Does anyone on this forum consider themself as being " woke "

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonel_Klinck said:
A bigger person doing more work and so getting more pay isn't a human rights issue. Workers being abused and made to work in terrible conditions or children being used as slave labour is more an Amnesty thing. So no I don't agree that "its their ideology". Funny I did a few searches and couldn't find a trace of this video and Amnesty. I'd expect to see some reference to it if it was only the 90s.
.
Click to expand...

If you assume my memory is bad or i am making things up, then do not reply to me.

Ultimately the point is not to trash amnesty, but the ideology behind having such an idea in the first place, which is highly prevalent. It exists in the woke people mentioned in this thread and everywhere else.

You need to zoom, the base ideology from woke people to human rights is the same.
 
i-bert said:
The woke left are the masters of it, that's why a new terminology was created because of their antics.
Click to expand...

The word woke was not created as an insult.

The first time I ever heard it was on the Empire movie podcast. They were talking about "woke bae" and Instill have no idea what they bae part was.
 
Interesting comments re: the equality vs equity image. Most people seem to be suggesting that the equity example is a bad thing, but I think it just ‘depends’. There are plenty of examples where it seems inherently fair that disadvantaged people should ‘get more’ - disabled people getting preferential seating / assistance etc. All I think that the image is trying to show is that treating everybody the same can sometimes be unfair.

I think a far better thing to strive for is general ‘fairness’. There is no ‘one rule fits all circumstances’ approach. Sometimes applying that equity approach is fair, some times it is not.
 
i-bert said:
The woke left are the masters of it, that's why a new terminology was created because of their antics.

And the BBC are doing a great job of cancelling themselves by pushing their agenda.
Click to expand...

Funny how the right thinks the BBC is left and the left thinks its right. Kind of suggests that its pretty much smack in the middle.
 
Graetzbridge said:
So what is it?
Click to expand...

I think that whoever first coined the word “woke”, considered that most people were sleepwalking through life, unaware of what was going on around them, so the coiners termed themselves “woke”, to illustrate that they were superior thinkers to the somnambulists, so in effect, insulting those that they considered not to be “woke”.
Or something along those lines, gimme a break over here, I’m only on my second cup of coffee, I know what I want to say, but at this early hour I’m unsure of the proper order in which to put my words.
 
Nitefly said:
Interesting comments re: the equality vs equity image. Most people seem to be suggesting that the equity example is a bad thing, but I think it just ‘depends’. There are plenty of examples where it seems inherently fair that disadvantaged people should ‘get more’ - disabled people getting preferential seating / assistance etc. All I think that the image is trying to show is that treating everybody the same can sometimes be unfair.

I think a far better thing to strive for is general ‘fairness’. There is no ‘one rule fits all circumstances’ approach. Sometimes applying that equity approach is fair, some times it is not.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that 'fairness' is subjective — that's practically the cornerstone of the difference in opinion between right and left.

Take pretty much any lightning-rod issue and you can make a case one way or the other on the grounds of 'fairness'.
 
In the "Equity vs Equality" image the tall man has not been inconvenienced by the removal of his box.

In the real world, a rich person pays more tax both absolutely and proportionately (assuming they don't cheat) than a poor person and the rich person's taxes help poor people. The rich person is not truly "inconvenienced"; they still have a high quality of life. Equality would be if everyone paid the same exact amount irrespective of their position.

On another point, anyone who thinks "woke" could be applied to a person killing a.n.other race "because it would make their country better" is being disingenuous at best. "Woke" isn't about what is "best", it's about what is "just" or "fair". We might disagree on what "just" means but no-one could argue it is "fair" to kill one race to make another "better". That is manifestly unfair.

To me "woke" means being aware and cognisant of the bigger picture. Being aware of global racial and colour prejudice and believing it should change. It's being aware of how words and actions can be offensive to others and trying to avoid hurting other people's feelings. It could be something as small as not swearing in front of your mother or kids, not smoking in the house, not putting a burning cross outside your neighbour's house. It's about moderating your own life to avoid negatively impacting someone else's.

