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

CtevenSrowder · 16-01-2021 5:05pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm beginning to think people can't read English here, or just want to believe something a bit too much.

Leaving this one here. I've explained the use of the word priority twice now, and if people can't be bothered doing the same then there's no point in even reading their rosoinces.

Is there a word to express the opposite if woke while still possessing the ignorance of the woke? It's like antifa being anti-fascist but still being fascist themselves.

I read, and read it again. He explicitly states he is giving priority to the named groups.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-01-2021 5:30pm

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

Kivaro · 16-01-2021 5:37pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

No, there wouldn't have been.
But that doesn't stop the sensitive people from believing there would.

16-01-2021 5:46pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-01-2021 6:42pm

Kivaro wrote: »

No, there wouldn't have been.
But that doesn't stop the sensitive people from believing there would.

Ah, yes the old "senstivity" argument. Nothign to do with the fact that people might actually be highlihgting fallacies and errors in thri arguments...?
Nah.... can't be that....

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

Hence my wording, "if the timeslines were different".

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

Not at all - there have been many genuinely "woke" sentiments highlighted in this thread and I've agreed some of them.

But equally, some of the sentinents have actually been based on fact and logic, but they get dragged into the mix and the problem is people who are normally intelligent can't seem to tell the difference between woke and a sound social argument. And it's THIS mix and hysteria that the anti-woke crownd seem to scramble for the moment a genuine incident of racism comes in that I'm trying to highlight.

There IS middle ground - but not if people choose to automatically react to a tweet without reading it properly and thinking about it first. ANd there are people on BOTH sides of the debate doing exactly that.

Sometimes something simply isn't woke, in the same way that sometimes something simply isn't racist.

MisterAnarchy · 16-01-2021 7:05pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm beginning to think people can't read English here, or just want to believe something a bit too much.

Leaving this one here. I've explained the use of the word priority twice now, and if people can't be bothered doing the same then there's no point in even reading their rosoinces.

Is there a word to express the opposite if woke while still possessing the ignorance of the woke? It's like antifa being anti-fascist but still being fascist themselves.

The main person who can't read English would seem to be Biden.

What he actually said in itself doesn't make much sense .

"Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild."

Perhaps he meant to say

"Our priority will be to ensure that Black, Latino, Asian, Native American owned small businesses, and female-owned businesses, finally have equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild."

Lets say he did, its still virtue signalling.
It is identity politics and it is divisive.

All he had to say is that
"Our priority will be to ensure that every citizen has equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild"

Did Biden need to state ahead of time that he would choose a woman as vice-president? Do candidates typically announce the gender or race of their picks ahead of time?

Biden announced that he was going to choose a woman because he thought it would give him a boost with female voters.

He chose a black female because he thought it would give him a boost with black voters especially female.

For his Presidential Press team, Biden chose an all female team.
Virtue signalling.

The list goes on and on.

What Biden framing his policy shows is that his interests clearly lie in what his indentity politics will do for him, rather than what it will do for the particular groups he mentions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-01-2021 9:26pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The main person who can't read English would seem to be Biden.

What he actually said in itself doesn't make much sense .

Perhaps he meant to say

Lets say he did, its still virtue signalling.
It is identity politics and it is divisive.

All he had to say is that
"Our priority will be to ensure that every citizen has equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild"

Did Biden need to state ahead of time that he would choose a woman as vice-president? Do candidates typically announce the gender or race of their picks ahead of time?

Biden announced that he was going to choose a woman because he thought it would give him a boost with female voters.

He chose a black female because he thought it would give him a boost with black voters especially female.

For his Presidential Press team, Biden chose an all female team.
Virtue signalling.

The list goes on and on.

What Biden framing his policy shows is that his interests clearly lie in what his indentity politics will do for him, rather than what it will do for the particular groups he mentions.

I'm not argueing Biden or his previosu statements I'm arguing one sttement on it's merit.

You read "Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses" and at that point stopped reading.

You either missed or choose to ignore the rest of his sentence, which reads, "and giving them equal access."

And I don't care how genuined or sincere or how much a liar he is or you think he is, or how politicians act in general, I'm just going by the statement. That's the only thing I'm talking about.

16-01-2021 9:30pm

In more annoying wokeness news..

There's a campaign going to rename the 'gearslutz' music gear forum..

