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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think either’s premiership will turn the countries fortunes around, or are we doomed to a further decline?" This whole race proves: while the cream may rise to the top, this shows that shit floats too... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feels like they'll both be shit." 100 percent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"South Park did an episode some time ago that reflects the political situation nicely. The kids at were voting for the school football club mascot. It was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich." Let's hope somebody schedules the episode on TV the night of a Truss/Sunak debate lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be National embarrassment and humiliation on a scale never seen before in this country." I think following Johnson this is a statement on a monumental scale! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"South Park did an episode some time ago that reflects the political situation nicely. The kids at were voting for the school football club mascot. It was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich." It does feel like that, neither has the upper hand, they are just as bad as each another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you were trying to become the leader of a club and decide the only things that matter to get that position is to be as hateful, transphobic and racist as you can be... Don’t you think you need to take a long hard look at that club?" What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you were trying to become the leader of a club and decide the only things that matter to get that position is to be as hateful, transphobic and racist as you can be... Don’t you think you need to take a long hard look at that club? What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist?" They sure vote like people who are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist?" "They sure vote like people who are." But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"South Park did an episode some time ago that reflects the political situation nicely. The kids at were voting for the school football club mascot. It was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich." They predict the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"South Park did an episode some time ago that reflects the political situation nicely. The kids at were voting for the school football club mascot. It was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. It does feel like that, neither has the upper hand, they are just as bad as each another." I guess we have to have one of them, till the next GE . Tax cuts always sound nice though Rishi plans are more in line with what places like the IMF say is needed so quite torn. I did notice a comment the other day on rishi where they said he avoids or avoided tax himself (and his wife) but insists on putting them up for everyone else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"South Park did an episode some time ago that reflects the political situation nicely. The kids at were voting for the school football club mascot. It was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. It does feel like that, neither has the upper hand, they are just as bad as each another. I guess we have to have one of them, till the next GE . Tax cuts always sound nice though Rishi plans are more in line with what places like the IMF say is needed so quite torn. I did notice a comment the other day on rishi where they said he avoids or avoided tax himself (and his wife) but insists on putting them up for everyone else. " He has too, to clear the debt. How else can the tax avoiding elite balance the books? You’re not suggesting they pay tax as well are you? You would be hanged outside the Tufton street headquarters like a criminal or illegal immigrant for suggesting such treachery. Out of the two who are both way below poor, I find Rishi less embarrassing . Still embarrassing but less than Liz . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think either’s premiership will turn the countries fortunes around, or are we doomed to a further decline?" Well, I hope they've watched this. https://youtu.be/8DgCHblN_x0 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think either’s premiership will turn the countries fortunes around, or are we doomed to a further decline?" Sunak needs to sack the person who has been in charge of the countries finances for the last couple Of years. That would be a start……….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They sure vote like people who are. But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist?" They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They sure vote like people who are. But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme " The Judicial Review into the Rwanda asylum scheme, doesn't start until September. Until the outcome of that Review is given then the scheme remains legal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist?" "They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme " Not transphobic, they're clear there. I can't see that the Rwanda scheme can be considered racist. It doesn't apply to a particular skin colour, or ethnicity, so I think they're clear there too. Is the scheme hateful? I can't see that. It may be a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that generates negative newspaper headlines, but I don't think it's hateful. So while their support for the Rwanda scheme might be distasteful, I don't see that it can be considered hateful, transphobic, or racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have Sunak or Truss said that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They sure vote like people who are. But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme The Judicial Review into the Rwanda asylum scheme, doesn't start until September. Until the outcome of that Review is given then the scheme remains legal. " Really? Then why didn’t the first plane take off? Anyway, it can definitely be described as a complete balls up, expensive and hateful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme Not transphobic, they're clear there. I can't see that the Rwanda scheme can be considered racist. It doesn't apply to a particular skin colour, or ethnicity, so I think they're clear there too. Is the scheme hateful? I can't see that. It may be a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that generates negative newspaper headlines, but I don't think it's hateful. So while their support for the Rwanda scheme might be distasteful, I don't see that it can be considered hateful, transphobic, or racist." I think it can be described as hateful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme Not transphobic, they're clear there. I can't see that the Rwanda scheme can be