But it's also about saying to people who have already benefitted "maybe you should allow some of your position to be redistributed". Not so that everyone is exactly equal, but so that things aren't so unequal. Isn't that what the UK's tax system already does and aren't we all broadly OK with that?
 
Nitefly said:
Interesting comments re: the equality vs equity image. Most people seem to be suggesting that the equity example is a bad thing, but I think it just ‘depends’. There are plenty of examples where it seems inherently fair that disadvantaged people should ‘get more’ - disabled people getting preferential seating / assistance etc. All I think that the image is trying to show is that treating everybody the same can sometimes be unfair.
Click to expand...

Well not when wokeness is concerned... the fairness aspect and a disabled people example was already addressed in the post containing the image.

If all that people campaigning for "equity" wanted was some actual, root causes of issues like that addressed then I doubt it would be particularly controversial to say you favpoir "equity" not "equality".

The issue is how it is used in reality, "equity" is cited not just to address some underlying cause of unequal outcomes but to address outcomes themselves on the (often flawed) basis that there is some single issue or -ism responsible for the discrepancy.

For example - requesting higher test scores from Asian American students and lower test scores from African American students in top US universities.

UK universities might make an adjustment on say A-level grades based on whether someone went to a posh private school vs someone coming from a low performing school - that seems more reasonable as there is an actual causal aspect there of being better prepared for those exams etc...

The US on the other hand has these standardised tests - the SAT etc.. the whole point of them was to address issues of fairness and make things more equitable, there isn't a particularly broad syllabus for these things, a high SAT test score is linked to IQ (though that is a can of worms in itself), obvs practicing and preparing can lead to a higher score but it's more of a test of ability/potential which levels the playing field between people who have attended some posh school vs a rough inner-city one... but because there is a discrepancy, high scorers being made up ot too many Asians, too few blacks then it gets framed as an equity issue to address it.
 
Just goes to you that the far\left are easy to manipulate using silly meanings for words.
No wonder a lot of media sites are biased towards the left. They are a push over.
 
deuse said:
Just goes to you that the far\left are easy to manipulate using silly meanings for words.
No wonder a lot of media sites are biased towards the left. They are a push over.
Click to expand...

How ironic when 74 million people voted for Trump in 2020, and Johnson's Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 2019 — Neither of whom can string a coherent sentence together and both are compulsive liars.

And you want to talk about biased media? What about Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Mail, The Express, and The Sun? All bastions of truth I'm sure, and not one of them could be accused of 'easy manipulation of simpletons'… right?

The fact is, most people are fallible, biased, and hypocritical — no matter which way they lean politically.
 
A lot of it is picking a bandwagon to jump on to feel part of a group. Much like following a religion, supporting a football team etc. I remember listening to the radio and a woman being interviewed was saying how she changed her views from being far left to alt-right. She was treating that like she had found enlightenment, but really she just wanted another cause, another wave to ride on.
 
Irish_Tom said:
How ironic when 74 million people voted for Trump in 2020, and Johnson's Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 2019 — Neither of whom can string a coherent sentence together and both are compulsive liars.

And you want to talk about biased media? What about Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Mail, The Express, and The Sun? All bastions of truth I'm sure, and not one of them could be accused of 'easy manipulation of simpletons'… right?

The fact is, most people are fallible, biased, and hypocritical — no matter which way they lean politically.
Click to expand...


What's that got to do with the liberal's renaming\meaning of the word woke?
 
deuse said:
What's that got to do with the liberal's renaming\meaning of the word woke?
Click to expand...

Your post stated that those on the left are easy to manipulate and are a pushover because they fall for* silly meanings of words.
*My addition.

The insinuation is that those on the left are stupid and gullible, and thus are an easy target for media outlets to influence.

I'm simply pointing out that it's not exclusive to the left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom