Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?" The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies. It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad. Like snowflake. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Mrs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? " The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult? The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies. It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad. Like snowflake. A" Exactly this... not something I have the time nor inclination to discuss :- And stick with my original post and likening of the weird to it's original meaning. | | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But am I woke? Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion " Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But am I woke? Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke?" Im just me with a view of let people be people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 
However it’s been taken over by both the right and left wing to mean something beyond this - eg one interpretation the right might use is to say that anyone “woke” takes this to its extremes and excessively demonises anything or anyone that doesn’t fit a minority or social justice cause. Typically used at an extreme level therefore to demonise white, middle aged, men for example.
The left might say that people use the word derogatively to describe anyone with a social conscious.
Whatever your interpretation it’s a handy way to keep a class war / divide raging to divert us all from what’s really happening
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day" Astute observation there Mr!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? " I’m going to guess that you’ve had a humor whoosh moment op. Bless. Respect is key. I respect people’s opinions even if I don’t agree with them but often other people don’t even want to know someone’s opinion because they believe their opinion is the only opinion that counts. Wrong in my humble opinion. T | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be honest: it never figures in my vocabulary because, embarrassingly, I still haven't fully grasped the concept or the meaning. Maybe I'm too old." I don't think it's embarrassing at all. Or even age-specific. I once heard/saw it in a conversation between two people: One accused the other of being 'woke'. The other proudly confirmed they were 'woke'. Then they argued pointlessly. I'm removing the other words they used because it was nasty. ...and that's pretty much what it means to me. It's an internet word that has been reduced to marking borders; a word that signifies that people are about to engage in a useless interaction that feels more like venting. If it means something to other people, that's very cool. To me, it feels lazy and is a red flag to go read something else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it " People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it " Woke is more used as a pejorative than a positive and more likely to be used by the 'just commonsense' folks. When Suella Braverman bitched about the 'tofu eating wokerati' I did have a giggle. But she knows her base and what they like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult? The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies. It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad. Like snowflake. A" Shut up nerd. Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with." "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. " I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals." If someone was being racist, homophobic or making degratory comments towards them based on their religion then yes, because that's what being 'anti hate speech' means | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals." Unlike some I'm not the kind of person who thinks it's OK to be racist/homophobic towards people just because I don't particularly like them Although quite strange that you've asked this question but obviously you know why you asked it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. If someone was being racist, homophobic or making degratory comments towards them based on their religion then yes, because that's what being 'anti hate speech' means " There really is no need for your aggressive attitude. I asked a fairly simple question. If you can extend that stance towards people who you may not like or agree with then you can't be described as 'woke' in a pejorative way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. Unlike some I'm not the kind of person who thinks it's OK to be racist/homophobic towards people just because I don't particularly like them Although quite strange that you've asked this question but obviously you know why you asked it " As you can see in my above reply, I did ask it for a reason. Less of the aggression would make a much better discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals." From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?" Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But am I woke? Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion Well according to the mail and telegraph that's not a good thing. Are you in a woke brigade or lone wolf woke? Im just me with a view of let people be people " No but unfortunately many do, like a passive acceptance. Being woke is a little more, it’s knowing and probably challenging the status quo , that’s why it’s used as an insult, it scares people who don’t want anything to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?" You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive " You were not labelled aggressive for sharing the definition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? Careful, I said the same thing and was labelled as aggressive " DILLGAF? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about?" Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply. And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply. And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists." Agreed they dp but how likely are they to be discriminated against because of those? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? Where it says “such as’ the list isn’t exhaustive and should include the full list of protected characteristics as defined by the law and that would include membership of politely parties and trade unions, so it could apply. And everyone has a national origin, race and sexual orientation, even old white straight English racists. Agreed they dp but how likely are they to be discriminated against because of those?" You and I know it's not likely but it won't stop them claiming it and it won't stop idiots believing them. The playbook is pretty established now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult? The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies. It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad. Like snowflake. A Shut up nerd. Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer. "
You're just grumpy because you got smashed in the vulva.
A vauxhall is a definite step up. People won't assume you're one of those woke, hippy, tree hugging, safety conscious folk happy look like you're driving around in a shiny box.
Turn up in one of those on a Fab meet and people will definitely assume you've knocked 30 years of your real age.....
A
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult? The word goes over my head. It's generally used by people who have had intolerant views challenged, or when something in the news relates to equal opportunities, legislation changes that benefit certain groups or usually anything to do with gender, immigration, race, sexuality etc where progress has been made against previous 'traditional' views and ideologies. It's a word chucked around by people who can't formulate a coherent answer to support their opinion that change is bad. Like snowflake. A Shut up nerd. Go watch day in the life of a Brexit Geezer.
You're just grumpy because you got smashed in the vulva.
A vauxhall is a definite step up. People won't assume you're one of those woke, hippy, tree hugging, safety conscious folk happy look like you're driving around in a shiny box.
Turn up in one of those on a Fab meet and people will definitely assume you've knocked 30 years of your real age.....
A
"I looked like a barista hipster and I loved it. They loved it. All the boot space for things. It was especially potent when listening to Madonna on full blast. Ladies had no chance. Vogue vogue vogue. Now I'll look like everyone else, like I'm having an affair while the kids are at whatever club I throw them in so I can get it wet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But am I woke? Im against discrimination of people based on sex,colour or religion " Yes basically it means aware of social injustice and racism sexism etc. I’m terrible at explaining it but it’s a good thing to aspire to! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely? But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right. Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves. I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. " It’s an actually a word used ages ago, I originally thought it was piss poor grammer but actually not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke to me means what it originally meant. As a black boy growing up, ‘stay woke’ was used to say stay aware of race issues. The term has been completely co-opted by (mostly white) people that are uncomfortable and often uninformed when it comes to conversations about race and has been applied to things it has nothing to do with and used as an insult. It’s exhausting and disappointing but honestly not at all surprising. A term used by a community for one purpose has been taken and made an insult. "Or a badge of honour for others. It all seems to depend on where you source your news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn’t it what the new breed of humans call themselves? The mr " Nah, that's awake
Awake - what you need to be before getting out of bed in the morning
Awake - aware of the secret lizard people cabal conspiring with Bill Gates to activate microchips and cause 15 minute cities and apocalypse genocide | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely? But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right. Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves. I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. " I believe that, as it comes from a different dialect of English, different rules of grammar apply | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke to me means what it originally meant. As a black boy growing up, ‘stay woke’ was used to say stay aware of race issues. The term has been completely co-opted by (mostly white) people that are uncomfortable and often uninformed when it comes to conversations about race and has been applied to things it has nothing to do with and used as an insult. It’s exhausting and disappointing but honestly not at all surprising. A term used by a community for one purpose has been taken and made an insult. "Another example, once again, of why we can't have nice things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Bess x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?" One man's woker is another man's snowflake. Be who you are and leave labels to others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely? But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right. Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves. I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. " Different people from different cultures use words differently | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely? But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right. Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves. I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. Different people from different cultures use words differently "  what?!
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the poor grammar that annoys me about it! It should be 'awoken', surely? But the meaning has changed. It used to mean 'increased political awareness' or 'enlightened' but it's become an insult to be wielded by the far right. Same as 'millennial'. Millennial was just a way of describing someone's age bracket but it's now used as an insult by older people used for anyone less capable than themselves. I've got a friend who went waaay right some years back and he was unaware of the original meaning. Different people from different cultures use words differently what?!
"I know I don't understand how people don't know this and are quick to label everything different as poor English | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all." Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror. Opinions may differ. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters." If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all. Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror. Opinions may differ." Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting." In the discourse there's an increasing amount of "you disagree with what I say about (anything), therefore you're prejudiced against my protected characteristic". Quite often where the structural power at play puts the person crying victim is higher up in the hierarchy. Just today I heard the delightful (  ) Tucker Carlson claim that anyone who points out that there are health problems in children is accused of being racist. In some convoluted metaphor about vaccines to try to defend that lunatic running for US president.
Yes, yes, pointing out that Kennedy doesn't know the difference between ethyl mercury and methyl mercury is accusing him of racism, well done, go sit in the corner with your dunce hat, nincompoop.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting." Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred." u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. " This is honestly such a strange line of questioning | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im gonna guess the posters above are not sure what it means? The posters above have more sense than to get in to it on these forums at this hour of the day" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. " That very accusation is often levelled at people, on both sides of the divide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning " That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling' "I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange "Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right "Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange. Thank you for the recap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.
Thank you for the recap
"You're a bit of a strange one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.
Thank you for the recap
You're a bit of a strange one "Takes one to know one  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.
Thank you for the recap
You're a bit of a strange one
Takes one to know one "Clearly, wanna get involved in the discussion or do you just wanna trade insults? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right "Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one."I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there. It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all. Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror. Opinions may differ. Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads. " In your opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.
I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.
It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy "You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadly speaking, ‘Woke’ is a term predominantly used by dickheads who don’t approve of other people who just happen to believe in a better, fairer life for all. Almost equally to the people that use 'dickheads'to generalise when maybe they need to look in a mirror. Opinions may differ. Nope. People who use woke in a pejorative sense are dickheads. In your opinion. " Well I wouldn’t be talking about anyone else’s opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.
I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.
It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy
You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.
"I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go. How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech? I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Yes I did respond to someone else calling your questioning strange.
Thank you for the recap
You're a bit of a strange one
Takes one to know one
Clearly, wanna get involved in the discussion or do you just wanna trade insults?""Trading insults" implies that I have also insulted you, which I haven't You called my aggressive twice You then called me strange to which I replied "takes one to know one" I haven't once name called or insulted you, I stated your line of questioning was strange which as far as I'm aware isn't a personal insult towards you, but you obviously took it as a personal insult. I know how to have a conversation with someone who I may not agree with without making personal and insulting remarks, you clearly don't. Anyway, I have nothing further to add to this conversation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.
I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.
It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy
You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.
Other than saying I don't think you're engaging in good faith
I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go.
How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech?
I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers."Other than saying I don't think you're engaging in good faith, I'm not going to engage with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't openly describe myself as 'woke' although I probably am I'm anti- any form of hate speech and believe that people's rights shouldn't be based on their race/gender/sexuality etc People who use it as an insult are usually those who want to be racist/homophobic without being called out on it People who use it as an insult aren't necessarily racist/homophobic, although those people will use it. You say you're anti-any form of hate speech. Would that include say, hate speech towards Nigel Farage or Tommy Robison, choose anyone else who you may not agree with. "In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace." " Someone saying that they dislike Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, isn't hate speech. I asked would your anti-'hate speech' stance extend to someone who was using hate speech towards those individuals. From Wiki hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. " So going by that definition how does it apply to the 2 people you asked about? You don't think those 2 people have any of those characteristics? Did you miss the part where I said 'anyone else you don't like', I chose those 2 as they are polarising characters. If I was to attack Farage or Robinson _purely_ on the grounds of their race, or sexuality, or a disability, or religion, or gender, or age, if I was to express that I disliked them for no reason other than their being "other", if I was to generally attack an entire group merely because they were "different" to me, then that might very well be a hate attack, and if it was a spoken or written attack it might be hate speech. However if there is a rational reason for dislike, because of something to do with that specific individual or a specific organisation that they represent, then it may just be valid criticism - everything depends upon context. For instance it would clearly be wrong to attack Braverman on the basis of her skin colour. However it is not hate speech to say that I profoundly dislike her because of her specific and deliberate actions that hurt so many others. In her case, there is also a relevance to referencing her skin colour and family background, as it does seem that she exhibits a specific violent prejudice against some who are only doing what her own family did. In the worst form of "pulling the ladder up after herself" the laws that she seeks to impose would have made it illegal for her own parents to come to the UK! It is not hate speech to say this, it is factual reporting. Who's to say that you don't dislike Braverman for some reason which may be irrational but disguise it with a rational reason? This is often aimed at people who we don't agree with. Lines are often blurred. u.nconscious bias is a thing, of course, but if someone says they don’t like a person for [rational reason] it’s not fair to suggest that they actually mean something else, given how they’ve already explained the reason behind it. This is honestly such a strange line of questioning That's twice now you've called my questioning strange, you can get involved or not, if not, quit with your 'dog whistling'
I'm not dog whistling I'm very out in the open calling your questioning strange
Hence why I put it in inverted commas
However, you responded to someone else calling my questioning strange, you levelled the same accusation at me when I responded directly to you.
