2 2
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

I do know what it means.   And some people do equate science to "woke."  But I also know what socialism, CRT and communism means, and none of them are what right wingers think they mean.

 

You will recall from Logic 101 that there are rather a few types of definition, to include lexical, stipulative, precising, legal, medical, nautical and so forth.  Thus the implication that your preferred meanings are definitive is obfuscatory, fatuous or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, winsor said:

You will recall from Logic 101 that there are rather a few types of definition, to include lexical, stipulative, precising, legal, medical, nautical and so forth.  Thus the implication that your preferred meanings are definitive is obfuscatory, fatuous or both.

I get it that from your high perch we're all in need of serious remediation, and in my case probably so. But calling Bill out for being fatuous is a little puffed up even by this threads current standards. I for one won't stand to have the guy who recommends my Bourbon Barrel Stouts disrespected so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, winsor said:

You will recall from Logic 101 that there are rather a few types of definition, to include lexical, stipulative, precising, legal, medical, nautical and so forth.  Thus the implication that your preferred meanings are definitive is obfuscatory, fatuous or both.

Your raving against "wokeism" is so utterly meaningless that it is impossible to argue against. That is why you like the term so much. Instead of debating individual ideas which you could never defend you get to wrap up all your fears and hatreds into a bundle and give it a name. It is so vague that it is nothing more than a shadow.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Your raving against "wokeism" is so utterly meaningless that it is impossible to argue against. That is why you like the term so much. Instead of debating individual ideas which you could never defend you get to wrap up all your fears and hatreds into a bundle and give it a name. It is so vague that it is nothing more than a shadow.

Yep.  To many people, woke serves the same purpose as socialism does to the right wing; it means nothing more than "that which I dislike."

Share this post


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

Yep.  To many people, woke serves the same purpose as socialism does to the right wing; it means nothing more than "that which I dislike."

Bullshit, as usual.

The self-definitions of the Woke incorporate a standard liturgy of Progressive, Social Justice and Racial Justice ideals, which form a distinct orthodoxy.

In academia there has always been a cadre of terminally naïve and sanctimonious young people who are determined to inflict their world view upon those who require 'education.'  There's no way you could have missed it in Cambridge (the Masshole variant).

The part that you appear to miss is that, even though the issues raised by the Woke are often quite real, the 'solutions' espoused are generally much worse than the problems they claim to address.

The concept of 'compromise' is on a par with a motorcycle gang striking a deal with an 'object of affection':

"Look, lady, the whole club wants to pull a train on you but you're not into it.  Let's compromise and you only have to do the President, the Sergeant at Arms and the 1%ers - no Prospects.  We're being fair here."

Racial equality?  Fine.

BLM/CRT?  Racist swine.

Nazis, KKK, et al?  NFG.

AntiFa?  Not the slightest bit better.

All in all, Woke has all the hallmarks of religion, and is thus a disease of denial.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


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

"Look, lady, the whole club wants to pull a train on you but you're not into it.  Let's compromise and you only have to do the President, the Sergeant at Arms and the 1%ers - no Prospects.  We're being fair here."

Finally a joke. A very sick one but what the hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Finally a joke. A very sick one but what the hell?

Who's joking? 

"Compromise" is the hallmark of mediocrity.

A secret that is compromised is public.

If your integrity is compromised you have none 

If your hull is compromised you sunk.

And so forth.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Edited by winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, winsor said:

Compromise" is the hallmark of mediocrity

That would seem to indicate that you’re in favor of the current Republican tactics in the Senate. What do you imagine a deliberative body is suppose to do when the different members and their districts different priorities?

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, winsor said:

Who's joking? 

This whole thread is supposed to be about a joke, remember? Compromise is how disputes get resolved. Our society is built on compromise. If there were no need for compromise there would be no need for deliberative bodies like courts and congress and such. Compromise is us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, winsor said:

Who's joking? 

"Compromise" is the hallmark of mediocrity.

A secret that is compromised is public.

If your integrity is compromised you have none 

If your hull is compromised you sunk.

And so forth.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Alright, for giggles let's agree. How would you organize a society that doesn't require compromise to function?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

That would seem to indicate that you’re in favor of the current Republican tactics in the Senate. What do you imagine a deliberative body is suppose to do when the different members and their districts different priorities?

Wendy P. 

I'm in favor of cooperation, which is vastly different from compromise.

Focus on commonality instead of diversity and you have a shot.

I'm puzzled by how you might conclude that there's a dime's worth of difference between one side of the aisle and the other, beyond the subset of the population to which they pander.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, winsor said:

I'm in favor of cooperation, which is vastly different from compromise.

Focus on commonality instead of diversity and you have a shot.

