FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Why is being Woke seen as a bad thing?
Why is being Woke seen as a bad thing?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. " My profile states "No-one who thinks Woke is an insult" It is a standard tactic of a lot of groups, especially news media (typically most are right wing) to take a word being used by a progressive word, and attaching vitriol to it. So eventually everyone in the demographic they cater to sees the word they see the attached vitriol, not the meaning of the word. | |||
 | |||
"Woke Karen’s are the worst "I'd like to speak to the manager of oppression please! | |||
| |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. My profile states "No-one who thinks Woke is an insult" It is a standard tactic of a lot of groups, especially news media (typically most are right wing) to take a word being used by a progressive word, and attaching vitriol to it. So eventually everyone in the demographic they cater to sees the word they see the attached vitriol, not the meaning of the word." This, we are living in a society where people want to divide and demonise minorities. Woke is the insult of choice directed at those of us who don't and won't but in to that | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it's often used to shut people down. " This is my thinking. It's rarely used in the right context and often as an insult. | |||
"It’s used pejoratively by people who don’t understand that equality really benefits everyone. " Nailed it! | |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them " Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature. | |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature." Not necessarily. | |||
| |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them I'd have thought the government and media were some of the worst offenders of wokeness, no? Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature." | |||
"Wokeness in itself isn't the problem (each to their own etc). It's the tendency of the woke to be preachy and self-righteous that grates, surpassed only by their apparent duty to 'educate' others. " The irony!  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature. Not necessarily. " I would argue that the split is such that calling them anti-media and anti-government is more accurate than calling them pro-media and pro-government I would even so it is heavily in that favour. Exceptions will of course exist | |||
| |||
"Woke Karen’s are the worst
I'd like to speak to the manager of oppression please!"Karen’s husband will be over shortly | |||
"It's just the latest in a long line of terms - eg "political correctness" - that the right pushes because they don't like people advocating for equality. Can some people being "woke" be annoying and over the top sometimes? Sure, but that's kinda preferable to the opposite, where people will deny that oppression of minorities even exists. " Spot on and the reason I pose this question is because One of the former candidates for the Conservative leadership race Said penny Mordaunt is too woke To be leader and it got me thinking, is that a bad thing? Ultimately being woke is about take a quality And as I said before I think the word has been hijacked to mean something over the top or bad. | |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature. Not necessarily. I would argue that the split is such that calling them anti-media and anti-government is more accurate than calling them pro-media and pro-government I would even so it is heavily in that favour. Exceptions will of course exist" I think the vast majority of people that have woke tendances are not anti-media or anti-government. Some people that are anti-media and anti-government will also be woke I think is a better description. | |||
| |||
"Like the guy said before, it’s a new stereotype the media wish to destroy. Being woke to me means being able to question everything and that isn’t a good thing. They want subservient blind followers that do what the media/government tell them Woke activists are anti-media and anti-government by their very nature. Not necessarily. I would argue that the split is such that calling them anti-media and anti-government is more accurate than calling them pro-media and pro-government I would even so it is heavily in that favour. Exceptions will of course exist I think the vast majority of people that have woke tendances are not anti-media or anti-government. Some people that are anti-media and anti-government will also be woke I think is a better description. " Most people I who will accept the term woke I know of are fighting against social injustices which are systemic, like racism, homophobia, income inequality etc. It is hard to campaign against something systemic and simultaneously be pro the system that upholds it. | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. " Yeah we do that  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I view it as a word to be applied to people who 'bandwagon'... generally ideolog's who take up causes and tend not to read the instructions and develop militant views based on a very superficial or limited knowledge... I do think there are quite different connotations between the American and British versions of the word too..." But that isn't what the word means and I think that's where the confusion comes in because people interpret it in different ways. Is it militant to want equality regardless of your race, sex ect.. I'm often seeing people being called woke because they don't think it's right That abortion laws are being changed in America or i even saw people calling someone woke the other day on a post on FB because they didn't think it was right that people on benefits were vilified. These are some of the examples that I have seen recently and totally out of context which is why I think it is often used as an insult and just a shut people up that have opposing views. | |||
"I view it as a word to be applied to people who 'bandwagon'... generally ideolog's who take up causes and tend not to read the instructions and develop militant views based on a very superficial or limited knowledge... I do think there are quite different connotations between the American and British versions of the word too..." Ya. The dictionary meaning of the word is totally different. Historically too it's been used under a different context. But in recent days, it's a word being used in the context you mentioned. | |||
 | |||
"I view it as a word to be applied to people who 'bandwagon'... generally ideolog's who take up causes and tend not to read the instructions and develop militant views based on a very superficial or limited knowledge... I do think there are quite different connotations between the American and British versions of the word too... But that isn't what the word means and I think that's where the confusion comes in because people interpret it in different ways. Is it militant to want equality regardless of your race, sex ect.. I'm often seeing people being called woke because they don't think it's right That abortion laws are being changed in America or i even saw people calling someone woke the other day on a post on FB because they didn't think it was right that people on benefits were vilified. These are some of the examples that I have seen recently and totally out of context which is why I think it is often used as an insult and just a shut people up that have opposing views. " When it comes to equality, it boils down to the methods. Fighting for equality of rights is one thing. But fighting for equality of outcome is another thing. I have seen some who repeatedly say that tech companies have poor gender ratio and they need to do it better. Around 3 years back, only 16 percent of computer science degree graduates were women. Asking for 50:50 split in this employment sector is a militant view not understanding the underlying factors. | |||
"I view it as a word to be applied to people who 'bandwagon'... generally ideolog's who take up causes and tend not to read the instructions and develop militant views based on a very superficial or limited knowledge... I do think there are quite different connotations between the American and British versions of the word too... But that isn't what the word means and I think that's where the confusion comes in because people interpret it in different ways. Is it militant to want equality regardless of your race, sex ect.. I'm often seeing people being called woke because they don't think it's right That abortion laws are being changed in America or i even saw people calling someone woke the other day on a post on FB because they didn't think it was right that people on benefits were vilified. These are some of the examples that I have seen recently and totally out of context which is why I think it is often used as an insult and just a shut people up that have opposing views. When it comes to equality, it boils down to the methods. Fighting for equality of rights is one thing. But fighting for equality of outcome is another thing. I have seen some who repeatedly say that tech companies have poor gender ratio and they need to do it better. Around 3 years back, only 16 percent of computer science degree graduates were women. Asking for 50:50 split in this employment sector is a militant view not understanding the underlying factors." Is asking for something and aiming for something militant? Maybe you've just worded it poorly but this is what I'm seeing a lot, people asking for something Or thinking something in the ideal world should happen are somehow extreme or militant and I think that is the problem. | |||
| |||
"Unfortunately it's all a part of the 'divide and rule' culture that is being promoted by some political parties and their friends in the press. If you don't support their agenda then you are 'woke' and therefore a danger to the sort of society they want. I tend to find that I'm the polar opposite of the perpetually outraged Daily Mail readers so I guess I'm happy for them to call me 'woke'." I could not agree more. | |||
| |||
"It's just the latest in a long line of terms - eg "political correctness" - that the right pushes because they don't like people advocating for equality. Can some people being "woke" be annoying and over the top sometimes? Sure, but that's kinda preferable to the opposite, where people will deny that oppression of minorities even exists. " Preaching about the right to be an oppressive douchebag is way worse  | |||
"I view it as a word to be applied to people who 'bandwagon'... generally ideolog's who take up causes and tend not to read the instructions and develop militant views based on a very superficial or limited knowledge... I do think there are quite different connotations between the American and British versions of the word too... But that isn't what the word means and I think that's where the confusion comes in because people interpret it in different ways. Is it militant to want equality regardless of your race, sex ect.. I'm often seeing people being called woke because they don't think it's right That abortion laws are being changed in America or i even saw people calling someone woke the other day on a post on FB because they didn't think it was right that people on benefits were vilified. These are some of the examples that I have seen recently and totally out of context which is why I think it is often used as an insult and just a shut people up that have opposing views. When it comes to equality, it boils down to the methods. Fighting for equality of rights is one thing. But fighting for equality of outcome is another thing. I have seen some who repeatedly say that tech companies have poor gender ratio and they need to do it better. Around 3 years back, only 16 percent of computer science degree graduates were women. Asking for 50:50 split in this employment sector is a militant view not understanding the underlying factors. Is asking for something and aiming for something militant? Maybe you've just worded it poorly but this is what I'm seeing a lot, people asking for something Or thinking something in the ideal world should happen are somehow extreme or militant and I think that is the problem. " No . Aiming for something is not militant. But calling a company to be sexist when they have no way of fulfilling the sex ratio is. If they really cared about it, they need to focus on why not many women are taking up tech degrees in the first place. Trying to improve gender ratio in companies when the gender ratio on supply side is still low is just illogical. But unfortunately there are some people who would try to enforce that. Then there is a complex case of free will vs equality of outcome. If you randomly pick 10,000 men and 10,000 women and ask them what their ideal career goal is, will the ratio of choices be same? I don't think so. What would an "ideal" society look like, if we take that into consideration? The thing is no ideology in its purest form is perfect. One can find loopholes in everything. There are nuances in every situation which people with militant views won't get. Either way, these labels are often ambiguous and misused. The dictionary definition of woke is completely different. The current usage is basically for idealogues. I personally think most people are moderates. It's the internet that has caused too much political polarisation and driving people into tribalism. For instance, the term "right winger" is also very ambiguous. One can be a right wing conservative and also a right wing libertarian. But then, we can't do much about it. People will keep misusing these words. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"It's just the latest in a long line of terms - eg "political correctness" - that the right pushes because they don't like people advocating for equality. Can some people being "woke" be annoying and over the top sometimes? Sure, but that's kinda preferable to the opposite, where people will deny that oppression of minorities even exists. Preaching about the right to be an oppressive douchebag is way worse ""an oppressive douchebag" .... is that the opposite of being woke then? Must we decide? | |||
| |||
"It's just the latest in a long line of terms - eg "political correctness" - that the right pushes because they don't like people advocating for equality. Can some people being "woke" be annoying and over the top sometimes? Sure, but that's kinda preferable to the opposite, where people will deny that oppression of minorities even exists. Preaching about the right to be an oppressive douchebag is way worse
"an oppressive douchebag" .... is that the opposite of being woke then? Must we decide?"The statement said it was worse, not the opposite. | |||
"It's just the latest in a long line of terms - eg "political correctness" - that the right pushes because they don't like people advocating for equality. Can some people being "woke" be annoying and over the top sometimes? Sure, but that's kinda preferable to the opposite, where people will deny that oppression of minorities even exists. Preaching about the right to be an oppressive douchebag is way worse
