What is 'woke' and why do we use it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roar87 said:
It's fairly obvious that making strongly worded controversial political statements as a BBC presenter that might alienate parts of your audience is rather silly considering they're forced to pay for a TV license in order to watch TV. It actually risks causing people to cancel their TV license and irreparably damage the BBC as an organisation as a result. Gary Linekar is paid very well but also no one has said he can't have an opinion, rather that strong controversial statements that risk dividing the public would best be avoided. Of course the simple minded folks wish to make it a free speech issue, yet it's obvious that when you're representing your employer you can't just say whatever you want - Gary is essentially representing his employer at all times because he's a public BBC figure - which is tough, yet he is also paid very well as compensation for that.
Click to expand...

He is not representing the BBC at all times, only in your head is that the case. You didn't like his speech so you think he should shut his mouth, just be honest about it Roar. And no amount of money takes away someone's right to voice their opinion. He presents a football program, not a current affairs show, not the news, in no way is he a journalist.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
What are you on about. For anyone born before 1980 he was a huge footballing star, golden boot winner and came so damned close to getting England to a WC final. For those born after his career was over he might seem like a fading footballer but to the rest of us he will never be that. The BBC did not make him into the "star" he is today.
Click to expand...


Well if you need a faded footballer to spoon feed you text book leftie celebrity virtue signalling whilst slowly helping to destroy the BBC defend away..
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
He is not representing the BBC at all times, only in your head is that the case. You didn't like his speech so you think he should shut his mouth, just be honest about it Roar. And no amount of money takes away someone's right to voice their opinion. He presents a football program, not a current affairs show, not the news, in no way is he a journalist.
Click to expand...

It would be smart if when I said something on this forum you took it at face value, because I assure you if I thought anything else I would voice that opinion unashamedly.
 
Roar87 said:
...when you're representing your employer ...
Click to expand...
Lineker isn't an employee of the BBC, rather he's self-employed (in one way or another) like a lot of talent, so it really depends on what was in the contract with regards to 'disrepute' clauses - if there's nothing in there then, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
 
visibleman said:
Lineker isn't an employee of the BBC, rather he's self-employed (in one way or another) like a lot of talent, so it really depends on what was in the contract with regards to 'disrepute' clauses - if there's nothing in there then, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Click to expand...

I think you're arguing on a technicality that is largely irrelevant, if enough people refused to watch the show or there was a enough complaints because of something he said then he'd be fired, or "no longer under contract". Therefore he is representing the BBC at all times as a public figure.
 
Last edited:
It's one of the latest fad words/terms gaining traction. 'Politically correct' was dropped as the fad level weakened. 'Gone viral' is still strong in fad levels and has breached mainstream. I think 'extra' could make fad status, but once achieved, it will drop off quickly.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You are literally saying don't start threads that one end of the political spectrum won't like because it will upset them and cause strife. Is that what it has come to on OCUK now? I'm sure we could go through GD and SC and delete lots of threads because one side or the other don't like what it is about. I assume we will never see you arguing for free speech again.
Click to expand...

What I specifically and very carefully said was "people shouldn't create threads specifically to cause trouble between both sides" and at no point did I ever say words to the effect of "that one end of the political spectrum won't like" or words that could have been interpreted to say that.

Instead, I think your version of my sentence is just you struggling to understand my words and then coming up with your own interpretation of what I've said whilst then trying to tell everyone "He is literally saying......" when my unedited quote below specifically shows that you're 100% wrong.

ianh said:
Personally I'd give you 3 day ban as you deliberately created a thread with only one specific goal, to create division and anger on the forum by asking a question designed to incite intolerance (on both sides), making everyone in here hate the place a little more and creating hassle for the mods, just as I said it would with the very first post, which I notice you "loved" so you know what you're doing is wrong.
Click to expand...

TBH it gets very tedious talking to people who either cannot be honest or alternatively just can't admit fault if they make a genuine mistake. Admitting fault is something most adults like myself do when they realise they've got the wrong end of the stick and I've definitely apologised to people in here in the past, especially if they're on "the other political side" in threads, when I've realised that I've made a mistake - IIRC the last one was to Shamikebab in a TV/Movie thread when I misread his post - but would you admit fault now that your mistake has been pointed out or is the need to never, ever admit fault to someone who is "on the other side" just too great? I won't think any less of you if you can't/won't though, its hard I know.

In the end this has never, ever been about the risk of upsetting "one side", it's only ever been about a single person creating a thread that I think was made specifically to cause TWO sides to fight each other, just like we are now, so they can sit back and laugh whilst they watch the carnage they caused unfold and I think thats bad for the forum - thats all I've said and thats all I'll ever say - therefore no-one needs to re-interpret my words into meaning anything else.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
What I specifically and very carefully said was "people shouldn't create threads specifically to cause trouble between both sides" and at no point did I ever say words to the effect of "that one end of the political spectrum won't like" or words that could have been interpreted to say that.

