly  I think shipping magnates know better than to try to piss off beefy stevedores just because they can.  In the USA in the 19th century I think getting your teeth knocked out on the spot was more likely than a challenge to a gentlemanly duel.   But that is not exactly a scenario where I could see a duel/argument popping up no more than cubicle worker number 2 deciding today is the day he seeks redress from his supervisor via a slap today.   I suspect the dockworker would just quit.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 03:33:42 PM by oggsmash »

wmarshal

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • w
  • Posts: 464
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #698 on: May 25, 2022, 03:32:16 PM »
I’m also too young to have used the term colored, but it’s bewildering that colored is forbidden, but people of color is ok.

The theory -- derived, I believe, from some form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis about how words and language use shape habits of thought -- is that by placing the word "people" first in the term, the listener will subconsciously understand that the common "people-ness" is more important than the distinguishing epidermal tone.

Of course, if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is wrong -- and it has, I believe, been pretty conclusively debunked in linguistic circles, at least so far as I last heard -- then this is as nonsensical as attributing witchcraft based on the presence or size of skin moles. But those addicted to the rush of mob denunciation, like addicts of any sort, don't need reasons to chase their dragon -- only excuses.
I’m not familiar with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but I’ve stumbled across that General idea before. I didn’t make the connection here.

It seems it’s useful to make the distinction by the Woke, so that it can be used as a cudgel.

Personally I’d think it better to drop both terms. It’s not like whites actually lack color. I get that the term colored was created and used by white racists to describe “those people”, but coming up with people of color seems like a dumb countermove. But a Woke person loves to have linguistic weapons to bash people with.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 887
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #699 on: May 25, 2022, 03:58:46 PM »
That scenario makes me think of the duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham.  The deck is stacked against Rob, and he is outmatched for the reasons you mention above (training time, money for expert teachers, etc) but it is literally the ONLY chance he will get for redress.  So would you prefer zero chance to little chance?

Bear in mind that Rob only won that duel because Cunningham made the mistakes of (a) taking time to gloat at the last moment and (b) not expecting Rob to mutilate himself by grabbing his enemy's blade with his bare hand. One can't count on every a-hole who abuses his physical proficiency at violence to do the same thing. And the only reason Rob was legally allowed to challenge Cunningham at all was because they were nominally both of the aristocracy (Rob was a Scottish chieftain, Archie the bastard son of an English noble). Had Rob been an ordinary Scottish clansman Cunningham could have ignored him, or had his guards thrash him, without the slightest hit to his reputation.

Little chance may be preferable to zero chance, but laws that permit settling grievances in court rather than in the ring are, I would suggest, far better than either. I was just curious about whether the lack of formal legal protection for one class over another made a difference in how duels actually shook down in practice.

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3827
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #700 on: May 25, 2022, 04:13:21 PM »
This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him.

I was intrigued to read this because this addresses one of the issues I always had with duelling culture, despite admiring the way that (in principle) it demanded people back up public slander with public bravery: in practice, it was very easy for the wealthy who could afford better weapons and training time, or even to hire champions to fight on their behalf, to abuse the privilege of "calling out" those who "disrespected" them by deliberately "taking offense" at the words and actions of those too poor or friendless to be any kind of a dangerous opponent. This, in turn, served to disincentivize return challenges; as with today's cancel culture, by demonstrating what happens to the first person who dares to call out an established authority, most of the rest are strongly discouraged from being that first spark.

Was this dynamic less at play in the 19th-century USA? In a theoretically classless society, differences in class privilege should have been less of a protection, but I admit I still find it hard to believe a poor dockworker could challenge his wealthy shipping magnate boss to a duel and manage to accomplish anything.

Greetings!

Yes, my friend, indeed, class structure has always been present in America, and I think you are right in that there probably was more of a social layer of "insulation" say, in the East, for our hypothetical ship magnate and a common dock worker. However, it would be far more hazardous--and thus the class barriers and social "insulation" far thinner and much more fragile out West. Essentially, everywhere west of the Mississippi River. In the West, there were incidents of wealthy ranchers and landowners getting gunned down, or strung up and lynched for their sins. Arrogance and offending anyone--even a common man--could be very hazardous, even for a wealthy person far above them in social class.

