FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Woke

Woke

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *oofy321 OP   Man  over a year ago

moon base zero

Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *r.SJMan  over a year ago

Wellingborough

Can't stand being woke... much prefer to get up when I'm ready

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *odgerMooreMan  over a year ago

Nowhere

Just shit myself.. thought the title said ‘Work!’

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oofy321 OP   Man  over a year ago

moon base zero

Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *bi HaiveMan  over a year ago
Forum Mod

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?"

The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies.

It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad.

Like snowflake.

A

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry

Doesn't it say everything about someone if they think it's a insult?

But is it a word I'm fond of? No. If I heard someone describe themselves as woke I might grimace slightly.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple  over a year ago

Leeds

Other than being woken up, I've zero idea, but I don't like being woken

Mrs

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *aitonelMan  over a year ago

Liverpool


"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? "

The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oofy321 OP   Man  over a year ago

moon base zero

But am I woke?

Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oofy321 OP   Man  over a year ago

moon base zero

Maybe its my age and not keeping up with todays slang language?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroLondonMan  over a year ago

Mayfair

I'll be honest: it never figures in my vocabulary because, embarrassingly, I still haven't fully grasped the concept or the meaning.

Maybe I'm too old.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *r.SJMan  over a year ago

Wellingborough


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?

The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies.

It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad.

Like snowflake.

A"

Exactly this... not something I have the time nor inclination to discuss :-

And stick with my original post and likening of the weird to it's original meaning. |

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I woke up this morning the same way I did yesterday. The world is still full of ejits in just the same way.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"But am I woke?

Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion "

Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth

You will never get a concrete definition because its used by different people in different ways

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oofy321 OP   Man  over a year ago

moon base zero


"But am I woke?

Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion

Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke?"

Im just me with a view of let people be people

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ose-tinted GlassesMan  over a year ago

Glasgow / London

It’s an interesting term, is ‘woke’ - in the current context, in the way the OP has intended it.

Woke started out in this form as a positive. But it’s been co-opted by the ‘other side’ as a pejorative. And that’s nasty. Insidious.

So start with the intended meaning. It’s from the black community in the USA. To be ‘woke’ is to have ‘woken up’ to the reality and history of being a black American. To understand the systemic and cultural inequalities of race over there. To have your eyes wide open to all of that.

But where has the word gone now? It’s been taken by the very groups and authorities that seek to enable and perpetuate those inequalities. It’s been used as a negative - a lazy label for anyone who complains about or campaigns against inequality - be it racism, sexism, classism, or any other ism.

Maybe it’s time to reclaim ‘woke’. To own it and be proud of it. Yes I’m woke. I see you racists and bigots out there in plain sight and I’m proud to not be one of you.

Maybe something like that?

(But I’m not sure yet. I don’t want that to feel ‘white saviour’. I don’t want to co-opt black experience - that I have no right to - and use their word for my own ends. So I’m wary. But it feels like the meaning *right now* is broader than just being about race any more.)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Depends on what context it’s used : from Wiki the meaning is “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism.

Now I don’t think in it’s purest form anyone would disagree with this and it’s a virtuous thing to be

However it’s been taken over by both the right and left wing to mean something beyond this - eg one interpretation the right might use is to say that anyone “woke” takes this to its extremes and excessively demonises anything or anyone that doesn’t fit a minority or social justice cause. Typically used at an extreme level therefore to demonise white, middle aged, men for example.

The left might say that people use the word derogatively to describe anyone with a social conscious.

Whatever your interpretation it’s a handy way to keep a class war / divide raging to divert us all from what’s really happening

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *odgerMooreMan  over a year ago

Nowhere


"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means?

The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day"

Astute observation there Mr!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *hrimper36Couple  over a year ago

Central France dept 36


"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? "

I’m going to guess that you’ve had a humor whoosh moment op.

Bless.

Respect is key.

I respect people’s opinions even if I don’t agree with them but often other people don’t even want to know someone’s opinion because they believe their opinion is the only opinion that counts.

Wrong in my humble opinion.