Instead, I think your version of my sentence is just you struggling to understand my words and then coming up with your own interpretation of what I've said whilst then trying to tell everyone "He is literally saying......" when my unedited quote below specifically shows that you're 100% wrong.



TBH it gets very tedious talking to people who either cannot be honest or alternatively just can't admit fault if they make a genuine mistake. Admitting fault is something most adults like myself do when they realise they've got the wrong end of the stick and I've definitely apologised to people in here in the past, especially if they're on "the other political side" in threads, when I've realised that I've made a mistake - IIRC the last one was to Shamikebab in a TV/Movie thread when I misread his post - but would you admit fault now that your mistake has been pointed out or is the need to never, ever admit fault to someone who is "on the other side" just too great? I won't think any less of you if you can't/won't though, its hard I know.

In the end this has never, ever been about the risk of upsetting "one side", it's only ever been about a single person creating a thread that I think was made specifically to cause TWO sides to fight each other, just like we are now, so they can sit back and laugh whilst they watch the carnage they caused unfold and I think thats bad for the forum - thats all I've said and thats all I'll ever say - therefore no-one needs to re-interpret my words into meaning anything else.
Click to expand...

Its still exactly that. Someone starts a thread on something you feel very strongly about and so you feel they are trying to bait you, you go on the defensive and say they shouldn't have started the thread. You can dress it up any way you want, that is what you are saying.
 
n111ck said:
Well if you need a faded footballer to spoon feed you text book leftie celebrity virtue signalling whilst slowly helping to destroy the BBC defend away..
Click to expand...

Weak. Your language says far more about you than it does about me or Gary Lineker. You don't like his speech so you have to pretend he'd be a nobody if he wasn't employed by the BBC. Clearly you still have a lot of growing up to do. And the BBC will be just fine, it doesn't need you fretting over it.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Weak. Your language says far more about you than it does about me or Gary Lineker. You don't like his speech so you have to pretend he'd be a nobody if he wasn't employed by the BBC. Clearly you still have a lot of growing up to do. And the BBC will be just fine, it doesn't need you fretting over it.
Click to expand...


Lol the Gary Linekar fan club has entered the chat - do you get a badge?

Pro tip if you want political analysis try a newspaper.

If you want to dribble over a former crisp whore stick to Twitter. :D
 
mrochester said:
Although I mostly agree, it depends on what the problem is. If the problem is that black women are disproportionately more likely to die during childbirth, the solution invariably needs to address a particular group of people (black women). We can't just ignore or pretend those groups don't exist.
Click to expand...
I also agree! targeted healthcare is invaluable and is applied universally to the entire population, I'd like to think people wouldn't conflate that with identity based ideologies.
 
n111ck said:
Lol the Gary Linekar fan club has entered the chat - do you get a badge?

Pro tip if you want political analysis try a newspaper.

If you want to dribble over a former crisp whore stick to Twitter. :D
Click to expand...

You can form the Hate Gary Lineker club. You can have a Discord where you all share how he hurts you and the BBC with his tweets, maybe a Twitch channel and you show each other on the dolly where he touched you too :rolleyes:

Unlike you I'm not scared of someone voicing an opinion I don't agree with. We are all adults, well some of us are.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Therefore he is representing the BBC at all times as a public figure.
Click to expand...
My point is from Lineker's side in that the contract dictates what gets upheld, so unless that clearly stipulates that he must follow editorial guidelines or other similar rules governing what he says and posts online, then it's a bit "...so what?". As you say, onus is on the client/BBC to remove him if they feel he has overstepped or breached some guideline or clause.

Fact he's been pulled up by the media/had a few complaints in the past over tweets, particularly around Brexit, and is still at the broadcaster, you can only assume they haven't too much of a problem with him.
 
Last edited:
You guys need to watch the 1st episode of series 19 of South Park.

It's called "Stunning and Brave".

It didn't use the word "woke" as it wasn't really used in the same way back then, but the episode is still a good analogy of what is going on now. In particular the treading-on-eggshells that is the use of pronouns and so-called identity politics. The left has become as toxic as the right.
 
visibleman said:
My point is from Lineker's side in that the contract dictates what gets upheld, so unless that clearly stipulates that he must follow editorial guidelines or other similar rules governing what he says and posts online, then it's a bit "...so what?". As you say, onus is on the client/BBC to remove him if they feel he has overstepped or breached some guideline or clause.

Fact he's been pulled up by the media/had a few complaints in the past over tweets, particularly around Brexit, and is still at the broadcaster, you can only assume they haven't too much of a problem with him.
Click to expand...

There are Social media guidelines though, he's agreed to stick to them and they're under review on how they apply to freelancers. I think one issue actually is there's no good reason for Gary Lineker to be a freelancer for the BBC, he's doing a regular job for them, he's not appearing every so often to give his opinion, why isn't he contracted to the BBC? Seems like he avoided paying a lot of tax on the basis of being a freelancer, but I'm sure that isn't a reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom