Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The same people who want children’s books like this banned are the very type of people promoting Drag Queen story hour.


njb

I genuinely think I would have found Drag Queen Story Time scary as a child. I’m very serious. My mother never wore make up ever and so whenever any of my aunts or friend’s mothers would give me a hug or a kiss on the cheek, I’d (inwardly) recoil at the mothers and aunts that wore lots of make up. It used to freak me out. I was used to the fresh-faced beauty that was my mother.

I did go to the circus as a kid but the performers were far away.

I guess the parents who bring their children to these events might know whether their child will be scared or not? I don’t know.

In addition, wouldn’t it kind of take the children out of the story? I once heard a children’s storyteller describe herself as the frame if the story was the picture. She’s said she’s not supposed to be the focus.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

I have visions of someone like Dougal ( from Father Ted) being sent up into space and looking at a control panel with some red buttons on it!

Why would visions of Dougal be coming to your head for hiring disabled people.

martingriff

Mules wrote: »

You laugh now, but they might crash a satellite down on us!

Ya disabled people are just stupid and do not know how to do a job

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

Why would visions of Dougal be coming to your head for hiring disabled people.

martingriff wrote: »

Ya disabled people are just stupid and do not know how to do a job

Oh ffs.

I can't believe you need this explained to you. In the sitcom father Ted, dougal was played as an extremely inept person with obvious severe learning and cognitive disabilities.

This is not to say all disabled people display the same symptoms as all their disabilities are different.

The poster was obviously, and for comic effect, imagining one of the most absurd scenario, most famous character with one of the most inappropriate disability to suffer from in order to do that particular job.

There was no malice, no mean spiritedness and your inference that he was slighting disabled people was unnecessary but not unexpected.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh ffs.

Care to explain or is it woke to explain. If they were trying to joke and I got whoosed fair enough I did not get it but otherwise I have no idea

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

Care to explain or is it woke to explain. If they were trying to joke and I got whoosed fair enough I did not get it but otherwise I have no idea

Just edited my post.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Just edited my post.

Was not so hard now was it. I didn't get the joke I don't think going to an obvious extreme is particularly funny I think its rather crass but that is also my humour and opinion or maybe its how you tell them as I can like Jimmy Carr. After all Hawkins was disabled. Never saw Douglas as a low cognitive person who is disable just a innocent idiot or are they called disabled now

Biker79

Taking offense on behalf of other people ( who probably wouldn't be offended anyway ) is a top tier Woke-ism.

It guarantees endless opportunities to whip out the cancel stick.

martingriff

Biker79 wrote: »

Taking offense on behalf of other people ( who probably wouldn't be offended anyway ) is a top tier Woke-ism.

It guarantees endless opportunities to whip out the cancel stick.

I don't agree from the outset challenging someone is automatically been offended or woke. It should be encouraged. Now if is it is to be offended and to whip out the cancel stick then that should be challenged also. Categorizing something as woke in my opinion is an attempt to close down conversation as it just as bad as using terms such as racist or discrimination in a discussion

Achebe

stefanovich wrote: »

Apart from when it is Irish invading that which is now the UK.

Funnily enough, I don't see many Irish people defending that today.

Elmo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I genuinely think I would have found Drag Queen Story Time scary as a child. I’m very serious. My mother never wore make up ever and so whenever any of my aunts or friend’s mothers would give me a hug or a kiss on the cheek, I’d (inwardly) recoil at the mothers and aunts that wore lots of make up. It used to freak me out. I was used to the fresh-faced beauty that was my mother.

Did your mother's friends and sisters have horns coming out of their head? Because that would be what would be freaking me out if I was going to that story time!

Biker79

martingriff wrote: »

I don't agree from the outset challenging someone is automatically been offended or woke. It should be encouraged. Now if is it is to be offended and to whip out the cancel stick then that should be challenged also. Categorizing something as woke in my opinion is an attempt to close down conversation as it just as bad as using terms such as racist or discrimination in a discussion

Not quite the same thing. And that's another Woke-ism - making false equivalences.

Woke-isms are clearly an attempt at virtue. Whereas, nobody would claim discrimination/ racism has any virtue.

whisky_galore

statesaver wrote: »

We were part of the British colonial empire through Irish people ( Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter ) serving in the British Army and the British Civil Service.

Sure, didn't Tom Barry apply to join the British Civil Service in India in 1919. He got rejected and well the rest is history as they say.

He sure didn't put that in his book.
Must have forgot.

martingriff

Biker79 wrote: »

Not quite the same thing. And that's another Woke-ism - making false equivalences.

Woke-isms are clearly an attempt at virtue. Whereas, nobody would claim discrimination/ racism has any virtue.

I think there both the same they are both trying to shut down a conversation by using a word rather then having a discussion

God woke-ism all over the place. So if woke-isms are clearly an attempt at virtue then would people trying to point out what is woke not been woke themselves as you trying to show virtue

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Apart from when it is Irish invading that which is now the UK.

The what now? You going back to the 5thC or do you mean immigration or something.

Biker79

martingriff wrote: »

I think there both the same they are both trying to shut down a conversation by using a word rather then having a discussion

God woke-ism all over the place. So if woke-isms are clearly an attempt at virtue then would people trying to point out what is woke not been woke themselves as you trying to show virtue

Not really.

Mental gymnastics are the poor man's rational deduction.

martingriff

Biker79 wrote: »

Not really.

Mental gymnastics are the poor man's rational deduction.

Well I suppose we will leave it there then

Capt'n Midnight

Mules wrote: »

Here's one; The European Space Agency is looking to recruit disabled astronauts to increase diversity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-56072219

Fair enough if the person is up to the job but they wouldn't want to be compromising on safety just to look woke.

You don't really need legs in weightlessness so there could be a 20% saving on mass. Genius.

AllForIt

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I genuinely think I would have found Drag Queen Story Time scary as a child..

I find Drag Queens scary as an adult no mind as a child.


edit: In case this comes across as an unfair comment, I got an unmerciful slap across the face once in a gay nightclub (back in my hayday) from a DQ. I was new to the scene, walked up to him in the bathroom and stared into his face in wonderment. Maybe I deserved it, but at the same time I can't rid myself of the thought that if you seek attention you can hardly complain that you get it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Elmo wrote: »

Did your mother's friends and sisters have horns coming out of their head? Because that would be what would be freaking me out if I was going to that story time!

Yes, that was the style of the time. :pac:

Antares35

Six Dr Seuss books the latest victim of wokeism it seems.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2021/0303/1200632-dr-seuss/

Quantum Erasure

Antares35 wrote: »

Six Dr Seuss books the latest victim of wokeism it seems.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2021/0303/1200632-dr-seuss/

Tis grand, dont worry about it.

Quantum Erasure

Couple of tweets taken from a thread about Dr Seuss

https://twitter.com/consciouskidlib/status/969657442102534149



Thread starts here
https://mobile.twitter.com/consciouskidlib/status/969657390587985920

carfinder

martingriff wrote: »

Well I suppose we will leave it there then

Disappointing ending - I was enjoying this particular conversation, but it must have been hard to recover from what was a very witty comment!

Barna77

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Couple of tweets taken from a thread about Dr Seuss

https://twitter.com/consciouskidlib/status/969657442102534149

"0 representations of LGBTQIA+ characters" What does the A stand for now?

Antares35

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Tis grand, dont worry about it.

Unfortunately they seem to be all sold out on Amazon.

Conscious kid could definitely contribute to the woke thread. We need more material.

Antares35

Barna77 wrote: »

"0 representations of LGBTQIA+ characters" What does the A stand for now?

You'd think they'd have known better than to leave out the LGBTQIAs in 1937.

Barna77

Barna77 wrote: »

"0 representations of LGBTQIA+ characters" What does the A stand for now?

Asexual, I would assume.

Sir Oxman

Barna77 wrote: »

"0 representations of LGBTQIA+ characters" What does the A stand for now?

Yeah, you can safely ignore everything after the B as it's either political queer theory or a convenience for political critical queer theory which is awful, awful stuff.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Asexual, I would assume.

I had another A** in mind!