T

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *affeine DuskMan  over a year ago

Caerphilly


"I'll be honest: it never figures in my vocabulary because, embarrassingly, I still haven't fully grasped the concept or the meaning.

Maybe I'm too old."

I don't think it's embarrassing at all. Or even age-specific.

I once heard/saw it in a conversation between two people: One accused the other of being 'woke'. The other proudly confirmed they were 'woke'.

Then they argued pointlessly. I'm removing the other words they used because it was nasty.

...and that's pretty much what it means to me. It's an internet word that has been reduced to marking borders; a word that signifies that people are about to engage in a useless interaction that feels more like venting.

If it means something to other people, that's very cool. To me, it feels lazy and is a red flag to go read something else.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *hagTonightMan  over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

I think that nowadays it refers to being aware or well informed in a political or cultural sense, it can also be used to end a debate.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *endydick.CumbersnatchMan  over a year ago

.

Kind of got to the opinion in media that woke is just an empty word. No-one has really nailed the definition so it's used as a placeholder empty word to vaguely cover whatever the write has a bias on. Insult or complement, it's an empty loaded word that's lacking substance of a definition of context.

I'm sceptical everytime is see/here the word more of the person using it than the meaning of the word itself.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it "

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it "

Woke is more used as a pejorative than a positive and more likely to be used by the 'just commonsense' folks. When Suella Braverman bitched about the 'tofu eating wokerati' I did have a giggle. But she knows her base and what they like.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?

The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies.

It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad.

Like snowflake.

A"

Shut up nerd.

Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with."

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *omtom7Man  over a year ago

Tralee

Haven't a clue what it means, but it seems to cause some shit for a small word

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. "

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *aitonelMan  over a year ago

Liverpool

It's a word of hate.

It is used in hate towards some people. And it's use outs others as something in the eyes of the intended targets, something they hate. And so the cycle goes on, the wheel keeps spinning.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals."

If someone was being racist, homophobic or making degratory comments towards them based on their religion then yes, because that's what being 'anti hate speech' means

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals."

Unlike some I'm not the kind of person who thinks it's OK to be racist/homophobic towards people just because I don't particularly like them

Although quite strange that you've asked this question but obviously you know why you asked it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

If someone was being racist, homophobic or making degratory comments towards them based on their religion then yes, because that's what being 'anti hate speech' means

"

There really is no need for your aggressive attitude.

I asked a fairly simple question.

If you can extend that stance towards people who you may not like or agree with then you can't be described as 'woke' in a pejorative way.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

Unlike some I'm not the kind of person who thinks it's OK to be racist/homophobic towards people just because I don't particularly like them

Although quite strange that you've asked this question but obviously you know why you asked it

"

As you can see in my above reply, I did ask it for a reason.

Less of the aggression would make a much better discussion.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Of course I'm being labelled as aggressive

The dog whistles are strong today

Have a good day all

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals."

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?"

Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *rHotNottsMan  over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"But am I woke?

Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion

Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke?

Im just me with a view of let people be people "

No but unfortunately many do, like a passive acceptance. Being woke is a little more, it’s knowing and probably challenging the status quo , that’s why it’s used as an insult, it scares people who don’t want anything to change.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?"

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive "

You were not labelled aggressive for sharing the definition.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive "

DILLGAF?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *rHotNottsMan  over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?"

Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply.

And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *atnip make me purrWoman  over a year ago

Reading

I try to be woke. It just means being aware so why is that ever a bad word? I can't ever step in your shoes but I can listen to your experiences and have empathy. Iam lucky to have so many privileges so I consider it my duty to find out how others live and what challenges they face.

I really hate when people on here challenge others experiences and basically call them liars. This is gaslighting at its very worst.

I would consider being called woke a high compliment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ripodius WillyusMan  over a year ago

Here and there

Folk can call me woke or half asleep or owt as I do not care

Folk use that and snowflake if losing a debate etc and says a lot about the one calling names.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Definition in lefter leaning circles: aware of injustice (originating from African American dialect of English, perhaps as a consequence particularly awareness of racial inequality)

Definition, so far as I can see, in righter wing circles: just another insult. It might have specific undertones, but I'm only reading it from context, and I'm not sure.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply.

