4 4
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

White men are not the majority. Young people have introduced language and change to culture probably forever. Cool used to only mean a little cold. Gay meant happy. But when gays took that word and used it within their own group as an in-term, they “took it away.” 
Gender and sexual orientation aren’t choices; what someone does is a choice. Criminal behavior is a choice — sometimes one driven by mental or social pressures, but nevertheless a choice. 
But we haven’t done away with money because some people steal it. We haven’t done away with guns because some people misuse them. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

White men are not the majority. Young people have introduced language and change to culture probably forever. Cool used to only mean a little cold. Gay meant happy. But when gays took that word and used it within their own group as an in-term, they “took it away.” 
Gender and sexual orientation aren’t choices; what someone does is a choice. Criminal behavior is a choice — sometimes one driven by mental or social pressures, but nevertheless a choice. 
But we haven’t done away with money because some people steal it. We haven’t done away with guns because some people misuse them. 
Wendy P. 

Agreed.  Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those statements can be considered part of wokeness. Anything is a joke if you take only the extreme.
After all, conservatives require their women to dress in long skirts and have as many babies as they can pump out — I saw it on “15/16/17/18/19 Kids and Counting.” 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, metalslug said:

It's no longer a subculture if attempts are being made to change mainstream English language and definitions in absurd ways, to push onto the majority.

That's been happening forever.

"Gay" used to mean "happy,"  (i.e. "don we now our gay apparel")  "Mailman" to "postal carrier."  “How do you do?” to “How’s it going?”  "That's funny!" to "LOL!"  And it will continue, as the next generation "pushes their language" onto the older generation.

Quote

It's more of an issue when one is able assert pronouns and titles for anything that one "chooses to identify as", as this allows transgenderism to be faked

?? How is that different than using a new name (which you are apparently OK with) to fake your identity?  Both are bad when used as a way to mislead people.  Both are good when it results in people referring to you in the way you want to be referred to.

Quote

there are undoubtedly public spaces in which women would rightly prefer to feel safe from potential male predators

Agreed.  And I would argue that "what pronoun someone prefers to use" has almost zero to do with that.  In fact, laws passed on who can go into which bathroom can CAUSE such fears to materialize.

Take the picture I posted below.  Should this person use the men's room?  Or should they be forced to use the women's room because their birth certificate says FEMALE?

 

TG.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

Name changes are pretty common from a historical standpoint. 

Yup, just like the "journalist" whose article you posted. He is not really called Tyler Durden, but Daniel Ivandjiski. Daniel's father was a communist cabinet minister in Bulgaria. Daniel started Zero Hedge after losing his trading license due to insider trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Prof sues UCLA ‘over suspension for not grading black students more leniently’

There are over 2,000 instructors with faculty status at UCLA.  I have to believe he wasn't the only one asked.

He was never asked by the university. He was asked by a student and Prof went on a pretty thinly veiled racist rant in his reply email. And the student didn't ask to grade black students more leniently either.

Your post does show how quickly narrative gets formed based on nonsense opinions.

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Prof sues UCLA ‘over suspension for not grading black students more leniently’

There are over 2,000 instructors with faculty status at UCLA.  I have to believe he wasn't the only one asked.

He was suspended for his angry, sarcastic rant directed at a student at the school, not for any of his grading practices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

He was never asked by the university. He was asked by a student and Prof went on a pretty thinly veiled racist rant in his reply email. And the student didn't ask to grade black students more leniently either.

I haven't read the actual email but it would appear that you are wrong.

An unidentified white student e-mailed Klein and asked for a “no harm” final for black students — meaning poor grades wouldn’t be counted — because of the racially charged “unjust murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd,” Klein said.

The email added, “[It’s] not a joint effort to get finals canceled for non-black students, but rather an ask that you exercise compassion and leniency with black students in our major.”

Your post does show how quickly narrative gets formed based on nonsense opinions.

“Are there any students that may be of mixed parentages, such as half black half-Asian?” the professor wrote in his reply. “What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half?