It's like "will ye just fnck off.." at this stage..

16-01-2021 10:40pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hence my wording, "if the timeslines were different".

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Both my parents were active supporters of feminism throughout the 70s/80s, joining the marches, giving up their limited free time to support the movement. Later, they organised with others for gay rights, and were very vocal in giving equal rights to everyone.

Now, however, they're disgusted with modern feminism, and the activists that exist today. While they recognise that discrimination still happens, they're pragmatic enough to understand that what can be done, has been done... and anything more simply lowers the rights of others. Namely men, in the case of modern feminism.

The times suited the movements. In the past, there was a genuine need for activism, because they did live in an incredibly unfair society. Now, that's not the case, considering the range of laws, rights, and protections that the vast majority of people have available to them.

The point being you can't take away the time from the reputation of the cause. Modern feminism isn't supported by the mainstream population, because most people recognise equality had been reached, and further campaigning simply seeks to elevate women above men, by giving them rights, protections, and supports that aren't available to men. Therefore moving away from equality.

Not at all - there have been many genuinely "woke" sentiments highlighted in this thread and I've agreed some of them.

Sure you have, but then I'll return to my pov that being "woke" means forcing change on others, irrespective of whether there's a valid need for that change, and little consideration for the long-term effects of that change.

But equally, some of the sentinents have actually been based on fact and logic, but they get dragged into the mix and the problem is people who are normally intelligent can't seem to tell the difference between woke and a sound social argument. And it's THIS mix and hysteria that the anti-woke crownd seem to scramble for the moment a genuine incident of racism comes in that I'm trying to highlight.

I don't see genuine social arguments and the "woke" crowd as being even remotely similar, because the woke crowd are crusaders seeking justification for supporting issues that mostly don't need addressing. The push against racism in Ireland is simply encouraging racism to manifest because of the hamfisted aggressive approaches of the woke movement.

There IS middle ground - but not if people choose to automatically react to a tweet without reading it properly and thinking about it first. ANd there are people on BOTH sides of the debate doing exactly that.

Sometimes something simply isn't woke, in the same way that sometimes something simply isn't racist.

Information overload. We're all susceptible to it. We're all somewhat weary of the sheer amount of BS that comes out of the internet, the US, and worse yet, social media.

Let me put it this way. Probably like you, I've been "on the internet" all my adult life. Connected most of the time, and all that. My ability to detect sarcasm died last year. It collapsed against the host of comments either from social media, or the mainstream media, because so much BS comes from both... and I'm hearing it all the time.

I'll be honest.. and say that more than half the time I hear something bizarre, or completely messed up, I expect it to be true. Especially if it's coming out of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to go online and rant about it.. but that's more because I don't think that kind of lifestyle is healthy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-01-2021 1:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Have you never heard of parallel dimension theory?

Hypothetical situation. My point being: people can not tell the diffeence between "actual" widespread injustice and so-called widespread injustice.

Sure you have, but then I'll return to my pov that being "woke" means forcing change on others, irrespective of whether there's a valid need for that change, and little consideration for the long-term effects of that change.

Fair point, but there's no real force with woke - they just actually do things that force others to change (rightly or wrongly - I believe wrongly in a lot of cases) whereas the anti-woke crowd sit behinf keyboards and do nothing.

I don't see genuine social arguments and the "woke" crowd as being even remotely similar, because the woke crowd are crusaders seeking justification for supporting issues that mostly don't need addressing. The push against racism in Ireland is simply encouraging racism to manifest because of the hamfisted aggressive approaches of the woke movement.

Some minority groups would disagree with you here. The ballet-dancer incident in Berlin would be one example.

Information overload. We're all susceptible to it. We're all somewhat weary of the sheer amount of BS that comes out of the internet, the US, and worse yet, social media.

Let me put it this way. Probably like you, I've been "on the internet" all my adult life. Connected most of the time, and all that. My ability to detect sarcasm died last year. It collapsed against the host of comments either from social media, or the mainstream media, because so much BS comes from both... and I'm hearing it all the time.

I'll be honest.. and say that more than half the time I hear something bizarre, or completely messed up, I expect it to be true. Especially if it's coming out of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to go online and rant about it.. but that's more because I don't think that kind of lifestyle is healthy.

Here, I garee with you. People don't process the information and that's the downfall. It's quantity over quality.

But again - on both sides. The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

Biker79 · 17-01-2021 1:31pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

That equivalence is completely false.

The anti-woke sentiment is a defence of common sense.

Woke is little more than the flourishes of mental illness, and a threat to culture and institutions.

I'll give you an example. A seasoned journalist this morning in the Irish Times wrote

Trump wasn’t wrong about everything. That sort of statement can get a writer into trouble, so needs explanation. And - this shouldn’t need saying - just because someone says some sensible things doesn’t excuse the horrors they inflict on the world on an almost daily basis.

Imagine a seasoned, respected journalist having to pre-emptively defend himself against being cancelled. That's because of Woke.

17-01-2021 1:43pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Have you never heard of parallel dimension theory?

Hypothetical situation. My point being: people can not tell the diffeence between "actual" widespread injustice and so-called widespread injustice.

Sure, but the point remains that you can suggest that people here might be against civil rights under a different timeline, but the same would apply to you.

We have grown up in a society that promotes the belief in equality. We're all affected by it in formal education, from the media, etc.. so it's impossible to say who would or would not believe, since that timeline would have those forces absent.

Fair point, but there's no real force with woke - they just actually do things that force others to change (rightly or wrongly - I believe wrongly in a lot of cases) whereas the anti-woke crowd sit behinf keyboards and do nothing.

Sure there is. People are influenced in their opinions by social media every day. Just as the campaigning, protests, etc which raise public awareness may change the opinions of people who are open to be influenced by such displays. 'People' who may be influenced who can affect decisions regarding policy.

In any case, we've seen decades of "woke" attitudes in US academia, which means that graduates have left after being influenced by their professors/lecturers, who in turn, have brought those ideas/beliefs into their own areas of work/lifestyles.

As for the "anti-woke" crowd, I'd say that, in the area of social media, they can influence others, just as the woke crowd do. And while I don't really think there's a general movement of being anti-woke, there is opposition on individual issues, where the opponents do far more than type at their keyboards. I know many people in Men's Right's organisations, who are very active in seeking to turn public opinion back towards equality.

Some minority groups would disagree with you here. The ballet-dancer incident in Berlin would be one example.

Most minority groups would disagree with me because they have an interest in being seen as victims, and reaping all the benefits that comes from being such.

Here, I garee with you. People don't process the information and that's the downfall. It's quantity over quality.

But again - on both sides. The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

It depends on who you're talking about. There's the people who have become addicted to the drama that is on the internet or media, and love to express their outrage, gaining social proof/pleasure by doing so with the mob. Sure, many people are like this these days.

At the same time, I find this dismissal of those who oppose woke sentiments, to be rather hypocritical since usually those seeking to dismiss are very quick to support their own causes/crusades. Thankfully, we're seeing a pushback in society against the PC brigade, and woke nonsense...dismissing this pushback is simply more of the type of attitudes that promoted Islamophobia, transphobia, etc regardless of whether there was any reality/logic behind the claims.

COVID · 17-01-2021 2:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure you will, but the blame/responsibility won't be placed on Black people. It's happening because of hundreds of other reasons all aimed squarely on how White people have treated them. It's the same with the rate of fatherless families in the US.. it's not a problem to be solved, but an indication of how White people have screwed Black people, and their culture.

Black people are victims. As such, they'll (as a group) never be held accountable or even partially responsible for what's happened. It's always someone else to blame. To say otherwise is victim blaming, and also, in this case, racist.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

The last line above is true for both sides in this 'wokie' thingy bun fight, save for the word 'nuance' of course, which clearly doesn't belong in this thread at all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-01-2021 2:58pm

Biker79 wrote: »

That equivalence is completely false.

The anti-woke sentiment is a defence of common sense.

Woke is little more than the flourishes of mental illness, and a threat to culture and institutions.

I'll give you an example. A seasoned journalist this morning in the Irish Times wrote

Imagine a seasoned, respected journalist having to pre-emptively defend himself against being cancelled. That's because of Woke.

Again - I'm not talking about in terms of stance or results, I'm talking about in terms of an absense of informed thought and hysteria.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-01-2021 3:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, but the point remains that you can suggest that people here might be against civil rights under a different timeline, but the same would apply to you.

We have grown up in a society that promotes the belief in equality. We're all affected by it in formal education, from the media, etc.. so it's impossible to say who would or would not believe, since that timeline would have those forces absent.

I'm leaving this here as I've made my point and you seme to be unable to undertsand the phrase "hypothetical situation".

Sure there is. People are influenced in their opinions by social media every day. Just as the campaigning, protests, etc which raise public awareness may change the opinions of people who are open to be influenced by such displays. 'People' who may be influenced who can affect decisions regarding policy.

In any case, we've seen decades of "woke" attitudes in US academia, which means that graduates have left after being influenced by their professors/lecturers, who in turn, have brought those ideas/beliefs into their own areas of work/lifestyles.

As for the "anti-woke" crowd, I'd say that, in the area of social media, they can influence others, just as the woke crowd do. And while I don't really think there's a general movement of being anti-woke, there is opposition on individual issues, where the opponents do far more than type at their keyboards. I know many people in Men's Right's organisations, who are very active in seeking to turn public opinion back towards equality.

Not if this thread is anything to go by - and elsewhere I've seeb people automatically grown and take the contrary viewpoint without thinking.

Most minority groups would disagree with me because they have an interest in being seen as victims, and reaping all the benefits that comes from being such.

Now, are you automatically victim-blaming here or saying this is only true in some situations?

It depends on who you're talking about. There's the people who have become addicted to the drama that is on the internet or media, and love to express their outrage, gaining social proof/pleasure by doing so with the mob. Sure, many people are like this these days.

At the same time, I find this dismissal of those who oppose woke sentiments, to be rather hypocritical since usually those seeking to dismiss are very quick to support their own causes/crusades. Thankfully, we're seeing a pushback in society against the PC brigade, and woke nonsense...dismissing this pushback is simply more of the type of attitudes that promoted Islamophobia, transphobia, etc regardless of whether there was any reality/logic behind the claims.

You seem to think I'm taking a side here - I'm not. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm neitehr woke nor anti-woke. I take each incident on its own merit, research and decide for myself.

You dismess woke as "nonsense" - are you're trying to tell me this is "balanced" and "informed"? I'd agree a substantial protion of it is, but I'd still read the opinion beforehand.

(Or are you saying woke and social injsutcie reporting are two different things, in which case, fair enough)

But my point remains: there are a large number of people on both sides of rhe debate that only enter into the arguments with an absense of informed thought and hysteria. And I'm going to keep saying that until peopleactually read it and stop implying that I'm propmoting woke.

Hellokitty1212 · 17-01-2021 3:16pm

The ultimate in part wokery part closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away....

Woman attacked by three teenagers with knives in Balbriggan. Sees them close up; hears them say (in her words) “run, blood”. Yet there’s no physical description from Gardaí.

Pathetic. It’s not racism to report that three black teenagers attacked a woman.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-01-2021 4:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Both my parents were active supporters of feminism throughout the 70s/80s, joining the marches, giving up their limited free time to support the movement. Later, they organised with others for gay rights, and were very vocal in giving equal rights to everyone.

Now, however, they're disgusted with modern feminism, and the activists that exist today. While they recognise that discrimination still happens, they're pragmatic enough to understand that what can be done, has been done... and anything more simply lowers the rights of others. Namely men, in the case of modern feminism.

Sadly, not really the case in the last few years. I would have agreed with you a few years ago. But we are seeing problems arise over the clash of transgender rights and sex-based rights. A concrete example in the last year is HSE public health literature on cervical cancer not mentioning the word woman once (whilst corresponding literature for male-specific health problems are peppered with the word ‘man’). This was a not insignificant problem (though thankfully it’s been corrected, but not without the campaigners receiving some abuse first). Obfuscatory language on literature that is supposed to be raising awareness of health issues and reaching as many relevant people as possible is unacceptable (it really could be a matter of life or death) and it disproportionately affected one sex.

And I don’t need to get into all the other ways women’s rights on under threat from this issue. There’s a whole thread about it.

But I just wanted to highlight that it’s not true to say that all that can be done has been done. Things don’t stay in stasis. Eternal vigilance is needed. Hard won rights, protections and societal mores that women fought for are under renewed threat. I know a few short years ago, it seemed like many of the aims of feminism had been achieved. But it didn’t take long for those achievements to be attacked.

Interestingly, many modern feminists don’t care about the threat to these rights and don’t care about them being chipped away at. It’s the old skool-style feminists who recognise it.

EmmetSpiceland · 17-01-2021 4:15pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seem to think I'm taking a side here - I'm not. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm neitehr woke nor anti-woke. I take each incident on its own merit, research and decide for myself.

Sounds pretty “woke” to me, P.

17-01-2021 4:24pm

This was posted elsewhere, but I think it's relevant here considering how the woke brigade are creating conflicts where there was no real issues in the first place, only fabricated ones to pick fights with.

peasant wrote: »

Some good food for thought here:

Sir Oxman · 17-01-2021 6:45pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Interestingly, many modern feminists don’t care about the threat to these rights and don’t care about them being chipped away at. It’s the old skool-style feminists who recognise it.

Indeed, here's a modern day feminist in action

Hellokitty1212 · 17-01-2021 6:52pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Indeed, here's a modern day feminist in action

So she’s a feminist but she’s okay with a woman having seven bells kicked out of her because she doesn’t sign up to the same far fetched ideology as she does ?

Some feminist! “Infiltrating” ?? Wouldn’t that be men who want to be women and not women themselves ???

17-01-2021 7:16pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm leaving this here as I've made my point and you seme to be unable to undertsand the phrase "hypothetical situation".

Nope. I can understand it perfectly well... the reason I'm not agreeing with you is because you're using it as a tool to cast a judgment over posters on this thread, excluding yourself from the same standards.

Not if this thread is anything to go by - and elsewhere I've seeb people automatically grown and take the contrary viewpoint without thinking.

Ahh well... boards is a discussion board. People come here to argue.

Now, are you automatically victim-blaming here or saying this is only true in some situations?

It's not victim blaming... It's pointing out that there are benefits in today's society for claiming to be a victim. And of course it's only true in some situations.

The mere fact that you asked that shows the influence of woke/PC in society. There was a time, not that long ago, when people would assume that it was a generalisation, and not to be assigned to every situation. Those days are apparently gone.

You seem to think I'm taking a side here - I'm not. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm neitehr woke nor anti-woke. I take each incident on its own merit, research and decide for myself.

I'm looking at your posts.. and yes, I do think you take sides. Most people do.

You dismess woke as "nonsense" - are you're trying to tell me this is "balanced" and "informed"? I'd agree a substantial protion of it is, but I'd still read the opinion beforehand.

I dismiss woke as nonsense because I don't see it as being a legitimate expression of social change to address the injustices in the world. I see it as an aggressive extension of internet personalities, into the real world, with serious downsides.

Again, I don't see this as being a black/white scenario. All opinions and information received will be thought-over, and judged on the evidence and the agendas at play.

(Or are you saying woke and social injsutcie reporting are two different things, in which case, fair enough)

Nope. I see woke and SJW as being the same thing. Reporting of discrimination and other issues, should be taken in and addressed through the established official channels, and not through the woke movements. We have established systems coinciding with legal rights, and legal protections that allow us to claim against discrimination and other problems. It's not as if people are living in the 60s anymore.

But my point remains: there are a large number of people on both sides of rhe debate that only enter into the arguments with an absense of informed thought and hysteria. And I'm going to keep saying that until peopleactually read it and stop implying that I'm propmoting woke.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. There are such people. There's also people who oppose the woke movement on valid grounds. Just as there's legitimate concerns raised by woke activists. I just don't appreciate the 'toxic' attitudes, the condemnation, and cancel culture that tends to go along with it.

As for you promoting woke sentiments, I dunno. I haven't made such a claim. I do see you arguing on the behalf of wokeness on this thread, but that's not the same thing as promoting woke issues.

Ash.J.Williams · 17-01-2021 7:33pm

Saw a movie called “promising young woman “ last night, it’s actually brilliant, the metoo will be claiming it as their own but it’s a very good movie

Hellokitty1212 · 17-01-2021 7:47pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Saw a movie called “promising young woman “ last night, it’s actually brilliant, the metoo will be claiming it as their own but it’s a very good movie

Just read the plot - that’s classed a comedy ??? Yikes!!!

Ash.J.Williams · 17-01-2021 7:48pm

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

Just read the plot - that’s classed a comedy ??? Yikes!!!

It’s like they’re promoting it to be a basic revenge flick but it’s so much more

Hellokitty1212 · 17-01-2021 7:49pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It’s like they’re promoting it to be a basic revenge flick but it’s so much more

Was it good ?

Ash.J.Williams · 17-01-2021 7:52pm

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

Was it good ?

It’s very good

ButtersSuki · 17-01-2021 7:52pm

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

The ultimate in part wokery part closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away....

Woman attacked by three teenagers with knives in Balbriggan. Sees them close up; hears them say (in her words) “run, blood”. Yet there’s no physical description from Gardaí.

Pathetic. It’s not racism to report that three black teenagers attacked a woman.

Dr. Ebun Joseph would disagree.

Hellokitty1212 · 17-01-2021 7:56pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Dr. Ebun Joseph would disagree.

I would hope so, I’ll sit more comfortably knowing I disagree with her!

ILoveYourVibes · 17-01-2021 8:12pm

Here is a wokism for you

Recycling is a bad thing .....you need to stop making so much plastic instead.

We have more plastic than ever in the world and no one asks why with all this recycling.

Basically you can only recycle things twice ....then the plastic degrades ...so it has to be dumped.

Recycling was plastic companies answer so they could keep making plastic.

But it hasn't reduced the amount of plastic in the ocean....because we recycle plastic twice and most...then it has to be dumped.

But no laws are passed banning plastic altogether and people still think recycling plastic is a real thing. Its a scam.

We need to stop making plastic ..or at least so much of it.

Its just a by product of oil companies anyway.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-01-2021 8:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I can understand it perfectly well... the reason I'm not agreeing with you is because you're using it as a tool to cast a judgment over posters on this thread, excluding yourself from the same standards.

Forming opinoin of rather than judging, but yes.

Ahh well... boards is a discussion board. People come here to argue.

Yep.

It's not victim blaming... It's pointing out that there are benefits in today's society for claiming to be a victim. And of course it's only true in some situations.

The mere fact that you asked that shows the influence of woke/PC in society. There was a time, not that long ago, when people would assume that it was a generalisation, and not to be assigned to every situation. Those days are apparently gone.

You said, "minority groups are seen as victims"; my point, "sometimes the are victims."

I'm looking at your posts.. and yes, I do think you take sides. Most people do.

With individual posts, yes - THAT'S my point. I research THEN take a side. How many times do I have to say this?

You can't possibly be saying I take one side and maintain it all the way through...?

The breastfeeding guy was woke and that's just the last one I can remember. I tend not to start debates when I actually agree with the poster!

I dismiss woke as nonsense because I don't see it as being a legitimate expression of social change to address the injustices in the world. I see it as an aggressive extension of internet personalities, into the real world, with serious downsides.

Again, I don't see this as being a black/white scenario. All opinions and information received will be thought-over, and judged on the evidence and the agendas at play.

Nope. I see woke and SJW as being the same thing. Reporting of discrimination and other issues, should be taken in and addressed through the established official channels, and not through the woke movements. We have established systems coinciding with legal rights, and legal protections that allow us to claim against discrimination and other problems. It's not as if people are living in the 60s anymore.

Fair enough - msot of your points I'd totally agree with with regard to SJWs.

But again - sometimes it's not woke/PC/social justice/inclusion - take the Lotto guy on RTE. As I said at the time, automatically assuming it was a minorty appointment is just as bad as demanding one.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. There are such people. There's also people who oppose the woke movement on valid grounds. Just as there's legitimate concerns raised by woke activists. I just don't appreciate the 'toxic' attitudes, the condemnation, and cancel culture that tends to go along with it.

As for you promoting woke sentiments, I dunno. I haven't made such a claim. I do see you arguing on the behalf of wokeness on this thread, but that's not the same thing as promoting woke issues.

So we agree on the crux of my point? After all that?!

Thinking ths would be a good note on which to leave it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-01-2021 8:48pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Indeed, here's a modern day feminist in action

That’s honestly bonkers. :eek:

ingalway · 17-01-2021 9:28pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Indeed, here's a modern day feminist in action

That is terribly depressing. What is wrong with these people. How can they not see how insane and dangerous this is?

17-01-2021 9:29pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Here is a wokism for you

Recycling is a bad thing .....you need to stop making so much plastic instead.

We have more plastic than ever in the world and no one asks why with all this recycling.