And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists."

Agreed they dp but how likely are they to be discriminated against because of those?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply.

And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists.

Agreed they dp but how likely are they to be discriminated against because of those?"

You and I know it's not likely but it won't stop them claiming it and it won't stop idiots believing them.

The playbook is pretty established now.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *bi HaiveMan  over a year ago
Forum Mod

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?

The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies.

It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad.

Like snowflake.

A

Shut up nerd.

Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer.

"

You're just grumpy because you got smashed in the vulva.

A vauxhall is a definite step up. People won't assume you're one of those woke, hippy, tree hugging, safety conscious folk happy look like you're driving around in a shiny box.

Turn up in one of those on a Fab meet and people will definitely assume you've knocked 30 years of your real age.....

A

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *izzmasterzeroMan  over a year ago

Aberdeen

Don't use the word but I would say it's a word to describe someone who's a bit extreme when it comes to political correctness, the type where peoples feelings overrule common sense

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ophieslutTV/TS  over a year ago

Central

Other adjectives manage to describe the qualities that 'woke' could do, perfectly well and with clear precision. I think it's probably better avoided, sticking with the better options that are available. It has been hijacked, as an attempt to smear others who are likely progressive and against injustice, by those who are cognitively and morally deficient.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Woke to me means what it originally meant. As a black boy growing up, ‘stay woke’ was used to say stay aware of race issues. The term has been completely co-opted by (mostly white) people that are uncomfortable and often uninformed when it comes to conversations about race and has been applied to things it has nothing to do with and used as an insult. It’s exhausting and disappointing but honestly not at all surprising. A term used by a community for one purpose has been taken and made an insult.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It used to mean awake to inequity (not just inequality). It has become an insult as referring to a default setting of outrage or upset at anything the woke person doesn’t personally believe it. The mechanism by which cancel culture operates.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ackdaw52Man  over a year ago

Chesterfield

It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?

The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies.

It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad.

Like snowflake.

A

Shut up nerd.

Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer.

You're just grumpy because you got smashed in the vulva.

A vauxhall is a definite step up. People won't assume you're one of those woke, hippy, tree hugging, safety conscious folk happy look like you're driving around in a shiny box.

Turn up in one of those on a Fab meet and people will definitely assume you've knocked 30 years of your real age.....

A

"

I looked like a barista hipster and I loved it. They loved it. All the boot space for things.

It was especially potent when listening to Madonna on full blast. Ladies had no chance.

Vogue vogue vogue.

Now I'll look like everyone else, like I'm having an affair while the kids are at whatever club I throw them in so I can get it wet.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ittyandtheboyCouple  over a year ago

Behind the bike shed!


"But am I woke?

Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion "

Yes basically it means aware of social injustice and racism sexism etc. I’m terrible at explaining it but it’s a good thing to aspire to!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple  over a year ago

Leeds

Isn’t it what the new breed of humans call themselves?

The mr

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ittyandtheboyCouple  over a year ago

Behind the bike shed!


"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. "

It’s an actually a word used ages ago, I originally thought it was piss poor grammer but actually not.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *icolerobbieCouple  over a year ago

walsall


"Woke to me means what it originally meant. As a black boy growing up, ‘stay woke’ was used to say stay aware of race issues. The term has been completely co-opted by (mostly white) people that are uncomfortable and often uninformed when it comes to conversations about race and has been applied to things it has nothing to do with and used as an insult. It’s exhausting and disappointing but honestly not at all surprising. A term used by a community for one purpose has been taken and made an insult. "

Or a badge of honour for others. It all seems to depend on where you source your news.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Isn’t it what the new breed of humans call themselves?