“Also, do you have any idea if any students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they are probably especially devastated as well. I am thinking that a white student from there might possibly be even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they’re racist even if they are not.”

The response, which was posted to social media, ignited a firestorm, and a petition demanding his termination garnered more than 20,000 signatures.

Typical Woke response and yes, the narrative was formed based on nonsense opinions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billvon said:

He was suspended for his angry, sarcastic rant directed at a student at the school, not for any of his grading practices.

If this is an angry, sarcastic rant worthy of suspension we're all in trouble.

“Are there any students that may be of mixed parentages, such as half black half-Asian?” the professor wrote in his reply. “What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half?

“Also, do you have any idea if any students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they are probably especially devastated as well. I am thinking that a white student from there might possibly be even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they’re racist even if they are not.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If this is an angry, sarcastic rant worthy of suspension we're all in trouble.

If I wrote that to one of the people I managed (someone who was asking me about accommodations, for example) it would at least get attention from HR, and at the very least would get a meeting with them to remind me to not try to make DEI policy for the company.  If this had been the fourth time I wrote something like that, then stronger action might well be forthcoming - like suspension, or removing me from management, or even firing.

Teachers (and managers, and trainers etc) are held to higher standards than Facebook posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Were you wrong?

Actually, I think the response was pretty funny - in an unprofessional kind of way.

The request from the student was entirely racist, and the professor took the bait.

As my beloved Drill Instructor pointed out, "you can think it, but you BETTER not say it!"

As far as being wrong goes, I imagine that from your standpoint I am nearly always wrong. If the usual suspects here began agreeing with me too often I might begin to worry.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

"Gay" used to mean "happy,"  (i.e. "don we now our gay apparel")  "Mailman" to "postal carrier."  “How do you do?” to “How’s it going?”  "That's funny!" to "LOL!"  And it will continue, as the next generation "pushes their language" onto the older generation.

Gay still does mean happy, if used in a specific context. The meaning did not change, it's merely become ambiguous.  Likewise; adding new words does not equate to changing existing words. When the woke cultures are attempting to change 'male', 'female', 'father' 'mother', rather finite and distinct terms that reach into the sciences, I regard that as problematic.

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Take the picture I posted below.  Should this person use the men's room?  Or should they be forced to use the women's room because their birth certificate says FEMALE?

You're presenting a strawman for inane debate. I specifically referred to "choose to identify as", not birth certificates. There are varying degrees of biological and surgical transformations to arrive the type of image you posted and people should indeed be judged on what they currently are, rather than a birth certificate.

Maybe you'd be OK with unvaccinated people "choosing to identify as" vaccinated, to gain all the same privileges and public access as vaccinated people ?  I'm sure you'd agree they need the medical procedure before making such assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, metalslug said:

 

Maybe you'd be OK with unvaccinated people "choosing to identify as" vaccinated, to gain all the same privileges and public access as vaccinated people ?  I'm sure you'd agree they need the medical procedure before making such assertions.

You win the dumb comparison of the day award.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

You win the dumb comparison of the day award.

Gee thanks, 'Stumpy'. I really value your awards. :thumbup:

If it's not yet clear; That part of my comment was specifically referring to males who have not sufficiently physically transitioned, who assert themselves as being female to inappropriately leverage an entitlement. My comparison therefore refers to people who are ignoring a requirement and asserting to being something they are not. 

Do you regard it as 'dumb' because unvaccinated people are a health hazard and men are not ?  In reality of course; unvaccinated people are a health risk, transitioning to a hazard only if they test positive.  Similarly; many males-who-identify-as-female are harmless but, for the purposes of the above comparison, risk exists in some public spaces regarding those who are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, metalslug said:

Gay still does mean happy, if used in a specific context.

Of course.  But if someone says "that's so gay" no one today thinks that means "that is so happy."  The meaning has been changed.

