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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means?" I think it’s generally used as a pejorative by people who think it’s somehow wrong to care about things like inequality or race. It’s a meaningless term. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? I think it’s generally used as a pejorative by people who think it’s somehow wrong to care about things like inequality or race. It’s a meaningless term." I do agree that it is almost exclusively used in a manner to insult someone, if nothing else ironically for caring about a cause, that does confuse me.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? I think it’s generally used as a pejorative by people who think it’s somehow wrong to care about things like inequality or race. It’s a meaningless term. I do agree that it is almost exclusively used in a manner to insult someone, if nothing else ironically for caring about a cause, that does confuse me. "When I was younger sick was not what sick is today... The meaning of Woke has certainly shifted towards capturing the essence of a person who appears to revel in virtue signalling and putting the outlier or next fad front and centre. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means?" Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean." Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean." I have never heard anyone be called woke in the way woke is being used today to mock virtue signalling, because that person wanted to be racist. When have you heard this and what was the context? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. " I've seen it used primarily as the dictionary definition. Secondarily like the new "snowflake" when someone calls out racism. Thirdly as some weird personal definition on here. One chap used it to describe people who had a grasp of climate science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. I've seen it used primarily as the dictionary definition. Secondarily like the new "snowflake" when someone calls out racism. Thirdly as some weird personal definition on here. One chap used it to describe people who had a grasp of climate science. " It is not used primarily as dictionary definition. All the complaints you made can be also made about the term "far right". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information." To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. I've seen it used primarily as the dictionary definition. Secondarily like the new "snowflake" when someone calls out racism. Thirdly as some weird personal definition on here. One chap used it to describe people who had a grasp of climate science. It is not used primarily as dictionary definition. All the complaints you made can be also made about the term "far right"." Fair enough. Either way anyone using "woke" as an insult is identifying themselves has having absolutely nothing of value to add to any forum of discourse or conversation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke" Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. I've seen it used primarily as the dictionary definition. Secondarily like the new "snowflake" when someone calls out racism. Thirdly as some weird personal definition on here. One chap used it to describe people who had a grasp of climate science. It is not used primarily as dictionary definition. All the complaints you made can be also made about the term "far right". Fair enough. Either way anyone using "woke" as an insult is identifying themselves has having absolutely nothing of value to add to any forum of discourse or conversation." Same can be said about people using "far right" and "fascist" everytime they disagree with someone. They aren't adding any value to the discussion either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information." To be honest, when it comes to real life, I rarely come across people who I would classify as woke or far right. It's the internet where I see the extremes more often. Maybe they are all bots  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view."I must be woke blind, I can't think of any  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any "One of them cites it as a reason not to vote Labour. Because of ‘woke policies’ - whatever they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any "I can! They immediately sprung to mind 
Don’t worry though. It happens at our age! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means? Aside from the dictionary definition, it's used by people frustrated that they can't be openly racist anymore use it to insult those who calls out their bigotry. It's a ridiculous word that some people seem to make up their own private definition and then expect everyone to know what they mean. Most people who use the word know what it means. It's definitely not what you said it means. Multiple people have explained what it means. Unfortunately some people like you wouldn't accept it and keep repeating the same remarks. I've seen it used primarily as the dictionary definition. Secondarily like the new "snowflake" when someone calls out racism. Thirdly as some weird personal definition on here. One chap used it to describe people who had a grasp of climate science. It is not used primarily as dictionary definition. All the complaints you made can be also made about the term "far right". Fair enough. Either way anyone using "woke" as an insult is identifying themselves has having absolutely nothing of value to add to any forum of discourse or conversation. Same can be said about people using "far right" and "fascist" everytime they disagree with someone. They aren't adding any value to the discussion either " Indeed. It should be used for actual far right fascists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any
One of them cites it as a reason not to vote Labour. Because of ‘woke policies’ - whatever they are."Yes, bloody hell that was hard work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any
I can! They immediately sprung to mind
Don’t worry though. It happens at our age!"I will write it down, something to show the doctor | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any
I can! They immediately sprung to mind
Don’t worry though. It happens at our age!