Throughout American society, especially from the 18th and through the 19th centuries, there is an interesting cultural impact that Honour Culture and the traditions of dueling made, effecting different strata in different measures, and thus also inspiring some differences in interpretation and application, certainly, though I think the presence and influence has been significant throughout this time period. Out West, severe enough outrages provoked, as I mentioned, not being killed in a duel--more often with pistols--but with being burned alive or lynched. Sometimes the whole family was killed as well.

It all fed into a social climate that composed the frontier America. Of course, the elite had "Noblisse Oblige"--wealth and success were naturally applauded and hugely admired, as well as social aspects of speech, learning, reading, and breeding. Though there was also a consciousness that all men were equal, at least in God's eyes, and all men deserved dignity and respect. Provoking that basic truth was undoubtedly dangerous. I was surprised to learn that yes, that was a real social dynamic for everyone. It certainly does seem to have contributed strongly towards inspiring an American culture that was, after a fashion, generally polite, civil, and respectful. Much, much more so than we have today. For example, it was also once the social standard to address every man as "Sir" or "Master". Later conventions, similar to the European traditions, were to address people also by their last name--"Mr. Johnson" for example. Addressing someone by their first name, let alone by some common familiar "hey you" or something, was only appropriate for the best of friends or family members. American society was much more respectful and formal, in speech, in dress codes and standards, as well as social behavior. Many of these traditions and expectations endured well into the 20th century, perhaps up until the social rebellion of the hippies and scum of the 1960's and 1970's.

That reminds me of stories and traditions that my grandmother on my mother's side used to often instruct me about. She always explained that in *her day* society and people were much more polite, respectful, and dignified than so many people today. It was scandalous and shameful in her view how society had degraded.

I can well imagine how much more strict, and demanding society must have been *before my grandmother* who was born in 1906.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #701 on: May 26, 2022, 08:05:22 AM »
That scenario makes me think of the duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham.  The deck is stacked against Rob, and he is outmatched for the reasons you mention above (training time, money for expert teachers, etc) but it is literally the ONLY chance he will get for redress.  So would you prefer zero chance to little chance?

Bear in mind that Rob only won that duel because Cunningham made the mistakes of (a) taking time to gloat at the last moment and (b) not expecting Rob to mutilate himself by grabbing his enemy's blade with his bare hand. One can't count on every a-hole who abuses his physical proficiency at violence to do the same thing. And the only reason Rob was legally allowed to challenge Cunningham at all was because they were nominally both of the aristocracy (Rob was a Scottish chieftain, Archie the bastard son of an English noble). Had Rob been an ordinary Scottish clansman Cunningham could have ignored him, or had his guards thrash him, without the slightest hit to his reputation.

Little chance may be preferable to zero chance, but laws that permit settling grievances in court rather than in the ring are, I would suggest, far better than either. I was just curious about whether the lack of formal legal protection for one class over another made a difference in how duels actually shook down in practice.

  unless you have excellent lawyers (as in elite) your chances for legal redress against what would pass for nobility now is not great either. 

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 887
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #702 on: May 26, 2022, 08:12:41 AM »
  unless you have excellent lawyers (as in elite) your chances for legal redress against what would pass for nobility now is not great either.

Granted. But they're better than what they would be if I had to rely on fists, swords or guns, and stand a much better chance of not leaving me imprisoned, maimed or dead in the attempt.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2022, 08:19:39 AM by Stephen Tannhauser »
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #703 on: May 26, 2022, 12:18:51 PM »
  unless you have excellent lawyers (as in elite) your chances for legal redress against what would pass for nobility now is not great either.

Granted. But they're better than what they would be if I had to rely on fists, swords or guns, and stand a much better chance of not leaving me imprisoned, maimed or dead in the attempt.

    To each his own.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 4983
Re: Turning the corner on "woke"?
« Reply #704 on: May 26, 2022, 12:41:23 PM »
  unless you have excellent lawyers (as in elite) your chances for legal redress against what would pass for nobility now is not great either.

Granted. But they're better than what they would be if I had to rely on fists, swords or guns, and stand a much better chance of not leaving me imprisoned, maimed or dead in the attempt.

    To each his own.
That's not how it works when people live alongside one another in an interdependent society.  That's why there are governments.