I'm puzzled by how you might conclude that there's a dime's worth of difference between one side of the aisle and the other, beyond the subset of the population to which they pander.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

Compromise is the fuel of cooperation. Unlike a math problem, peaceful social interaction usually requires movement away from your position. I'll ask again, how would you organize a society where compromise isn't required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe these words connote different things to different people. The power-as-goal crowd seems to consider compromise to be a dirty word, and the whatever-they-want-is-what-we-don't-want crowd can't see any pathway for cooperation or collaboration.

Gotta start with goals, which means pissing off some people whose primary purpose is to piss off other people. But that's why local politics is so much better than national -- it's much easier to find goals in your own city or town, even if it's that potholes need to be filled and the property taxes are too high. Then you have to choose which, because if the property taxes go too far down, then there's no money to fill potholes, right?

Wendy P.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

"Compromise" is the hallmark of mediocrity.

If you ever get a chance study the history of the Apollo program.  It was one massive compromise.  Weight was the enemy; too heavy and the vehicle would never get to the moon.  Too light and the rocket would collapse due to the tremendous thrust trying to compress the empty tanks between the first stage engines and the fully fueled second stage.  They found a compromise that worked.

There was no way with existing technology to get the entire vehicle to the Moon and back; the required rocket didn't exist (and still doesn't.)  So they compromised.  The heavy re-entry vehicle stayed in lunar orbit, and the very light LEM descended to the Moon then re-ascended.  It required an extra docking step - but the compromise worked.  (And arguably saved all their lives during the Apollo 13 disaster.)

The right way to pressurize the oxidizer tanks of the first stage (to provide both pressure and structural integrity) was via endogenous pressurization; using the heat of the engine to boil off some of the LOX and use it to provide that pressure.  But time was critical, so they compromised by using compressed helium, an inert gas, to provide that pressure.  That required helium tanks which took up space and added weight and complexity.  But the compromise worked.

These (and many others) made it possible to get humans to the Moon with a remarkably low fatality rate for a program that pushed the limits of existing technology that hard.  You can call that project "mediocre" if you like, but most would disagree.

Compromise is what makes projects like that possible.  Good thing you weren't working on it, I guess.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

If you ever get a chance study the history of the Apollo program.  It was one massive compromise.  Weight was the enemy; too heavy and the vehicle would never get to the moon.  Too light and the rocket would collapse due to the tremendous thrust trying to compress the empty tanks between the first stage engines and the fully fueled second stage.  They found a compromise that worked.

There was no way with existing technology to get the entire vehicle to the Moon and back; the required rocket didn't exist (and still doesn't.)  So they compromised.  The heavy re-entry vehicle stayed in lunar orbit, and the very light LEM descended to the Moon then re-ascended.  It required an extra docking step - but the compromise worked.  (And arguably saved all their lives during the Apollo 13 disaster.)

The right way to pressurize the oxidizer tanks of the first stage (to provide both pressure and structural integrity) was via endogenous pressurization; using the heat of the engine to boil off some of the LOX and use it to provide that pressure.  But time was critical, so they compromised by using compressed helium, an inert gas, to provide that pressure.  That required helium tanks which took up space and added weight and complexity.  But the compromise worked.

These (and many others) made it possible to get humans to the Moon with a remarkably low fatality rate for a program that pushed the limits of existing technology that hard.  You can call that project "mediocre" if you like, but most would disagree.

Compromise is what makes projects like that possible.  Good thing you weren't working on it, I guess.

Hi Bill,

IMO all design is a compromise.

Well put,

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you ever get a chance study the history of the Apollo program.  It was one massive compromise.  Weight was the enemy; too heavy and the vehicle would never get to the moon.  Too light and the rocket would collapse due to the tremendous thrust trying to compress the empty tanks between the first stage engines and the fully fueled second stage.  They found a compromise that worked.

There was no way with existing technology to get the entire vehicle to the Moon and back; the required rocket didn't exist (and still doesn't.)  So they compromised.  The heavy re-entry vehicle stayed in lunar orbit, and the very light LEM descended to the Moon then re-ascended.  It required an extra docking step - but the compromise worked.  (And arguably saved all their lives during the Apollo 13 disaster.)

The right way to pressurize the oxidizer tanks of the first stage (to provide both pressure and structural integrity) was via endogenous pressurization; using the heat of the engine to boil off some of the LOX and use it to provide that pressure.  But time was critical, so they compromised by using compressed helium, an inert gas, to provide that pressure.  That required helium tanks which took up space and added weight and complexity.  But the compromise worked.

These (and many others) made it possible to get humans to the Moon with a remarkably low fatality rate for a program that pushed the limits of existing technology that hard.  You can call that project "mediocre" if you like, but most would disagree.

Compromise is what makes projects like that possible.  Good thing you weren't working on it, I guess.

Since we're talking legislators, their commonality is much greater with biker trash than NASA.  Same math and science requirements.

In lawmaking "compromise" has more in common with working out the details of gang rape than of systems optimization for space flight.

In context my analogy holds.

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.

2 2