The mr "

Nah, that's awake

Awake - what you need to be before getting out of bed in the morning

Awake - aware of the secret lizard people cabal conspiring with Bill Gates to activate microchips and cause 15 minute cities and apocalypse genocide

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. "

I believe that, as it comes from a different dialect of English, different rules of grammar apply

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Woke to me means what it originally meant. As a black boy growing up, ‘stay woke’ was used to say stay aware of race issues. The term has been completely co-opted by (mostly white) people that are uncomfortable and often uninformed when it comes to conversations about race and has been applied to things it has nothing to do with and used as an insult. It’s exhausting and disappointing but honestly not at all surprising. A term used by a community for one purpose has been taken and made an insult. "

Another example, once again, of why we can't have nice things.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Sick, bad and wicked used to mean bad things, now they mean something good. I think woke is one of those words that has changed definition over the years, thieved by those who cynically twist its meaning to encompass something else entirely. A bit like the word "woman".

Bess x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ts the taking part thatMan  over a year ago

southampton


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?"

One man's woker is another man's snowflake.

Be who you are and leave labels to others.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. "

Different people from different cultures use words differently

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning.

Different people from different cultures use words differently "

what?!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely?

But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right.

Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves.

I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning.

Different people from different cultures use words differently

what?!

"

I know I don't understand how people don't know this and are quick to label everything different as poor English

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ts the taking part thatMan  over a year ago

southampton


"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all."

Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror.

Opinions may differ.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters."

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all.

Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror.

Opinions may differ."

Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting."

In the discourse there's an increasing amount of "you disagree with what I say about (anything), therefore you're prejudiced against my protected characteristic". Quite often where the structural power at play puts the person crying victim is higher up in the hierarchy.

Just today I heard the delightful ( ) Tucker Carlson claim that anyone who points out that there are health problems in children is accused of being racist. In some convoluted metaphor about vaccines to try to defend that lunatic running for US president.

Yes, yes, pointing out that Kennedy doesn't know the difference between ethyl mercury and methyl mercury is accusing him of racism, well done, go sit in the corner with your dunce hat, nincompoop.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting."

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred."

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

"

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *empusMan  over a year ago

Poole


"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means?

The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It’s a stupid phrase, that started off in mostly hotep conspiracy communities, with all that “stay woke” crap.

Then people started using it ironically as a joke. Then some people obviously couldn’t recognise the irony and sarcasm and started using it as a serious way to say that they’re more intelligent and “awake” than the rest of us (kind of going back to its original origin) - but this time with the slant being that it’s compassionate and left leaning.

All in all, it’s a dumb and meaningless phrase. I definitely wouldn’t associate with anyone who labels themselves as such, and likewise I wouldn’t really hang with people who use it as an insult either. It’s a lazy catch-all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andyfloss2000Woman  over a year ago

ashford

I like to b called a snowflake! They are truly amazing and beautiful! X

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

"

That very accusation is often levelled at people, on both sides of the divide.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning "

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling' "

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

That's not what dog whistling is LMAO

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange "

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right "

Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.

Thank you for the recap

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth

[Removed by poster at 05/07/23 13:46:16]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.

Thank you for the recap

"

You're a bit of a strange one

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.

Thank you for the recap

You're a bit of a strange one "

Takes one to know one

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.

Thank you for the recap

You're a bit of a strange one

Takes one to know one "

Clearly, wanna get involved in the discussion or do you just wanna trade insults?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right "

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one."

I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.

It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Budweiser is not liking the meaning of woke .

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ts the taking part thatMan  over a year ago

southampton


"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all.

Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror.

Opinions may differ.

Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads. "

In your opinion.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.

I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.

It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy "

You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all.

Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror.

Opinions may differ.

Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads.

In your opinion. "

Well I wouldn’t be talking about anyone else’s opinion.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *odgerMooreMan  over a year ago

Nowhere

Whatever happened to mutual respect in a safe tolerant non judgmental environment to discuss topics and have constructive conversations?? This is the forum not directing room 2 at gone midnight.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

*BANGS GAVEL*

"ORDER ORDER Will the house please refrain from shouting, we need to hear the right honorable Gent / lady speak!"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.

I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.

It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy

You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.

"

I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go.

How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech?

I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.

Thank you for the recap

You're a bit of a strange one

Takes one to know one

Clearly, wanna get involved in the discussion or do you just wanna trade insults?"