considered racist. It doesn't apply to a particular skin colour, or ethnicity, so I think they're clear there too. Is the scheme hateful? I can't see that. It may be a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that generates negative newspaper headlines, but I don't think it's hateful. So while their support for the Rwanda scheme might be distasteful, I don't see that it can be considered hateful, transphobic, or racist. I think it can be described as hateful " It is hateful by design, to put more attention on a couple of people in a small dinghy that are causing all the problems, nothing to do with the government, they're powerless to do anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But TNF is talking about the leadership contest. What have they said or done in the leadership contest that is hateful, transphobic, or racist? They have both committed to going ahead with the illegal Rwanda scheme Not transphobic, they're clear there. I can't see that the Rwanda scheme can be considered racist. It doesn't apply to a particular skin colour, or ethnicity, so I think they're clear there too. Is the scheme hateful? I can't see that. It may be a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that generates negative newspaper headlines, but I don't think it's hateful. So while their support for the Rwanda scheme might be distasteful, I don't see that it can be considered hateful, transphobic, or racist. I think it can be described as hateful It is hateful by design, to put more attention on a couple of people in a small dinghy that are causing all the problems, nothing to do with the government, they're powerless to do anything. " Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up " So if they aren't trying to stop dinghy crossings, what do you think the purpose of the scheme is? Are you saying that there is no evidence of people trafficking gangs making a profit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up So if they aren't trying to stop dinghy crossings, what do you think the purpose of the scheme is? Are you saying that there is no evidence of people trafficking gangs making a profit?" The purpose is clear and obvious. It's to distract and deflect. It's very effective, just look at how many people blame immigrants for problems with healthcare, housing etc. All things the government are supposed to have influence and control over. Wasting 100s of millions of public money on this distraction and misdirection is nothing to this government. Their only aim is to stay in power. They literally could not give a flying fuck about smuggling gangs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up So if they aren't trying to stop dinghy crossings, what do you think the purpose of the scheme is? Are you saying that there is no evidence of people trafficking gangs making a profit?" The purpose of the scheme is to appease the right wing elements within the Tory party (basically old UKIP voters) . Yes there is evidence of trafficking gangs making profit, I can’t see how sending a maximum of 200 immigrants to Rwanda at a cost of £600,000 per person will stop this . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. " Education is the key to ending the cycle of blaming foreigners for the failings of the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. " They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach "This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy. There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer. I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach
This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy.
There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer.
I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party. "Do you think If the Labour Party decided to endorse and continue the Rwanda scheme it would get them elected? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach
This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy.
There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer.
I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party.
Do you think If the Labour Party decided to endorse and continue the Rwanda scheme it would get them elected? "I don't think the Far Right vote is as big as the Right think it is, but I may just be being optimistic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach
This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy.
There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer.
I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party.
Do you think If the Labour Party decided to endorse and continue the Rwanda scheme it would get them elected? "No not at all, I think they need to present a policy of their own that endorses the control and measures the public want. They need a policy that resonates with the floating voters and the red wall who turned blue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach
This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy.
There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer.
I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party.
Do you think If the Labour Party decided to endorse and continue the Rwanda scheme it would get them elected?
No not at all, I think they need to present a policy of their own that endorses the control and measures the public want. They need a policy that resonates with the floating voters and the red wall who turned blue. "I agree, the Rwanda scheme is appalling, but labour have to be careful, if they go too hard they will loose voters and if they don’t go hard enough they will loose voters, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both candidates are going to go hard on immigration / migration control, it is what their MP's want to hear. This tactic also delivers them another possible win... The labour voters who voted Tory to get Brexit done, will no doubt want strong policies on immigration and if Labour does not offer a satisfactory policy on immigration / migration control, they could once again swing to the Tories. They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach
This is what Labour need to accept, the Tories have been talking about immigration control for years and haven't done much about it, it might even be considered a vote winning no delivery policy.
There is a reality that people want to hear politicians talk the talk on this subject and being "soft" will lose votes. Do they need to deliver on the promises, I think the Tory stat that you provided is the answer.
I've said this before, Labour will not make ground without delivering a strategy for change that outsmarts the spin doctors in the Tory party.
Do you think If the Labour Party decided to endorse and continue the Rwanda scheme it would get them elected?
No not at all, I think they need to present a policy of their own that endorses the control and measures the public want. They need a policy that resonates with the floating voters and the red wall who turned blue.
I agree, the Rwanda scheme is appalling, but labour have to be careful, if they go too hard they will loose voters and if they don’t go hard enough they will loose voters, "Exactly, and that is where they keep tripping themselves up, not knowing where to aim policies for maximum effectiveness. Policies are always watered down after the pomp has died down and there is no real reason to keep playing the "we are morally better" card now Boris has been kicked into touch. Time to get bold, 18 months to tune it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if they aren't trying to stop dinghy crossings, what do you think the purpose of the scheme is?" "The purpose is clear and obvious. It's to distract and deflect." So it's not a policy based on hate, it's a policy designed to manipulate the voter base. I still don't see it as a hateful policy. All of the government statements, and the majority of the press reporting, focuses on the smuggling gangs, not the individuals being brought over. But let's say I accept that it might be hateful. That just leaves us looking for transphobic and racist words or actions from the 2 candidates in the leadership race. Any examples? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up" "Are you saying that there is no evidence of people trafficking gangs making a profit?" "Yes there is evidence of trafficking gangs making profit ..." Then I have misunderstood your post. What did you mean by "... with no evidence to back this up"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have been in power for 12 years and have failed (on immigration) the Rwanda scheme has failed, time for a new approach" The Rwanda scheme hasn't even started yet. It might well fail in September if the courts don't rule in the government's favour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if they aren't trying to stop dinghy crossings, what do you think the purpose of the scheme is? The purpose is clear and obvious. It's to distract and deflect. So it's not a policy based on hate, it's a policy designed to manipulate the voter base. I still don't see it as a hateful policy. All of the government statements, and the majority of the press reporting, focuses on the smuggling gangs, not the individuals being brought over. But let's say I accept that it might be hateful. That just leaves us looking for transphobic and racist words or actions from the 2 candidates in the leadership race. Any examples?" It's fairly hateful to promote hate towards immigrants as a distraction. As for "transphobic and racist words or actions from the 2 candidates in the leadership race". No idea, I'm not following that closely. That Kemi Badenoch had to promise that she's not against racism (woke), in order to be in the race, is a shocking state of affairs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for "transphobic and racist words or actions from the 2 candidates in the leadership race". No idea, I'm not following that closely." Fair enough. The search for transphobic or racist words isn't assumed at you, it's in response to a post made by someone else. A someone that is avoiding the question. "That Kemi Badenoch had to promise that she's not against racism (woke), in order to be in the race, is a shocking state of affairs." She didn't 'promise', and she didn't say that she's not against racism. She said that she didn't approve of wokery. Being woke is more than just disapproving of racism. You can disapprove of wokeness, and also disapprove of racism. They aren't mutually exclusive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for "transphobic and racist words or actions from the 2 candidates in the leadership race". No idea, I'm not following that closely. Fair enough. The search for transphobic or racist words isn't assumed at you, it's in response to a post made by someone else. A someone that is avoiding the question. That Kemi Badenoch had to promise that she's not against racism (woke), in order to be in the race, is a shocking state of affairs. She didn't 'promise', and she didn't say that she's not against racism. She said that she didn't approve of wokery. Being woke is more than just disapproving of racism. You can disapprove of wokeness, and also disapprove of racism. They aren't mutually exclusive." Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism. "we need to stay angry, and stay woke" As overt racism is no longer acceptable, those who would wish to promote race hate, and who did in the past, have redirected their ire towards people who stand up to, and oppose racism IE "wokery". It's a sad state of affairs for the Tory party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As overt racism is no longer acceptable, those who would wish to promote race hate, and who did in the past, have redirected their ire towards people who stand up to, and oppose racism IE "wokery"." So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As overt racism is no longer acceptable, those who would wish to promote race hate, and who did in the past, have redirected their ire towards people who stand up to, and oppose racism IE "wokery". So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist?" If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel eachother out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist?" "If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel each other out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball." Interesting. I have the same dictionary definition of 'woke' that you quoted, "alert to injustice in society, especially racism", but I read it differently. I see the important word as being 'alert'. I understand 'woke' as meaning 'someone that is aware of, and searches for, every social injustice, no matter how small. I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people. I also consider myself non-woke, because I don't go looking for social injustices to correct. So it seems that we differ in whether 'woke' means "constantly getting annoyed about tiny issues, and finding injustice where there is none", or whether 'anti-woke' means "not giving a stuff about injustice, and doing racist things through ignorance". I hope all the above makes sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist? If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel each other out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball. Interesting. I have the same dictionary definition of 'woke' that you quoted, "alert to injustice in society, especially racism", but