Let's have it right
Lets have this right. You're not discussing in good faith. Suggesting Farage or Robinson as people that need protecting from hate speech suggests that you're trying to derail and disrupt or you have no idea what hate speech means. I suspect the first one.
I previously said I used those 2 as they are polarising characters. I also said, choose anyone you don't like or disagree with. There's your good faith. If you don't wanna see it, that's cool but it's there.
It's fucking crazy in here, start a conversation with one person and you all pile on, luckily I'm a big boy
You're the victim here. As much as farage and robinson are victims of hate speech.
I nearly have a full house, just a couple more to go.
How do you know Farage or Robinson have never been victims of hate speech?
I'm glad you decided to skip the actual discussion and yet again resort to default. Cheers."Are you enjoying your guided tour around the Tower of Babel?
Bess x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block. For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person… And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!" I've never used that word to insult someone, neither do people described as 'woke' upset me. The ones getting upset seem to be the ones who that word may be used against. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block. For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person… And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!" These kinda threads allways good for my private note/ block facility x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here
"I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here
I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes."I thought you weren't going to engage with me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here
I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes.
I thought you weren't going to engage with me?"Yeah not with your bad faith argument. But have the last word if it makes you feel better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck me, there's some soft people in here
I'll wear that one with pride, thanks. Now dry your eyes.
I thought you weren't going to engage with me?
Yeah not with your bad faith argument.
But have the last word if it makes you feel better."Cheers, appreciate it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block. For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person… And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters!" I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here
Bess x
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
ahh I love this game | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block. For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person… And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters! I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here
Bess x
"Oh, they wouldn’t have picked me anyway… but it stops me from inadvertently liking anything of theirs and therefore giving them potentially more views… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d just like to thank OP for providing a thread that allows me to select some new people to block. For example, anyone that uses “woke” as a derogatory term, or someone who is quite fluent in “whataboutery”…. You can look good and be a horrible person… And to all those out there getting called woke that are upsetting the intolerant, the racists and the “-phobes”…. Keep up the good work brothers and sisters! I'm sure those affected by your noble blocking announcement will be devastated to learn that they now can only choose from the 148563 other single guys on here
Bess x
Oh, they wouldn’t have picked me anyway… but it stops me from inadvertently liking anything of theirs and therefore giving them potentially more views…"Also people don’t have to be devastated that they’re blocked. They’re still blocked. Doesn’t matter whether they’re sad or not about it, b | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People getting mad and showing they don’t know what woke means ahh I love this game" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taking words used in resistance by marginalised communities and taking it and using to insult them or shut them down is just really really moist. " Mmm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to know what dog whistling means? "A dog whistle is the alleged use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to know what dog whistling means?
A dog whistle is the alleged use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans."Is it like horse whispering?? Or ferret wrangling? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread is a challenging wank "Persevere -‘it will be worth it !! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?" Depends on the context its used. Can be good... Can be not so good..and yes its used as an insult by some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whats your definition of the word woke? Is it good or bad to be woke? Is it now an insult?" Whatever 'woke' started as it is now the 2020's equivalent of the mid 1900s 'commie' and 'pinko' right-wing bogeyman. It is whatever in-the-moment thing scares the right-wing because they don't understand what is being said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