"Trading insults" implies that I have also insulted you, which I haven't

You called my aggressive twice

You then called me strange to which I replied "takes one to know one"

I haven't once name called or insulted you, I stated your line of questioning was strange which as far as I'm aware isn't a personal insult towards you, but you obviously took it as a personal insult.

I know how to have a conversation with someone who I may not agree with without making personal and insulting remarks, you clearly don't.

Anyway, I have nothing further to add to this conversation

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I've missed so many words out

But you get the gist of what I'm saying

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.

I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.

It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy

You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.

Other than saying I don't think you're engaging in good faith

I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go.

How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech?

I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers."

Other than saying I don't think you're engaging in good faith, I'm not going to engage with you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am

I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc

People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it

People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it.

You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with.

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." "

Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech.

I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals.

From Wiki hate speech is defined as

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. "

So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?

You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics?

Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters.

If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech.

However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context.

For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting.

Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason?

This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred.

u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it.

This is honestly such a strange line of questioning

That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'

I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange

Hence why I put it in inverted commas

However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.

Let's have it right

Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.

I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.

It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy

You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.

I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go.

How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech?

I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers."

Are you enjoying your guided tour around the Tower of Babel?

Bess x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth

Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan  over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK

I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

"

lol

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!"

I've never used that word to insult someone, neither do people described as 'woke' upset me.

The ones getting upset seem to be the ones who that word may be used against.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andyfloss2000Woman  over a year ago

ashford


"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!"

These kinda threads allways good for my private note/ block facility x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

"

I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes."

I thought you weren't going to engage with me?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oggoneMan  over a year ago

Derry


"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes.

I thought you weren't going to engage with me?"

Yeah not with your bad faith argument.

But have the last word if it makes you feel better.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here

I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes.

I thought you weren't going to engage with me?

Yeah not with your bad faith argument.

But have the last word if it makes you feel better."

Cheers, appreciate it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!"

I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here

Bess x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

People getting mad and showing they don’t know what woke means ahh I love this game

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan  over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!

I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here

Bess x

"

Oh, they wouldn’t have picked me anyway… but it stops me from inadvertently liking anything of theirs and therefore giving them potentially more views…

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Taking words used in resistance by marginalised communities and taking it and using to insult them or shut them down is just really really moist.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block.

For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person…

And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!

I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here

Bess x

Oh, they wouldn’t have picked me anyway… but it stops me from inadvertently liking anything of theirs and therefore giving them potentially more views…"

Also people don’t have to be devastated that they’re blocked. They’re still blocked. Doesn’t matter whether they’re sad or not about it, b

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"People getting mad and showing they don’t know what woke means ahh I love this game"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

woke can be used as a form of control if you don't follow our group or believes you are not woke. It is used to scare and control people.

For example: it was used for pride and the transgender movement if you don't follow transgender and pride you're not woke. It is also now used for Black lives matter if you don't follow our traditions or beliefs you're not woke you're racist.

another example: I am a dog person if you don't like dogs you're not woke. (It may sound ridiculous) but Like I said it's a form of control.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *naswingdressWoman  over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Taking words used in resistance by marginalised communities and taking it and using to insult them or shut them down is just really really moist. "

Mmm.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I want to know what dog whistling means?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I want to know what dog whistling means? "

A dog whistle is the alleged use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *odgerMooreMan  over a year ago

Nowhere


"I want to know what dog whistling means?

A dog whistle is the alleged use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans."

Is it like horse whispering?? Or ferret wrangling?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

This thread is a challenging wank

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *odgerMooreMan  over a year ago

Nowhere


"This thread is a challenging wank "

Persevere -‘it will be worth it !!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ackformore100Man  over a year ago

Tin town


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?"

Depends on the context its used. Can be good... Can be not so good..and yes its used as an insult by some.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *aitonelMan  over a year ago

Liverpool

Christ, is this still going on.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

  

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?"

Whatever 'woke' started as it is now the 2020's equivalent of the mid 1900s 'commie' and 'pinko' right-wing bogeyman. It is whatever in-the-moment thing scares the right-wing because they don't understand what is being said.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic

0.3124

0