Basically you can only recycle things twice ....then the plastic degrades ...so it has to be dumped.

Recycling was plastic companies answer so they could keep making plastic.

But it hasn't reduced the amount of plastic in the ocean....because we recycle plastic twice and most...then it has to be dumped.

But no laws are passed banning plastic altogether and people still think recycling plastic is a real thing. Its a scam.

We need to stop making plastic ..or at least so much of it.

Its just a by product of oil companies anyway.

Turn it into fuel, at least then it can be incinerated in a controlled environment with minimal emissions, unpopular but better than the alternatives.

As has already been said by many, make fewer plastic & disposable products in the first place.

Not sure how it is wokism?

ingalway · 17-01-2021 9:31pm

The book burning woke are at it again:

https://twitter.com/transwritersu/status/1350814155230609410?s=20

EmmetSpiceland · 17-01-2021 9:43pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure how it is wokism?

Saving the planet is, generally, considered “woke”.

Quantum Erasure · 17-01-2021 9:59pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Saving the planet is, generally, considered “woke”.

Or, thinking you're saving the planet, while actually having very little impact on things, same as the whole 'personal carbon footprint' farce

One Urban Dictionary contributor defines woke as “being aware of the truth behind things 'the man' doesn't want you to know”. Meanwhile, a concurrent definition signals a shift in meaning to “the act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue”

https://twitter.com/andrwfhenderson/status/1187386101960454146

Sir Oxman · 17-01-2021 10:06pm

ingalway wrote: »

The book burning woke are at it again:

https://twitter.com/transwritersu/status/1350814155230609410?s=20

The sin was a national newspaper or *any* media daring to review a book that does not align 100% with the theory.
Trans activists, a lot of who are <woke> extremists, have tried hounding every author that challenges them or any author who may have asked questions out of existence.
Methinks they protest too much.
Reminds me of the current campaign to 'ban' Andy Ngo's book about 'Antifa' - both groups of book banning/burning loving extremists are from the same camp - critical theory/<wokeness>

Attempting the 'a book review needs to be deleted due to rules and regulations' angle is a new one, even for these utter loopers. If you read the entire diatribe - the statement of complaint not the book being reviewed - well done you!

jaxxx · 17-01-2021 10:12pm

ingalway wrote: »

The book burning woke are at it again:

https://twitter.com/transwritersu/status/1350814155230609410?s=20

I sincerely hope the Independent email them back telling them to "f*ck off and get a serious dose of reality". Stop forcing this sh*t on kids. Let kids be kids, then they can make up their own minds when they're adults! Just cos your lad's more feminine or your girl's more masculine is no reason to jump on the trans bandwagon. FFS.

jaxxx · 17-01-2021 10:13pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The sin was a national newspaper or *any* media daring to review a book that does not align 100% with the theory.
Trans activists, a lot of who are <woke> extremists, have tried hounding every author that challenges them or any author who may have asked questions out of existence.
Methinks they protest too much.
Reminds me of the current campaign to 'ban' Andy Ngo's book about 'Antifa' - both groups of book banning/burning loving extremists are from the same camp - critical theory/<wokeness>

Attempting the 'a book review needs to be deleted due to rules and regulations' angle is a new one, even for these utter loopers. If you read the entire diatribe - the statement of complaint not the book being reviewed - well done you!

Basically fascism in other words.

Gruffalux · 17-01-2021 10:19pm

There is someone on Twitter called Barry Pierce offering to give people Madeleine Keane's personal email address so she can be harrassed for sanctioning publication of the review.

https://twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1350897207017414659?s=19

jaxxx · 17-01-2021 10:24pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

There is someone on Twitter called Barry Pierce offering to give people Madeleine Keane's personal email address so she can be harrassed for sanctioning publication of the review.

https://twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1350897207017414659?s=19

Disgusting. So long freedom of speech, it was nice knowing you. Now if we don't subscribe to these kinds of so-called "progressive" doctrine, it's basically open season? The hypocrisy is unreal.

Sir Oxman · 17-01-2021 10:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That lads email is literally available on google :pac:

Who knew the world of irish book reviews was so fraught with rivilary.......looks to me,he's agitating to remove a professional rival through cancel culture and fake outrage

I just whoogled the name.
A book reviewer no less!

Sir Oxman · 17-01-2021 10:31pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

There is someone on Twitter called Barry Pierce offering to give people Madeleine Keane's personal email address so she can be harrassed for sanctioning publication of the review.

https://twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1350897207017414659?s=19

Oh, the kindness isn't deeper than a quick scratch beneath the surface.

Gruffalux · 17-01-2021 10:34pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That lads email is literally available on google :pac:

Who knew the world of irish book reviews was so fraught with rivilary.......looks to me,he's agitating to remove a professional rival through cancel culture and fake outrage

It is mostly (for me) the thought process I find offensive. The bitchy petty animus that reacts in such a nasty manner. It is a very emasculated methodology - can he or the trans "writers" union not call upon their mighty pens and talent to attempt to answer the arguments put forth in that to which they object? It seems not. As in so many arenas now the wits are thrown aside in favour of egging on or facilitating public bullying, silencing and intimidation. It is the refuge of the incapable.

17-01-2021 10:39pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is mostly (for me) the thought process I find offensive. The bitchy petty animus that reacts in such a nasty manner. It is a very emasculated methodology - can he or the trans "writers" union not call upon their mighty pens and talent to attempt to answer the arguments put forth in that to which they object? It seems not. As in so many arenas now the wits are thrown aside in favour of egging on or facilitating public bullying, silencing and intimidation. It is the refuge of the incapable.

looks to me,at first glance,he's stirring the pot to his own benefit here

On one hand,you have admire people machiavellian streak.....great to see folks tearing lumps outta each other,its great interneting

Though on other hand the clap back and tide out on him will be brutal :pac: ....i kinda love to see people at each others throats over random stuff when im bored

17-01-2021 10:42pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Forming opinoin of rather than judging, but yes.

Same thing in this case.

You said, "minority groups are seen as victims"; my point, "sometimes the are victims."

Perception is important... associations emerge over time.

With individual posts, yes - THAT'S my point. I research THEN take a side. How many times do I have to say this?

Say it as many times as you wish.. I'll deal with what I've quoted.

You can't possibly be saying I take one side and maintain it all the way through...?

Nope.. since I didn't say that.

Fair enough - msot of your points I'd totally agree with with regard to SJWs.

But again - sometimes it's not woke/PC/social justice/inclusion - take the Lotto guy on RTE. As I said at the time, automatically assuming it was a minorty appointment is just as bad as demanding one.

I don't think it is. As I said before, considering the demographics of Ireland, and the competition within Irish media for the spotlight, it's surprising that we're seeing such diversity on prime spots. It's, somewhat, different with the Black woman on nationwide, since she's been on a wide variety of shows for quite some time now.

The feeling that there's more than talent going on is reinforced by the amount of airtime racial diversity, and multiculturalism is receiving on RTE. There appears to have been a lot this year (2020).

So we agree on the crux of my point? After all that?!

Thinking ths would be a good note on which to leave it.

Sure. I don't mind. I tend to lose track of a discussion after a while, simply dealing with the last quoted piece. At this stage, I'm not completely sure as to what was the original objection.

Gruffalux · 17-01-2021 10:45pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

looks to me,at first glance,he's stirring the pot to his own benefit here

On one hand,you have admire people machiavellian streak.....great to see folks tearing lumps outta each other,its great interneting

Though the clap back and tide out on him will be brutal :pac: ....i kinda love to see people at each others throats over random stuff when im bored

Given that he would know full well that the radical trans activist's tend to attract a crowd who regularly besiege those not in lockstep with threats to rape terfs to death or choke them on their girl dick or hope they die in a grease fire etc I am not inclined to find a chap offering to share a woman's personal email address to such a crowd so benign or amusing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-01-2021 10:46pm

ingalway wrote: »

The book burning woke are at it again:

https://twitter.com/transwritersu/status/1350814155230609410?s=20

I don’t get it. What are they afraid of? If the book is so bad, do they think the Irish public are too thick as mince to realise that and that we must be saved from ourselves?

17-01-2021 10:48pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

Given that he would know full well that the radical trans activist's tend to attract a crowd who regularly besiege those not in lockstep with threats to rape terfs to death or choke them on their girl dick or hope they die in a grease fire etc I am not inclined to find a chap offering to share a woman's personal email address to such a crowd so benign or amusing.

WTF

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

Comments

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