"an oppressive douchebag" .... is that the opposite of being woke then? Must we decide?"Didn't say that. | |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. My profile states "No-one who thinks Woke is an insult" It is a standard tactic of a lot of groups, especially news media (typically most are right wing) to take a word being used by a progressive word, and attaching vitriol to it. So eventually everyone in the demographic they cater to sees the word they see the attached vitriol, not the meaning of the word." That’s right but it’s not only the right that do this, it’s very common in post-truth UK, it’s called culture jamming, culture is much more powerful than facts/truth The hard left used very similar tactics, refusing to debate immigration and just associating it with racism etc , eventually anyone with any view other than for uncontrolled immigration was a racist | |||
| |||
"Woke, at best, and in its least malignant form, is just a way for white middle-class liberals to feel better about themselves. They can spout well-meaning platitudes and be accepted (by other Wokes) as a good person without having to actually do anything. (The amount of "anti-rascist" Wokes who live all-white lives, in nice white areas, and send their children to "good" ie white schools is just one example of this. Gary Lineker is their patron saint.) These are the silliest, least harmful, most amusing type of Wokes. They are not a new thing. They are what George Orwell used to term "the pansy Left". The other kind of Woke is more deliberate. At worst, it is the hard Left's latest weapon in its long war to achieve its tedious goal of undermining society and fermenting division where none previously existed. It is an attempt not just to overturn cultural norms and reshape the West - you won't find too much wokery in Asia or Africa or even Eastern Europe - but to deny truth, or at least remould truth into something that the Left finds acceptable. To prove this denial of truth I'll give you two Woke tenets: "Trans women are real women" No they're not, despite all the gruff-voiced protestations to the contrary. The most laughable and most blatant example of this lunacy is the "lesbian activist" Alex Drummond, who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis. Now, most sane people, presented with a person who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis, will have no problem correctly identifying that individual as a heterosexual male, even if he is wearing a Laura Ashley sun frock (the girlfriend, the beard, and the penis being a bit of a giveaway). But no, say the Wokes. Alex claims "she" is a lesbian, so we must all accept that, and anyone who does not accept it, who finds it risible, risks legal entanglement. (Notice how often Wokeys attack the police, and claim we are living in a fascist police state, but are the first to ring 999 when their sensibilities are offended or simply challenged. I find it hilarious.) This is MADNESS. For the record, I believe that people like "Ms" Drummond have the freedom to dress as they please, and call themselves whatever they like, but the rest of us also have the freedom to laugh out loud when said persons claim to be lesbians. Which they clearly aren't and never can be. Second Woke Tenet "All cultures are equal" No they are not. In the West, over centuries, we have built a culture unique in the world for its values of tolerance and freedom. If "Ms" Drummond or any other beardy frockaholic doubts that, then they should try taking a saunter through Tehran, or Nairobi, or even Moscow, and see how far they get. " And thisvisvwhy I will always be shamelessly and unapologetically woke | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. " This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. | |||
"Woke, at best, and in its least malignant form, is just a way for white middle-class liberals to feel better about themselves. They can spout well-meaning platitudes and be accepted (by other Wokes) as a good person without having to actually do anything. (The amount of "anti-rascist" Wokes who live all-white lives, in nice white areas, and send their children to "good" ie white schools is just one example of this. Gary Lineker is their patron saint.) These are the silliest, least harmful, most amusing type of Wokes. They are not a new thing. They are what George Orwell used to term "the pansy Left". The other kind of Woke is more deliberate. At worst, it is the hard Left's latest weapon in its long war to achieve its tedious goal of undermining society and fermenting division where none previously existed. It is an attempt not just to overturn cultural norms and reshape the West - you won't find too much wokery in Asia or Africa or even Eastern Europe - but to deny truth, or at least remould truth into something that the Left finds acceptable. To prove this denial of truth I'll give you two Woke tenets: "Trans women are real women" No they're not, despite all the gruff-voiced protestations to the contrary. The most laughable and most blatant example of this lunacy is the "lesbian activist" Alex Drummond, who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis. Now, most sane people, presented with a person who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis, will have no problem correctly identifying that individual as a heterosexual male, even if he is wearing a Laura Ashley sun frock (the girlfriend, the beard, and the penis being a bit of a giveaway). But no, say the Wokes. Alex claims "she" is a lesbian, so we must all accept that, and anyone who does not accept it, who finds it risible, risks legal entanglement. (Notice how often Wokeys attack the police, and claim we are living in a fascist police state, but are the first to ring 999 when their sensibilities are offended or simply challenged. I find it hilarious.) This is MADNESS. For the record, I believe that people like "Ms" Drummond have the freedom to dress as they please, and call themselves whatever they like, but the rest of us also have the freedom to laugh out loud when said persons claim to be lesbians. Which they clearly aren't and never can be. Second Woke Tenet "All cultures are equal" No they are not. In the West, over centuries, we have built a culture unique in the world for its values of tolerance and freedom. If "Ms" Drummond or any other beardy frockaholic doubts that, then they should try taking a saunter through Tehran, or Nairobi, or even Moscow, and see how far they get. And thisvisvwhy I will always be shamelessly and unapologetically woke" Yeah. Pretty much. | |||