I read it differently. I see the important word as being 'alert'. I understand 'woke' as meaning 'someone that is aware of, and searches for, every social injustice, no matter how small. I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people. I also consider myself non-woke, because I don't go looking for social injustices to correct. So it seems that we differ in whether 'woke' means "constantly getting annoyed about tiny issues, and finding injustice where there is none", or whether 'anti-woke' means "not giving a stuff about injustice, and doing racist things through ignorance". I hope all the above makes sense." You describe not racist... Not Anti-racist. The former is not adding to the problem, the latter is actively trying to make the problem smaller. At least how I see it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist? If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel each other out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball. Interesting. I have the same dictionary definition of 'woke' that you quoted, "alert to injustice in society, especially racism", but I read it differently. I see the important word as being 'alert'. I understand 'woke' as meaning 'someone that is aware of, and searches for, every social injustice, no matter how small. I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people. I also consider myself non-woke, because I don't go looking for social injustices to correct. So it seems that we differ in whether 'woke' means "constantly getting annoyed about tiny issues, and finding injustice where there is none", or whether 'anti-woke' means "not giving a stuff about injustice, and doing racist things through ignorance". I hope all the above makes sense." it makes sense to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist? If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel each other out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball. Interesting. I have the same dictionary definition of 'woke' that you quoted, "alert to injustice in society, especially racism", but I read it differently. I see the important word as being 'alert'. I understand 'woke' as meaning 'someone that is aware of, and searches for, every social injustice, no matter how small. I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people. I also consider myself non-woke, because I don't go looking for social injustices to correct. So it seems that we differ in whether 'woke' means "constantly getting annoyed about tiny issues, and finding injustice where there is none", or whether 'anti-woke' means "not giving a stuff about injustice, and doing racist things through ignorance". I hope all the above makes sense." I believe the issue here is trying to understand the meaning of words /phrases or acronyms that are being used as labels, and a lot of these used labels fluctuate in definition because they are "owned" by groups that can weaponise them when needed. Our vocabulary is changing to a lexicon of misused or misunderstood words and phrases, and it is making communication terribly dull. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people." "You describe not racist... Not Anti-racist." That's true. I should have added that I don't tolerate racist people, and I believe that discrimination based on skin colour or ethnicity is wrong. I believe that makes me anti-racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe the issue here is trying to understand the meaning of words /phrases or acronyms that are being used as labels, and a lot of these used labels fluctuate in definition because they are "owned" by groups that can weaponise them when needed. Our vocabulary is changing to a lexicon of misused or misunderstood words and phrases, and it is making communication terribly dull. " I can agree with that. Recent threads on TERFs and snowflakes has showed that people can have wildly different understandings of what words mean. It does make life here that bit more difficult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it your contention that anyone that claims to be anti-woke, must therefore be racist? If they are anti-anti-racist, do the two "anti" not cancel each other out? Why else would someone be against people for opposing racism otherwise? I'm not saying it's everyone/anyone, maybe some people don't know what "woke" means. But I should imagine that the Tory party should be on the ball. Interesting. I have the same dictionary definition of 'woke' that you quoted, "alert to injustice in society, especially racism", but I read it differently. I see the important word as being 'alert'. I understand 'woke' as meaning 'someone that is aware of, and searches for, every social injustice, no matter how small. I consider myself to be anti-racist, because I don't believe that I treat non-white people any differently to white people. I also consider myself non-woke, because I don't go looking for social injustices to correct. So it seems that we differ in whether 'woke' means "constantly getting annoyed about tiny issues, and finding injustice where there is none", or whether 'anti-woke' means "not giving a stuff about injustice, and doing racist things through ignorance". I hope all the above makes sense." It makes sense. That's your interpretation of the word with some additional stuff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep, they are ‘dressing it up’ as an attempt to prevent these dinghy crossings and to stop the gangs profiting from this with no evidence to back this up Are you saying that there is no evidence of people trafficking gangs making a profit? Yes there is evidence of trafficking gangs making profit ... Then I have misunderstood your post. What did you mean by "... with no evidence to back this up"?" Sorry, I ment there is no evidence to back up the claims that sending immigrants to Rwanda will A. Stop the crossings B. Stop the trafficking gangs from profiteering | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Truss will be so bad people might actually miss Boris at some point.
Sunak might seem more reputable / experienced, but his banking background clearly indicates what policies he'll pursue in the name of fiscal prudence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry, I ment there is no evidence to back up the claims that sending immigrants to Rwanda will A. Stop the crossings B. Stop the trafficking gangs from profiteering " Yes, I agree with you on that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