Quote

There are varying degrees of biological and surgical transformations to arrive the type of image you posted and people should indeed be judged on what they currently are, rather than a birth certificate.

I agree!  Who decides what they are?  You . . . or them?  How about a man who looks androgynous?  Should you be able to decide "hey, you look like a chick - head to the women's room or I am calling the cops!"  I'd argue that it is up to her, even if you think they are a woman (and even if they have XX chromosomes, as happens in AIS.)

How about a trans woman who is transitioning, living as a woman, but who hasn't had surgery yet?  How about if they have had top but not bottom surgery, and are wanting to wait a bit before the bottom surgery?  Who decides what gender they are?  Again, I would argue that they do.

Quote

Maybe you'd be OK with unvaccinated people "choosing to identify as" vaccinated, to gain all the same privileges and public access as vaccinated people ?

Nope.  Because there is an actual, medical difference between a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person.  There is no such clear difference in transgender people.  (Or even in AIS people.)

Again, it's like a woman (or man) changing their name after marriage.  It's up to them what they want their name to be.  There is no "medical reason" for them to change their name; they just want to, and most people do not have a problem with that.  They can, of course, misuse that and try to use the name change to cover up a criminal past or something.  But we would not say "NO MORE NAME CHANGES WHEN YOU GET MARRIED!" just because .01% of people who change their names do so for nefarious reasons.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Similarly; many males-who-identify-as-female are harmless but, for the purposes of the above comparison, risk exists in some public spaces regarding those who are not.

And again, some people change their names to escape justice.  We don't require women to keep their maiden names as a result.

If this were a big problem then it might be worth looking at.  And if it's a big problem it should be easy to find examples of this.  Can you find, say, six examples of people who have used their gender identification to harm someone else?  (Not make someone uncomfortable, but harm them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, metalslug said:

Similarly; many males-who-identify-as-female are harmless but, for the purposes of the above comparison, risk exists in some public spaces regarding those who are not.

Similarly, many people with concealed firearms have secured concealed carry permits and respect the dangers of mishandling a firearm.  But for the purposes of your comparison, risk exists in some public spaces regarding those who do not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Those statements can be considered part of wokeness. Anything is a joke if you take only the extreme.
After all, conservatives require their women to dress in long skirts and have as many babies as they can pump out — I saw it on “15/16/17/18/19 Kids and Counting.” 
Wendy P. 

To say that Woke people use the same calendar and are thus are in agreement is disingenuous.  The objection to Woke nonsense is where they jump the shark and seek universal conformity to their standards (and yes, there are 'conservatives' that are no better in that regard).

Requiring the long skirts while barefoot and pregnant is very much a reality in some communities.  To note that there are 'conservatives' that do not adhere to such standards makes that norm no better.

If you have a group that sets up an independent society to show the rest of the world how it's done as in "Atlas Shrugged," great.  If you have a group that imposes their world view on the rest of society by (mostly peaceful) force and intimidation, burning books and toppling statues, as in Berlin in the '30s or Berkeley now, not so good.

My bookshelf is lined with books with whose contents I disagree strongly.  It has been stated that I fail to 'study' much of that with which I disagree, but prefer to peruse the original source where possible.

Much of 'rebuttal' on this site constitutes an attack on the source, rather than a refutation of content.  One need not be a Catholic to cite a Bishop, understanding their position but considering their argument.  Much though I loathe Donald Trump, he would occasionally say something that made a lot of sense - though picking out the odd gem was too much like seeking objects of value in a manure pile.

The bottom line is that those the embrace 'Woke' are universally in support of a massively flawed ideology, and that is a deal breaker.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billvon said:

And again, some people change their names to escape justice.  We don't require women to keep their maiden names as a result.

If this were a big problem then it might be worth looking at.  And if it's a big problem it should be easy to find examples of this.  Can you find, say, six examples of people who have used their gender identification to harm someone else?  (Not make someone uncomfortable, but harm them.)

ISIS fighters trying to get through roadblocks by wearing burqas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4