"Woke, at best, and in its least malignant form, is just a way for white middle-class liberals to feel better about themselves. They can spout well-meaning platitudes and be accepted (by other Wokes) as a good person without having to actually do anything. (The amount of "anti-rascist" Wokes who live all-white lives, in nice white areas, and send their children to "good" ie white schools is just one example of this. Gary Lineker is their patron saint.) These are the silliest, least harmful, most amusing type of Wokes. They are not a new thing. They are what George Orwell used to term "the pansy Left". The other kind of Woke is more deliberate. At worst, it is the hard Left's latest weapon in its long war to achieve its tedious goal of undermining society and fermenting division where none previously existed. It is an attempt not just to overturn cultural norms and reshape the West - you won't find too much wokery in Asia or Africa or even Eastern Europe - but to deny truth, or at least remould truth into something that the Left finds acceptable. To prove this denial of truth I'll give you two Woke tenets: "Trans women are real women" No they're not, despite all the gruff-voiced protestations to the contrary. The most laughable and most blatant example of this lunacy is the "lesbian activist" Alex Drummond, who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis. Now, most sane people, presented with a person who has a girlfriend, a beard, and a penis, will have no problem correctly identifying that individual as a heterosexual male, even if he is wearing a Laura Ashley sun frock (the girlfriend, the beard, and the penis being a bit of a giveaway). But no, say the Wokes. Alex claims "she" is a lesbian, so we must all accept that, and anyone who does not accept it, who finds it risible, risks legal entanglement. (Notice how often Wokeys attack the police, and claim we are living in a fascist police state, but are the first to ring 999 when their sensibilities are offended or simply challenged. I find it hilarious.) This is MADNESS. For the record, I believe that people like "Ms" Drummond have the freedom to dress as they please, and call themselves whatever they like, but the rest of us also have the freedom to laugh out loud when said persons claim to be lesbians. Which they clearly aren't and never can be. Second Woke Tenet "All cultures are equal" No they are not. In the West, over centuries, we have built a culture unique in the world for its values of tolerance and freedom. If "Ms" Drummond or any other beardy frockaholic doubts that, then they should try taking a saunter through Tehran, or Nairobi, or even Moscow, and see how far they get. And thisvisvwhy I will always be shamelessly and unapologetically woke" This ^^^
Woke and Proud | |||
"Wokeness in itself isn't the problem (each to their own etc). It's the tendency of the woke to be preachy and self-righteous that grates, surpassed only by their apparent duty to 'educate' others. " Much like the loony religious right | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. " There are lots of words that have been used in different ways by different people or times. Doesn't make the usages wrong. Whenever I see 'woke' or 'snowflake' I just assume it's been used by somebody who got their education from the Daily Mail. | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. There are lots of words that have been used in different ways by different people or times. Doesn't make the usages wrong. Whenever I see 'woke' or 'snowflake' I just assume it's been used by somebody who got their education from the Daily Mail." Yes i think most people know that... youre missing the point, but i digress. The polarising prejudices that you too are exhibiting, are what will help it all roll on... and on and on.  | |||
"Yes i think most people know that... youre missing the point, but i digress. The polarising prejudices that you too are exhibiting, are what will help it all roll on... and on and on. "I think I did miss the point, yes
It must be hidden in all that word vomit. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. " The funny thing is “woke” doesn’t mean that thing you said it does. It all started as in-joke in black America. Like, you’d say a tongue in cheek conspiracy and then say “stay woke”. It was making fun of hotep types. The kind of person that always thinks they’re enlightened. So it really isn’t a good term to start off with. Then of course the rest of the reason I don’t like it (and probably many others) is that it comes across as virtue signalling and it doesn’t help that most “woke” people are middle class and upper middle class, who actually seem to use social justice as a means of getting power and abusing rivals. Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now | |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. The funny thing is “woke” doesn’t mean that thing you said it does. It all started as in-joke in black America. Like, you’d say a tongue in cheek conspiracy and then say “stay woke”. It was making fun of hotep types. The kind of person that always thinks they’re enlightened. So it really isn’t a good term to start off with. **Then of course the rest of the reason I don’t like it (and probably many others) is that it comes across as virtue signalling and it doesn’t help that most “woke” people are middle class and upper middle class, who actually seem to use social justice as a means of getting power and abusing rivals.** Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now " ** | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now " You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’?" Yeah. People whine about other people daring to take up space. You dare push back, and you're pummelled with right wing dog whistles | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? Yeah. People whine about other people daring to take up space. You dare push back, and you're pummelled with right wing dog whistles " Is it right wing to protect women's rights ? Surely not ? | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’?" No. That doesn’t even happen. This is sort of an example of what I mean though - untruths being spread as fact. I mean 1984 in the sense that we are living in a post-truth society. Told what we can and can’t say, what we can and can’t believe. The education system is being censored. We are being encouraged to shed our individuality int he belief that we must all think and feel the same. Those who don’t are “wrong”. I don’t understand how anyone can believe this is a good thing. | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? No. That doesn’t even happen. This is sort of an example of what I mean though - untruths being spread as fact. I mean 1984 in the sense that we are living in a post-truth society. Told what we can and can’t say, what we can and can’t believe. The education system is being censored. We are being encouraged to shed our individuality int he belief that we must all think and feel the same. Those who don’t are “wrong”. I don’t understand how anyone can believe this is a good thing." I am confused is it the Woke or the Anti-Woke who you claim are doing this? | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? No. That doesn’t even happen. This is sort of an example of what I mean though - untruths being spread as fact. I mean 1984 in the sense that we are living in a post-truth society. Told what we can and can’t say, what we can and can’t believe. The education system is being censored. We are being encouraged to shed our individuality int he belief that we must all think and feel the same. Those who don’t are “wrong”. I don’t understand how anyone can believe this is a good thing." I'd say this is bollocks. Somebody on the radio was joking about how people who get 'cancelled' never seem to get the irony of how they moan about it on the massive platforms they have. | |||
| |||
"Because I think some people use it as a way to deflect attention from themselves, follow the current fashionable opinion and basically be a shite bag. Basically virtue signalling. Having said that, some people's genuine opinions will be woke...in which case fair dos..." People tend to use "Virtue Signalling" very much how they use Woke too! Often incorrectly and as a deflection! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? Yeah. People whine about other people daring to take up space. You dare push back, and you're pummelled with right wing dog whistles Is it right wing to protect women's rights ? Surely not ?" Woke isn’t about womens rights. Thst just can be an aspect of wokism. It encompasses multi facets in life from politics to physical objects it’s a spectrum. Most people online social sites view woke as things like tokenism / Hollywood with films snd rebranding stuff / recasting / pandering to various agendas …. Woke in it’s core sense is simply being aware of the bigger picture outside and that’s fine all good. It’s a problem when something becomes riddled with extremism on all sides by a few not the many. The loss of healthy debate is a sad state of affairs to live in. We all can’t see life / walk life through the same lenses and see eye to eye. That’s fine as long as a common ground based on mutual standard respect happens. Everyone is valid in life and has a right to be treated firstly as an equal human being before we even start on the meat of topics to debate reach compromise . Solutions. Whining over zealous cunts exist on all sides and the people really shouldn’t be listening to these elements as the voice for what ever side / alignment you sit on .. All I ever see is people on left and right screaming how hard problems / life / unfair is. Myself all I see is simply a problem that just needs some combined effort at creating a solution for all … | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. " What an incoherent and mostly meaningless post. "Woke" did not arise in Marxist circles, but in black American vernacular. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html | |||
"Just be a human being .. treat others how you are treated the division is ridiculous. " | |||
"Because I think some people use it as a way to deflect attention from themselves, follow the current fashionable opinion and basically be a shite bag. Basically virtue signalling. Having said that, some people's genuine opinions will be woke...in which case fair dos... People tend to use "Virtue Signalling" very much how they use Woke too! Often incorrectly and as a deflection!" Aye...whatever. You carry in being virtuous. I'll carry on being a nasty bigot | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now You mean in the sense that if you call out prejudice you get dismissed as ‘woke’? Yeah. People whine about other people daring to take up space. You dare push back, and you're pummelled with right wing dog whistles Is it right wing to protect women's rights ? Surely not ?" It's extremely right wing to twist words to mean different things and coopt causes for disingenuous purposes  | |||
| |||
"I see it as that there are extremes on either side. People who take being woke too far and fond problems in things that have no problems, or those who read too much into those of us, like myself, who are "woke""
It's a form of new labeling from both sides. Political power over the masses. We all human beings just because someone disagrees it's not a reason to label them in a certain way. It's the new divider
... | |||
"I see it as that there are extremes on either side. People who take being woke too far and fond problems in things that have no problems, or those who read too much into those of us, like myself, who are "woke"
It's a form of new labeling from both sides. Political power over the masses. We all human beings just because someone disagrees it's not a reason to label them in a certain way. It's the new divider
..."Absolutely agree. People see the extremes and label everyone under that instead of seeing that it's a small minority who are screaming over very small minor things | |||
| |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. What an incoherent and mostly meaningless post. "Woke" did not arise in Marxist circles, but in black American vernacular. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html " Is the use of woke cultural appropriation ? | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. What an incoherent and mostly meaningless post. "Woke" did not arise in Marxist circles, but in black American vernacular. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html Is the use of woke cultural appropriation ?" . It's a form of division. | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now " It's precisely 1984. You have denunciations, public show trials via social media, and the creation of un-persons through the ridiculousness of cancel culture. They even have their own version of doublethink, in this case lambasting their opponents' beliefs while holding beliefs that are equally if not more ludicrous. For example, Wokeys will ridicule the religious Right for denying evolution, but insist that men can become women just by declaring themselves so. There are limits though. I could become a woman right now, according to Wokies, but I couldn't become black. Even though I have way more in common physiologically with a black man than I do with a white woman. Why can I become a white woman but not a black man? BECAUSE THE RULES OF WOKE ARE MADE BY THE WOKE. Of course, to sane people it's perfectly obvious that I could become neither, lacking as I do female chromosomes or African heritage. An insane position would be to insist that I could become either, as it would consider biology meaningless when compared with instinct. If that were the case then I could become a cocker spaniel if I wished. But only the special kind of madness that is currently plaguing the West would disallow me from describing myself as a black man, but would happily accept my self-description as a white woman, penis and all. But as I said, Wokies make the rules. Or rather, we are allowing them to impose their rules on us. | |||
"Not to mention it’s all getting very 1984 now It's precisely 1984. You have denunciations, public show trials via social media, and the creation of un-persons through the ridiculousness of cancel culture. They even have their own version of doublethink, in this case lambasting their opponents' beliefs while holding beliefs that are equally if not more ludicrous. For example, Wokeys will ridicule the religious Right for denying evolution, but insist that men can become women just by declaring themselves so. There are limits though. I could become a woman right now, according to Wokies, but I couldn't become black. Even though I have way more in common physiologically with a black man than I do with a white woman. Why can I become a white woman but not a black man? BECAUSE THE RULES OF WOKE ARE MADE BY THE WOKE. Of course, to sane people it's perfectly obvious that I could become neither, lacking as I do female chromosomes or African heritage. An insane position would be to insist that I could become either, as it would consider biology meaningless when compared with instinct. If that were the case then I could become a cocker spaniel if I wished. But only the special kind of madness that is currently plaguing the West would disallow me from describing myself as a black man, but would happily accept my self-description as a white woman, penis and all. But as I said, Wokies make the rules. Or rather, we are allowing them to impose their rules on us. " I think you might need to read 1984 again | |||
| |||
"Woke. It's just a fad.. " | |||
"I think you might need to read 1984 again" I've lost count of how many times I've read it. I probably know much of it off by heart. I assume you're suggesting 1984 is not a valid metaphor because in the book the government are the oppressors, and in real life the woke have no legislative power? Is that correct? Well, they may have no legal power, but that hasn't stopped woke idiocy from reaching into every corner of our society, from police chiefs lecturing us on pronouns to women being arrested for stating a biological fact. And don't be so sure about Government. We have politicians on the Left, and some on the Right, who cannot tell the public what a woman is. How long before such people are in power? Like Winston Smith, we know that two and two is four. But now we are being told that two and two is five. And we can face arrest, dismissal, and financial ruin if we deny it. How is this NOT a 1984 scenario? | |||
"I think you might need to read 1984 again I've lost count of how many times I've read it. I probably know much of it off by heart. I assume you're suggesting 1984 is not a valid metaphor because in the book the government are the oppressors, and in real life the woke have no legislative power? Is that correct? Well, they may have no legal power, but that hasn't stopped woke idiocy from reaching into every corner of our society, from police chiefs lecturing us on pronouns to women being arrested for stating a biological fact. And don't be so sure about Government. We have politicians on the Left, and some on the Right, who cannot tell the public what a woman is. How long before such people are in power? Like Winston Smith, we know that two and two is four. But now we are being told that two and two is five. And we can face arrest, dismissal, and financial ruin if we deny it. How is this NOT a 1984 scenario?" Well given your entire argument is based solely on your VERY TERFy opinion. Which is the same arguments used to hold back Gay Rights, which was the same arguments used to hold back civil rights, which was the same argument used to hold back women voting... and on and on. You argument is based on you supporting Big brother.. aka the Patriarchy | |||
"Woke Karen’s are the worst "Any Karens here? Actual, or "Karens"? | |||
"Also some irony that "woke" was originally a word using by black Americans in relation to racial injustice, and white people have taken it and made it a pejorative. This is a good example... its being cited here as being utilised by black Americans... so that's a distinction, an identifier, it speaks to people its a banner almost...a clarion call... It gets support below and some guilt shaming too...because hey, why not? Now... my understanding of its use was actually around the era of marx when it was cited as being 'woke' to the political state of countries and part of a wider communist agenda to overthrow... This pops up again... conversely on the other side....when being used by the west in 60s America, this time to be aware of the creep of communism again...nice switcheroo See how it flipped sides... Its then borrowed by the feminist movement and more recently...the afro American movement. Trans...climate... yada yada... Irrespective... The incorrect citing of its first use (poster above) and the misappropriation and bandwagoning that follows is quite a neat example of how a woke community operates... Catch words, a healthy dose of tribalism and bang we have an ideology that almost becomes kinetic in its existence. As we are all the same and ever so different with our labels... never the twain shall meet. What an incoherent and mostly meaningless post. "Woke" did not arise in Marxist circles, but in black American vernacular. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html " Okey dokey... Well I must of misread litterally everything I've read on the topics... including 'cynical theories'... I bow to your reading of the independent
Am out...  | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad.. "Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad. | |||
| |||
"Woke is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English. This is the meaning of the word woke and I just think it's been hijacked along with other terms such as calling someone "A Karen" if they disagree with you or have a different opinion. So do you see someone being woke as a bad thing? Do you think it's often used just to shut people down or Totally justified as an insult. My profile states "No-one who thinks Woke is an insult" It is a standard tactic of a lot of groups, especially news media (typically most are right wing) to take a word being used by a progressive word, and attaching vitriol to it. So eventually everyone in the demographic they cater to sees the word they see the attached vitriol, not the meaning of the word." Very well said and I think that really sums it up. It's a psychological ploy to subvert progress in making us all equal. I always say wonder why the FBI worked so hard to shut down the Black Panthers but not the KKK (who are still functional even though they can best be described as a terrorist group) it's all about shaping narratives and trust me when I say the best way to attack progress is to twist the words of a movement case in point "black lives matter" and then you'll hear those who argue and say no, no all lives should matter without understanding what the phrase and the movement actually mean. | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.". It is if the media tells you so.. How about accepting everyone for who they are do you need a label to identify because someone tells you so ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Mmmm. This is going to be deep. Since the dawn of time racist have not liked being called out. The NF pretty much wore suits and claimed they weren't racist then called themselves the BNP. Then came it's political correctness gone mad. This led to much debate about the right to offend or be offended. This debate to my insignificant mind concluded with an American quote. "Your right to freely swing your fist, ends at the point my nose begins." Now we change the wording to woke. If you say something the BNP would not approve of its woke. No its the same bollocks. Certain people just want to put other people down or keep.them in there place. They never grew up, they never adapted to a multi cultural society where people are judged on merit rather than skin colour religion or sexuality. These lazy people hate the fact that their argument has no merit. So instead of constructing a logical and methodical argument in support of their view. They corrupt one word so as to keep it simple for the stupid. WOKE. The logic is basic. Both mentally and emotionally intelligent people can see there is no logical arguement to be had. So instead,to garner support. They target the stupid people. That way to approach the dead issues they want to raise which are shot down by those with a level.of intellect. Stupid people with no argument to challenge the facts with just call it WOKE. That way it sounds like an Intellectual challenge or debate when infact is the same old bullshit as before that got ba back black sheep banned. It's just a different name. A bit like putins it's not a war its a special exercise in Ukraine. Boris parties that were not parties but work events. Or the financial crisis that is not a recession. Most of us don't want to offend anyone because we're good enough and don't need to. We have enough common sense to know what is offensive and what is not. We don't need to be told But spare a thought for those who are not good enough. So try to drag us back down to their level by convincing us that equality is woke which is a bad thing. Equality means you have to prove yourself and earn the respect you are given. Rather than expect it to be handed to you. So if you realise this then yes you are WOKE. There endeth my rant. Thank you for reading. "Well said brother, well said | |||
"Mmmm. This is going to be deep. Since the dawn of time racist have not liked being called out. The NF pretty much wore suits and claimed they weren't racist then called themselves the BNP. Then came it's political correctness gone mad. This led to much debate about the right to offend or be offended. This debate to my insignificant mind concluded with an American quote. "Your right to freely swing your fist, ends at the point my nose begins." Now we change the wording to woke. If you say something the BNP would not approve of its woke. No its the same bollocks. Certain people just want to put other people down or keep.them in there place. They never grew up, they never adapted to a multi cultural society where people are judged on merit rather than skin colour religion or sexuality. These lazy people hate the fact that their argument has no merit. So instead of constructing a logical and methodical argument in support of their view. They corrupt one word so as to keep it simple for the stupid. WOKE. The logic is basic. Both mentally and emotionally intelligent people can see there is no logical arguement to be had. So instead,to garner support. They target the stupid people. That way to approach the dead issues they want to raise which are shot down by those with a level.of intellect. Stupid people with no argument to challenge the facts with just call it WOKE. That way it sounds like an Intellectual challenge or debate when infact is the same old bullshit as before that got ba back black sheep banned. It's just a different name. A bit like putins it's not a war its a special exercise in Ukraine. Boris parties that were not parties but work events. Or the financial crisis that is not a recession. Most of us don't want to offend anyone because we're good enough and don't need to. We have enough common sense to know what is offensive and what is not. We don't need to be told But spare a thought for those who are not good enough. So try to drag us back down to their level by convincing us that equality is woke which is a bad thing. Equality means you have to prove yourself and earn the respect you are given. Rather than expect it to be handed to you. So if you realise this then yes you are WOKE. There endeth my rant. Thank you for reading. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unfortunately it's all a part of the 'divide and rule' culture that is being promoted by some political parties and their friends in the press. If you don't support their agenda then you are 'woke' and therefore a danger to the sort of society they want. I tend to find that I'm the polar opposite of the perpetually outraged Daily Mail readers so I guess I'm happy for them to call me 'woke'. " That delightful young lady Kemi Badenoch is purportedly anti-woke but is neither male, pale nor reads The Mail. Where are we to file this little anaomoly? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Wokeness in itself isn't the problem (each to their own etc). It's the tendency of the woke to be preachy and self-righteous that grates, surpassed only by their apparent duty to 'educate' others. " Agreed  | |||
 | |||
" Britain abolished sl4v3ry in the early 1800's and the Royal Navy actively enforced against the sl4v3 trade globally. Anybody in this thread who was paying taxes when David Cameron was in power in effect paid their bit to a loan that was taken out in the 1800's to pay off the sl4v3 owners.** " Always think this is a funny argument that somehow Britain has a moral high ground because it 'ended' sl@very. Only it didn't. It stopped at home but continued out of sight. And how do you think all those people got to America?! As for the loan thing that just means we were effectively continuing to pay the bastards responsible for the trade in the first place. Hardly a source of pride. | |||
" Britain abolished sl4v3ry in the early 1800's and the Royal Navy actively enforced against the sl4v3 trade globally. Anybody in this thread who was paying taxes when David Cameron was in power in effect paid their bit to a loan that was taken out in the 1800's to pay off the sl4v3 owners.** Always think this is a funny argument that somehow Britain has a moral high ground because it 'ended' sl@very. Only it didn't. It stopped at home but continued out of sight. And how do you think all those people got to America?! As for the loan thing that just means we were effectively continuing to pay the bastards responsible for the trade in the first place. Hardly a source of pride." After the American War of Independence and The War of 1812 the yanks did their own thing. Whatever your views, the RN did combat sl@very to some extent. | |||
"Whatever your views, the RN did combat sl@very to some extent. " Yes they did... to some extent. Kinda like partially cleaning your own shit up by dumping it elsewhere. | |||
"I woke this morning at the crack of dawn "What did Dawn think about that? | |||
"The problem as I see it is this: In the 80 racism was rife and completely wrong fast forward today and it's all been over compensated, it's oh you hurt my feelings you aren't allowed to say "I disagree"with you , you can loose your job / career over a few lines on tweeter or other social media platform , it you say certain words in the wrong order ,heaven forbid you get slated. And as for pronouns a few years ago most people wouldn't know their pronouns from their verbs . " What's wrong with pronouns? I'm pretty sure if you were referred to as she/her you'd correct the person or ar least wonder why you'd not be referred to as he/him, do others not deserve that courtesy too? | |||
| |||
"I woke this morning at the crack of dawn
What did Dawn think about that?"She didn’t seem too offended | |||
"I woke this morning at the crack of dawn
What did Dawn think about that?
She didn’t seem too offended "Excellent. Crack on. | |||
| |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad."Many hope it is and we can go back to ignoring the problem again soon. | |||
| |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate." A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too?" Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths? | |||
| |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad."You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things. | |||
| |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things. "But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind"Yeah, it's just an unthinking attack. | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths? "You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence. | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind" | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind"They’re really not because 1. The term woke wasn’t made by the media. It was a term used by black prior on the internet. First seriously, and then as a tongue in cheek joke. 2. “Woke” people in the mainstream took that phrase and proudly labelled themselves as that. Not the media. The news only used that term in response to people self categorising and labelling themselves as such. 3. Being “woke” doesn’t mean you are against racism. I don’t get why people think that’s the definition. | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind
They’re really not because
1. The term woke wasn’t made by the media. It was a term used by black prior on the internet. First seriously, and then as a tongue in cheek joke.
2. “Woke” people in the mainstream took that phrase and proudly labelled themselves as that. Not the media. The news only used that term in response to people self categorising and labelling themselves as such.
3. Being “woke” doesn’t mean you are against racism. I don’t get why people think that’s the definition.
"Sorry for the typos. I’m writing on my phone really fast and don’t notice the autocorrect mistakes  | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence."I think you're deliberately going off-track here for reasons unknown, or just to play devil's advocate. Where in my post do I even mention JK Rowling and people who vandalise business? And how is it relevant to the thread? | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence."Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice". You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction. For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread. | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread."Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO... | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO..." | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO...
" | |||
| |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread."The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions. Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong. | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind"This is exactly my point and why I started the thread to see what others thought. | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
"Love the irony of the'blanket term' right wingers | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad..
Standing up against racism and promoting equality isn't a fad.
You don’t have to be “woke” to be against those against those things.
But that's the whole point, decent people obviously are against racism and discrimination but the right wing media and increasingly the government are using woke as an insult and term of attack for what should be a default state of mind" | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
Love the irony of the'blanket term' right wingers"You know what you have quoted uses the blanket terms right wingers and left wingers right? | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO..."What is a DARVO? | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
"Of course but let's not forget that the media portray some fairly Liberal views as "hard left". Believing in equality, opposing racism, these things aren't 'hard left' | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO...
What is a DARVO?"I think it could have done a little better describing it, but this was the only link I could find that would be allowed in the forums https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/13/guide-darvo-gaslighting-response-people-give-when-called-bad-behaviour-12847680/ | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
Of course but let's not forget that the media portray some fairly Liberal views as "hard left". Believing in equality, opposing racism, these things aren't 'hard left'"Indeed | |||
| |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
Yeah some people's only tactic is DARVO...
What is a DARVO?
I think it could have done a little better describing it, but this was the only link I could find that would be allowed in the forums
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/13/guide-darvo-gaslighting-response-people-give-when-called-bad-behaviour-12847680/"Interesting article, thank you. | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
Of course but let's not forget that the media portray some fairly Liberal views as "hard left". Believing in equality, opposing racism, these things aren't 'hard left'"Agree with that | |||
"And for those who believe that "attack is the best form of defence".....WRONG! Attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice, and who aren't generally literate or intellectual enough to engage in debate without hurling insults to deflect from the debate. A debate is not a debate anymore the moment you start throwing insults. If you have to throw insults, it just shows one's inability to have a rational debate. There are people who vandalise businesses who have some connection with JK Rowling. Do you condone that too? Ooops.....did I also forget to mention those who twist statements, or try to put words in others' mouths?
You said attack is the only form of defense. What does attack mean here? Throwing insults in a debate is not a characteristic specific to right wingers. Left wingers do it too. Extremists on both sides are capable of both verbal insults and physical violence.
Also, to quote your post; "You said attack is the only form of defense". Erm...no, I said "attack is the ONLY form of defence for those who harbour prejudice".
You are just trying to twist statements to suit your own agenda, or maybe just to troll for a reaction.
For that reason, I won't waste any further time responding to your irrelevant and pointless posts on this thread.
The problem is you decide who has prejudice randomly and justify attacking someone based on it. This is nothing different from right wingers using the blanket term woke to justify attacking people with opposite opinions.
Essentially the far right and far left are not different in any ways. Both have militant views, unwilling to debate, lack rationality and would justify attacking others for not blindly accepting their views as some religious text on what is right and what is wrong.
Love the irony of the'blanket term' right wingers"Lol. That's a good catch. I should have used "some" there. | |||
| |||
"Think John Cleese gets it spot on when it comed to left and right https://youtu.be/HLNhPMQnWu4" Lol so true | |||
"Think John Cleese gets it spot on when it comed to left and right https://youtu.be/HLNhPMQnWu4" Honestly I think the only people who would really believe what he is saying have the benefit of a life where they are not falling victim to an extreme stance. | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad.. " Woke isn't a fad, woke has been around for thousands of years. Ever heard of someone called Jesus? | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad.. Woke isn't a fad, woke has been around for thousands of years. Ever heard of someone called Jesus?" You mean the fictional character? | |||
"Woke. It's just a fad.. Woke isn't a fad, woke has been around for thousands of years. Ever heard of someone called Jesus? You mean the fictional character?" That's him. | |||
| |||
"https://youtu.be/FR4rHPpoPHQ" I think you may get accused of finding an exception when it comes to the anti-woke... I don't think you have though. I couldn't have the patience of James. | |||
"https://youtu.be/FR4rHPpoPHQ" Comedy gold! | |||
| |||
"https://youtu.be/FR4rHPpoPHQ" What a guy!! | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Because wokeness have carried a personality of vegan, preaching climate change, moral high ground, judgemental persona." Which it generally isn't. As with everything there are always people on the fringes of discussion who take things to extremes but the examples you quote are generally those portrayed by the media. There are very many people on the opposite end of the woke spectrum who are judgemental and believe they have the moral high ground. FWIW I believe in fairnes and justice for all, a much more equal society, I believe that climate change is real and that drastic action is needed. I also try and eat as little meat as I can. I'm happy to discuss/argue those points with anyone and will only believe I have the moral high ground if I'm arguing with an absolute bellend! | |||
"Because wokeness have carried a personality of vegan, preaching climate change, moral high ground, judgemental persona." "judgemental persona"
Irony much | |||
