FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Woke
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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 | |||
| |||
| |||
"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 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | | |||
| |||
"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? | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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!! | |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 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. | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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? | |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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! | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"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?! | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"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" | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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 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 | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
"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? | |||
"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 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 | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here " lol | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here " I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes. | |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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… | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"People getting mad and showing they don’t know what woke means ahh I love this game" | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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? | |||
| |||
"This thread is a challenging wank " Persevere -‘it will be worth it !! | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||