I will write it down, something to show the doctor "But you’ll forget why you were seeing the doctor! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes?" Exactly, spot on. Look to see who is using the term. What sections of the media constantly bleat on about it. I'll give folks a clue...back in the 1990's, the same media would decry "Political Correctness". That was the buzzword of that decade. . It's the language of hate. Deliberately evolved to foster division. . It's strange in a way. There is nothing political about treating others with compassion, kindness and respect. Nor is there anything "woke" about it either. Whilst "woke" does encourage others to be more gracious and understanding, to examine themselves deep down, some folks are not wired that way and some actively resent it. Probably the same ones who use the word "woke" as an insult in the first place. . And ironically, those are the ones who need to "wake up" the most. . At least those who use the term disparagingly very conveniently "out" themselves to everybody else, so there is that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? It's certainly more to emotionally manipulate and persuade folk to think in a certain way than to disseminate actual facts and information. To be fair the only people I see using the word woke are the people who ask why people use the word woke Now that is not strictly true now is it NotMe
There were at least one or two regular posters in here (not seen lately) who used “woke” regularly to insult anyone of a more “left” or “progressive” view.
I must be woke blind, I can't think of any
I can! They immediately sprung to mind
Don’t worry though. It happens at our age!
I will write it down, something to show the doctor
But you’ll forget why you were seeing the doctor!"One step ahead of you, I’ve written it down, not sure where I’ve put it though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whilst "woke" does encourage others to be more gracious and understanding ..." It does? I see quite a few people on here that describe themselves as woke, and yet are entirely intolerant of anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, and spare no effort in letting that person know about it. Just start a thread on trans issues, and you'll see very little grace and understanding, on both sides. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? Exactly, spot on. Look to see who is using the term. What sections of the media constantly bleat on about it. I'll give folks a clue...back in the 1990's, the same media would decry "Political Correctness". That was the buzzword of that decade. . It's the language of hate. Deliberately evolved to foster division. . It's strange in a way. There is nothing political about treating others with compassion, kindness and respect. Nor is there anything "woke" about it either. Whilst "woke" does encourage others to be more gracious and understanding, to examine themselves deep down, some folks are not wired that way and some actively resent it. Probably the same ones who use the word "woke" as an insult in the first place. . And ironically, those are the ones who need to "wake up" the most. . At least those who use the term disparagingly very conveniently "out" themselves to everybody else, so there is that." The same thing can be said about "far right" and "fascist" too. That's also a language of hate and oppression deliberately used to shut down any criticism of one's political ideas. There are estremists on either side of the spectrum. The ones on the left can be called woke and once on the right can be called far right or fascists. But the left just can't seem to handle criticism of that sort while they would happily use words like this about other people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A better question to ask is who is constantly using this word and/or where is it most prevalent? Why are those particular entities, groups, and individuals focusing on such divisive themes? Exactly, spot on. Look to see who is using the term. What sections of the media constantly bleat on about it. I'll give folks a clue...back in the 1990's, the same media would decry "Political Correctness". That was the buzzword of that decade. . It's the language of hate. Deliberately evolved to foster division. . It's strange in a way. There is nothing political about treating others with compassion, kindness and respect. Nor is there anything "woke" about it either. Whilst "woke" does encourage others to be more gracious and understanding, to examine themselves deep down, some folks are not wired that way and some actively resent it. Probably the same ones who use the word "woke" as an insult in the first place. . And ironically, those are the ones who need to "wake up" the most. . At least those who use the term disparagingly very conveniently "out" themselves to everybody else, so there is that. The same thing can be said about "far right" and "fascist" too. That's also a language of hate and oppression deliberately used to shut down any criticism of one's political ideas. There are estremists on either side of the spectrum. The ones on the left can be called woke and once on the right can be called far right or fascists. But the left just can't seem to handle criticism of that sort while they would happily use words like this about other people." The difference is, there are far right fascists, and they are a genuine problem to society. Meanwhile, people use woke as an insult, in whatever bastardised version of the word. It is inherently not a bad thing. However I agree with your sentiment. It would be better for people who don't like non-racists, or whatever their personal definition of "woke" is, to use the full richness of the English language to describe their issue with the person. And same for people who use "far right" for people who aren't. Although there are times it's appropriate to use. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The difference is, there are far right fascists, and they are a genuine problem to society. " There are woke people who are equally problematic to the society. " Meanwhile, people use woke as an insult, in whatever bastardised version of the word. It is inherently not a bad thing. " In the modern meaning, it's an inherently bad thing. " However I agree with your sentiment. It would be better for people who don't like non-racists, or whatever their personal definition of "woke" is, to use the full richness of the English language to describe their issue with the person. " Woke people are not just non-racists. They are people who try to link every issue in the society to racism/sexism or whatever-ism and propose solutions that take away individual rights and tries to take punitive measures against anyone who doesn't confirm to their ideological purity test. " And same for people who use "far right" for people who aren't. Although there are times it's appropriate to use." And sometimes it's appropriate to use the word woke too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The difference is, there are far right fascists, and they are a genuine problem to society. There are woke people who are equally problematic to the society. " People who are aware of social injustice, especially racism, are as problematic to society as far right fascists? We're going to have to hard disagree on this one. " Meanwhile, people use woke as an insult, in whatever bastardised version of the word. It is inherently not a bad thing. In the modern meaning, it's an inherently bad thing. " There seems to 100s of these alternative meanings. You could generalise them as meaning, annoying people who don't feel free to be openly racist or bigoted anymore. " However I agree with your sentiment. It would be better for people who don't like non-racists, or whatever their personal definition of "woke" is, to use the full richness of the English language to describe their issue with the person. Woke people are not just non-racists. They are people who try to link every issue in the society to racism/sexism or whatever-ism and propose solutions that take away individual rights and tries to take punitive measures against anyone who doesn't confirm to their ideological purity test. " This seems fairly made up, is this actually happening anywhere? It feels very daily mail to focus on something that isn't really happening. " And same for people who use "far right" for people who aren't. Although there are times it's appropriate to use. And sometimes it's appropriate to use the word woke too." It seems like a pointless word. It's either the dictionary definition, or someone's personal undefined understanding. Either way, it's a hard disagree from me that any definition of woke, no matter how Daily Mail, isn't anywhere comparable to actual far right fascists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People who are aware of social injustice, especially racism, are as problematic to society as far right fascists? We're going to have to hard disagree on this one. " Why are you using the dictionary definition again when we have repeatedly told you that it's not what it means in the modern political context? " There seems to 100s of these alternative meanings. You could generalise them as meaning, annoying people who don't feel free to be openly racist or bigoted anymore. " There seem to be 100s of alternative meanings for "far right" too. Freedom of speech was a basic liberal tenet for decades. But apparently being pro freedom of speech is far-right these days. We have given you a meaning when we use the word. Not sure why you are inventing some lame definition you came you came up with and repeating that. " This seems fairly made up, is this actually happening anywhere? It feels very daily mail to focus on something that isn't really happening. " It's not made up. Watch the video I shared in my previous post for some real life examples of woke behaviour. Remember, Bill Maher is pro-democrat and liberal on most issues. " It seems like a pointless word. It's either the dictionary definition, or someone's personal undefined understanding. Either way, it's a hard disagree from me that any definition of woke, no matter how Daily Mail, isn't anywhere comparable to actual far right fascists. " People who use the word know what it means. Who are you to decide that it's pointless? As for comparing it with far right, do you think that people sending death threats to JK Rowling because she doesn't follow the trans ideology isn't as bad as far right? Far left is as bad as far right. History says so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People who are aware of social injustice, especially racism, are as problematic to society as far right fascists? We're going to have to hard disagree on this one. Why are you using the dictionary definition again when we have repeatedly told you that it's not what it means in the modern political context? " When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. " There seems to 100s of these alternative meanings. You could generalise them as meaning, annoying people who don't feel free to be openly racist or bigoted anymore. There seem to be 100s of alternative meanings for "far right" too. " Nope. Just one meaning. " Freedom of speech was a basic liberal tenet for decades. But apparently being pro freedom of speech is far-right these days. " I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. " We have given you a meaning when we use the word. Not sure why you are inventing some lame definition you came you came up with and repeating that. " As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. " This seems fairly made up, is this actually happening anywhere? It feels very daily mail to focus on something that isn't really happening. It's not made up. Watch the video I shared in my previous post for some real life examples of woke behaviour. Remember, Bill Maher is pro-democrat and liberal on most issues. " I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. " It seems like a pointless word. It's either the dictionary definition, or someone's personal undefined understanding. Either way, it's a hard disagree from me that any definition of woke, no matter how Daily Mail, isn't anywhere comparable to actual far right fascists. People who use the word know what it means. Who are you to decide that it's pointless? As for comparing it with far right, do you think that people sending death threats to JK Rowling because she doesn't follow the trans ideology isn't as bad as far right? Far left is as bad as far right. History says so." People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People who are aware of social injustice, especially racism, are as problematic to society as far right fascists? We're going to have to hard disagree on this one. Why are you using the dictionary definition again when we have repeatedly told you that it's not what it means in the modern political context? When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. There seems to 100s of these alternative meanings. You could generalise them as meaning, annoying people who don't feel free to be openly racist or bigoted anymore. There seem to be 100s of alternative meanings for "far right" too. Nope. Just one meaning. Freedom of speech was a basic liberal tenet for decades. But apparently being pro freedom of speech is far-right these days. I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. We have given you a meaning when we use the word. Not sure why you are inventing some lame definition you came you came up with and repeating that. As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. This seems fairly made up, is this actually happening anywhere? It feels very daily mail to focus on something that isn't really happening. It's not made up. Watch the video I shared in my previous post for some real life examples of woke behaviour. Remember, Bill Maher is pro-democrat and liberal on most issues. I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. It seems like a pointless word. It's either the dictionary definition, or someone's personal undefined understanding. Either way, it's a hard disagree from me that any definition of woke, no matter how Daily Mail, isn't anywhere comparable to actual far right fascists. People who use the word know what it means. Who are you to decide that it's pointless? As for comparing it with far right, do you think that people sending death threats to JK Rowling because she doesn't follow the trans ideology isn't as bad as far right? Far left is as bad as far right. History says so. People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them." Apologies Corbyn was described as "extreme far left". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People who are aware of social injustice, especially racism, are as problematic to society as far right fascists? We're going to have to hard disagree on this one. Why are you using the dictionary definition again when we have repeatedly told you that it's not what it means in the modern political context? When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. There seems to 100s of these alternative meanings. You could generalise them as meaning, annoying people who don't feel free to be openly racist or bigoted anymore. There seem to be 100s of alternative meanings for "far right" too. Nope. Just one meaning. Freedom of speech was a basic liberal tenet for decades. But apparently being pro freedom of speech is far-right these days. I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. We have given you a meaning when we use the word. Not sure why you are inventing some lame definition you came you came up with and repeating that. As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. This seems fairly made up, is this actually happening anywhere? It feels very daily mail to focus on something that isn't really happening. It's not made up. Watch the video I shared in my previous post for some real life examples of woke behaviour. Remember, Bill Maher is pro-democrat and liberal on most issues. I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. It seems like a pointless word. It's either the dictionary definition, or someone's personal undefined understanding. Either way, it's a hard disagree from me that any definition of woke, no matter how Daily Mail, isn't anywhere comparable to actual far right fascists. People who use the word know what it means. Who are you to decide that it's pointless? As for comparing it with far right, do you think that people sending death threats to JK Rowling because she doesn't follow the trans ideology isn't as bad as far right? Far left is as bad as far right. History says so. People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means?" . A woke warrior will generally be a pious and self righteous individual and thinks that only they themselves believe in social justice and treating everyone equally . Ironically despite their so called tolerance try expressing an opinion that is diffence to theirs and their preference for equality rapidly dissappears . To snear at and have an intolerant view towards those with whom you disagree is hardly a desirable attitude. Luckily woker warriors are only a small but intolerant section of society. I prefer to live in a society which treats everyone equally,not cancel anyone because their opinions are different to mine . The good news is that woke warriors have failed in their attempts to cancel authors such as JK Rowling . There is a very nasty under tome about those who attempt to drive people out of businness . We can ignore the opinions of a very vocal minority | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means?. A woke warrior will generally be a pious and self righteous individual and thinks that only they themselves believe in social justice and treating everyone equally . Ironically despite their so called tolerance try expressing an opinion that is diffence to theirs and their preference for equality rapidly dissappears . To snear at and have an intolerant view towards those with whom you disagree is hardly a desirable attitude. Luckily woker warriors are only a small but intolerant section of society. I prefer to live in a society which treats everyone equally,not cancel anyone because their opinions are different to mine . The good news is that woke warriors have failed in their attempts to cancel authors such as JK Rowling . There is a very nasty under tome about those who attempt to drive people out of businness . We can ignore the opinions of a very vocal minority " Oh Pat you are so woke! “I prefer to live in a society which treats everyone equally” and idealistic too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. " Many people use the word "far right" as an insulting term to someone who wouldn't fall into the dictionary definition of far right. Yet you don't have any problem with using the term. We in this forum have told you what it means when we use it. And yet, you repeatedly fall back to dictionary definition. " Nope. Just one meaning. " Tell me what it is. " I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. " It's not really strange. Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. " As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. " We already explained what the problem is. The problem with debate is you are intentionally ignoring everything we said and making strawman arguments about things we never said. " I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. " It is in this thread and just above the message I posted. Anyway here I post it again https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=yysKhJ1U-vM " People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. " Wow!! What a nice way to run away from a fact. The person who sends death threat to JK Rowling because she doesn't accept the modern progressive ideology is far left. To put it clearly, it is ok to have an ideology that you say is based on values like equality or social justice. It becomes far left the moment you try to use means like violence, intimidation or any kind of forcefulness to enforce it on others. " In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them." Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. And here you are arguing with me based on an a lame assumption that he was called far left because of his free broadband promise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends." I get Corbyn being called far left because of admiration of Marxism. That makes sense. The Hamas point is ridiculous though. It has nothing to do with being left or right. It is to do with whether you are pro-palestinian. I think Corbyn was naive in the extreme. He knew that no matter what point he was actually trying to make, it would be twisted. Associating with terrorist organisations was not going to end well. But far left? Nah! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. And here you are arguing with me based on an a lame assumption that he was called far left because of his free broadband promise." Corbyn wasn’t far left though, lest be honest here. He was just the most left wing high profile leader we’ve seen in a long time. His policies were fairly mundane soc-dem fare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. Many people use the word "far right" as an insulting term to someone who wouldn't fall into the dictionary definition of far right. Yet you don't have any problem with using the term. We in this forum have told you what it means when we use it. And yet, you repeatedly fall back to dictionary definition. Nope. Just one meaning. Tell me what it is. I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. It's not really strange. Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. We already explained what the problem is. The problem with debate is you are intentionally ignoring everything we said and making strawman arguments about things we never said. I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. It is in this thread and just above the message I posted. Anyway here I post it again https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=yysKhJ1U-vM People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. Wow!! What a nice way to run away from a fact. The person who sends death threat to JK Rowling because she doesn't accept the modern progressive ideology is far left. To put it clearly, it is ok to have an ideology that you say is based on values like equality or social justice. It becomes far left the moment you try to use means like violence, intimidation or any kind of forcefulness to enforce it on others. In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them. Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. And here you are arguing with me based on an a lame assumption that he was called far left because of his free broadband promise." This is getting more and more ridiculous. The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. You're trying to drag the arguement into JK Rowling getting death threats or that Corbyn is actually extreme far left and as dangerous as Tommy Robinson. It's just ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm seeing this term used a lot in the last 18 months, almost exclusively in a derogatory manner. Prior to that I barely seen it used. Just wondered what others think of the term and what it means?. A woke warrior will generally be a pious and self righteous individual and thinks that only they themselves believe in social justice and treating everyone equally . Ironically despite their so called tolerance try expressing an opinion that is diffence to theirs and their preference for equality rapidly dissappears . To snear at and have an intolerant view towards those with whom you disagree is hardly a desirable attitude. Luckily woker warriors are only a small but intolerant section of society. I prefer to live in a society which treats everyone equally,not cancel anyone because their opinions are different to mine . The good news is that woke warriors have failed in their attempts to cancel authors such as JK Rowling . There is a very nasty under tome about those who attempt to drive people out of businness . We can ignore the opinions of a very vocal minority " "A woke warrior will generally ..... believe in social justice and treating everyone equally ." "I prefer to live in a society which treats everyone equally" Pat the woke warrior? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When you say "we" I don't know who you mean. The people who think "Woke" is negative all seem to have a different personal definition. As I mentioned, someone on here used it as an insulting term for someone who has a grasp of climate science. Many people use the word "far right" as an insulting term to someone who wouldn't fall into the dictionary definition of far right. Yet you don't have any problem with using the term. We in this forum have told you what it means when we use it. And yet, you repeatedly fall back to dictionary definition. Nope. Just one meaning. Tell me what it is. I don't know where you get such strange ideas from. Freedom of speech isn't a left or right thing. Elements on both sides try to silence the other. It's not really strange. Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. As above the "we" you talk about all have their own personal definition, so it becomes pointless. wouldn't it be better if they explained what the had a problem with. We already explained what the problem is. The problem with debate is you are intentionally ignoring everything we said and making strawman arguments about things we never said. I don't know what thread or video you're referring to sorry. It is in this thread and just above the message I posted. Anyway here I post it again https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=yysKhJ1U-vM People sending death threats to JK Rowling are clearly morons, but I have no idea what that's got to do with the discussion. Wow!! What a nice way to run away from a fact. The person who sends death threat to JK Rowling because she doesn't accept the modern progressive ideology is far left. To put it clearly, it is ok to have an ideology that you say is based on values like equality or social justice. It becomes far left the moment you try to use means like violence, intimidation or any kind of forcefulness to enforce it on others. In current times Jeremy Corbyn gets labelled far left, all he wanted to do was give people free broadband. Hardly as damaging to society as say Tommy Robinson. It's a false equivelence to compare them. Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. And here you are arguing with me based on an a lame assumption that he was called far left because of his free broadband promise." You keep denying the actual definition of woke and referring to “we”? If there was a different definition of woke then why isn’t it articulated anywhere? Of course you are entitled to put your own definition to a word but that doesn’t change its actual meaning. As others have said, here on this forum we have had someone who spoke about green energy called woke. We have had people who think that setting up a functioning asylum system called woke. These are just a couple of examples from the top of my head which you may, or may not agree with. If you do agree that green energy and a functioning asylum system is woke, then I suspect you would be in a very small minority of people. If you disagree that one, or the other is woke then it just goes to prove that the work woke (just like the word Brexit) can mean anything that you want it to mean - other than what it actually means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers." That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist"." It's a summarised version. Besides, as you pointed out "used to'. My argument here is that people here the "we" the other chap talks about, don't have a consistent definition. And even if they did, why should we expect a loose coalition of randomers on a swingers forum to have a more definitive definition than the dictionary? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist". It's a summarised version. Besides, as you pointed out "used to'. My argument here is that people here the "we" the other chap talks about, don't have a consistent definition. And even if they did, why should we expect a loose coalition of randomers on a swingers forum to have a more definitive definition than the dictionary?" You are not going to accept that the world has moved on with the definition of woke, simply continue to use woke in its native form and look outdated | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet." Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmmm Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. I get Corbyn being called far left because of admiration of Marxism. That makes sense. The Hamas point is ridiculous though. It has nothing to do with being left or right. It is to do with whether you are pro-palestinian. I think Corbyn was naive in the extreme. He knew that no matter what point he was actually trying to make, it would be twisted. Associating with terrorist organisations was not going to end well. But far left? Nah!" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Corbyn calling Hamas his friends is him being socially far left because he went too deep into the social justice rabbit hole that he started supporting known terrorist groups. Labour being caught of anti-Semitism under his leadership is basically the horseshoe theory in action. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. " Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist". It's a summarised version. Besides, as you pointed out "used to'. My argument here is that people here the "we" the other chap talks about, don't have a consistent definition. And even if they did, why should we expect a loose coalition of randomers on a swingers forum to have a more definitive definition than the dictionary? You are not going to accept that the world has moved on with the definition of woke, simply continue to use woke in its native form and look outdated "Is there a new definitive definition? People on here use it to mean all kinds of weird and bizarre things. How are we supposed to know which of the myriad of meanings they intend, unless they elaborate and expand, in which case using the word in their own private meaning is pointless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You keep denying the actual definition of woke and referring to “we”? " There are so many words we use in the world which means different meaning for different people. When people use woke in modern political discourse, they know what it means. That's the definition we in this forum gave you. " If there was a different definition of woke then why isn’t it articulated anywhere? " Not every word in day to day slang is articulated everywhere. " Of course you are entitled to put your own definition to a word but that doesn’t change its actual meaning. As others have said, here on this forum we have had someone who spoke about green energy called woke. We have had people who think that setting up a functioning asylum system called woke. " Sure some people use the word to criticise everything that isn't agreeable to them, the same way many people use "far right" to criticise things that don't agree with. Would you stop using the term "far right" for that reason? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? " He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is?" Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. " So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmmm Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. I get Corbyn being called far left because of admiration of Marxism. That makes sense. The Hamas point is ridiculous though. It has nothing to do with being left or right. It is to do with whether you are pro-palestinian. I think Corbyn was naive in the extreme. He knew that no matter what point he was actually trying to make, it would be twisted. Associating with terrorist organisations was not going to end well. But far left? Nah! Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Corbyn calling Hamas his friends is him being socially far left because he went too deep into the social justice rabbit hole that he started supporting known terrorist groups. Labour being caught of anti-Semitism under his leadership is basically the horseshoe theory in action." Nice try but no. You creating linkages and a narrative to try and associate being (far) left wing with the support of terrorists is nonsense. You could make an argument that any organisation that promotes or supports the idea of a theocracy is actually right wing as far left wing politics (Communism) is anti religion and far right tend to be traditionalists and conservative like religions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You keep denying the actual definition of woke and referring to “we”? There are so many words we use in the world which means different meaning for different people. When people use woke in modern political discourse, they know what it means. That's the definition we in this forum gave you. If there was a different definition of woke then why isn’t it articulated anywhere? Not every word in day to day slang is articulated everywhere. Of course you are entitled to put your own definition to a word but that doesn’t change its actual meaning. As others have said, here on this forum we have had someone who spoke about green energy called woke. We have had people who think that setting up a functioning asylum system called woke. Sure some people use the word to criticise everything that isn't agreeable to them, the same way many people use "far right" to criticise things that don't agree with. Would you stop using the term "far right" for that reason? " "the definition we in this forum gave you" The "we" you mentioned, all give radically different definitions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist". It's a summarised version. Besides, as you pointed out "used to'. My argument here is that people here the "we" the other chap talks about, don't have a consistent definition. And even if they did, why should we expect a loose coalition of randomers on a swingers forum to have a more definitive definition than the dictionary? You are not going to accept that the world has moved on with the definition of woke, simply continue to use woke in its native form and look outdated
Is there a new definitive definition?
People on here use it to mean all kinds of weird and bizarre things. How are we supposed to know which of the myriad of meanings they intend, unless they elaborate and expand, in which case using the word in their own private meaning is pointless."You can refuse to accept any other definition as I mentioned, but you must be really trying hard to not see how it has changed in its use. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other." That’s about it. In the immortal words of Bill and Ted - Be Excellent to each other. Bill and Ted, fucking wokies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem?" some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all." You didn’t answer my question I see! Where do you draw the line or does freedom there is no line? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all. You didn’t answer my question I see! Where do you draw the line or does freedom there is no line? " If we have absolute freedom of speech, anything would be fine. But for practical reasons, US draws the line at direct call for violence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "we" who have told me the non-dictionary meaning of "woke" all have a different personal version. To argue differently is just bonkers. That's a bit rich coming from the man that used to insist that "woke" meant "not racist". It's a summarised version. Besides, as you pointed out "used to'. My argument here is that people here the "we" the other chap talks about, don't have a consistent definition. And even if they did, why should we expect a loose coalition of randomers on a swingers forum to have a more definitive definition than the dictionary? You are not going to accept that the world has moved on with the definition of woke, simply continue to use woke in its native form and look outdated
Is there a new definitive definition?
People on here use it to mean all kinds of weird and bizarre things. How are we supposed to know which of the myriad of meanings they intend, unless they elaborate and expand, in which case using the word in their own private meaning is pointless.
You can refuse to accept any other definition as I mentioned, but you must be really trying hard to not see how it has changed in its use."I fully agree that lots of people have their own private definitions. Fuck knows what they all are. Kind of just makes the word pointless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other." To be called woke, is it different to being woke? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail" We had stronger workers rights and union power in the 90’s, as well as nationalised services. Was Thatcher a Marxist? They’re standard soc-dem policies, not Marxism in action. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail" And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmmm Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. I get Corbyn being called far left because of admiration of Marxism. That makes sense. The Hamas point is ridiculous though. It has nothing to do with being left or right. It is to do with whether you are pro-palestinian. I think Corbyn was naive in the extreme. He knew that no matter what point he was actually trying to make, it would be twisted. Associating with terrorist organisations was not going to end well. But far left? Nah! Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Corbyn calling Hamas his friends is him being socially far left because he went too deep into the social justice rabbit hole that he started supporting known terrorist groups. Labour being caught of anti-Semitism under his leadership is basically the horseshoe theory in action. Nice try but no. You creating linkages and a narrative to try and associate being (far) left wing with the support of terrorists is nonsense. You could make an argument that any organisation that promotes or supports the idea of a theocracy is actually right wing as far left wing politics (Communism) is anti religion and far right tend to be traditionalists and conservative like religions." It depends on the reason why you are supporting terrorists for. If you support a terrorist organisation because you think they belong to oppressed group, you are being far left. If you are supporting a terrorist organisation because you believe in their religious ideals, you are far right. Hence, horseshoe theory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail We had stronger workers rights and union power in the 90’s, as well as nationalised services. Was Thatcher a Marxist? They’re standard soc-dem policies, not Marxism in action. " They definitely tilt to the marxist ideals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all. You didn’t answer my question I see! Where do you draw the line or does freedom there is no line? If we have absolute freedom of speech, anything would be fine. But for practical reasons, US draws the line at direct call for violence. " I asked where you would draw the line not the US (that was USA not “us” right?) And my question stands. Who decides where to draw the line? Why there? Why can’t someone who is passionate and angry call for someone to be killed (happens in the pub most Friday nights). Who decides what level of “offence” is acceptable? Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem?" He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other. To be called woke, is it different to being woke? " No idea. Seems that one's definition is personal and mutable depending on your world view and how you feel today! I might start using wank instead or woke. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is." No, there’s enough evidence *for you* to believe he is, but that’s because you’re (by your own admission) quite conservative. Corbyn (like Bernie Sanders) is a middle of the road social-democrat. Nothing extreme there at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all. You didn’t answer my question I see! Where do you draw the line or does freedom there is no line? If we have absolute freedom of speech, anything would be fine. But for practical reasons, US draws the line at direct call for violence. I asked where you would draw the line not the US (that was USA not “us” right?) And my question stands. Who decides where to draw the line? Why there? Why can’t someone who is passionate and angry call for someone to be killed (happens in the pub most Friday nights). Who decides what level of “offence” is acceptable? Why?" The decision is made by people and the government. We are talking about what liberal values are. Freedom of speech is a value or social liberalism. How far socially liberal we want to be is a decision made by government and people. Unfortunately, being supportive of freedom of speech is called far right these days, which doesn't make any sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is." To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. No, there’s enough evidence *for you* to believe he is, but that’s because you’re (by your own admission) quite conservative. Corbyn (like Bernie Sanders) is a middle of the road social-democrat. Nothing extreme there at all." When did I admit I am a conservative? Being supportive of Marxism and Hamas makes him far left. For nuance, his manifesto was just left wing and not far left. But he is far left. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. No, there’s enough evidence *for you* to believe he is, but that’s because you’re (by your own admission) quite conservative. Corbyn (like Bernie Sanders) is a middle of the road social-democrat. Nothing extreme there at all. When did I admit I am a conservative? Being supportive of Marxism and Hamas makes him far left. For nuance, his manifesto was just left wing and not far left. But he is far left." In the thread discussion moving from left to right with age. You and your friends have conservative views - you said it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous " It can be yes. Tax the wealthy and lose their income when they move or find loopholes. Strengthen the unions and face the potential for business to be held over a barrel and not move forward with new ways of working, look at the uk motor industry. Nationalisation, the broadband idea was perfect example of something sounding good on paper but would have caused a disaster. By doing nationalising broadband the market would have collapsed, we would have lost the other real providers such as cable. We would have lost the driving force to be better and with it the service improvements that have given us faster, broadband at competitive prices. not to mention the thousands of jobs that would have been lost. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmmm Yet another strawman argument. Jeremy Corbyn was called far left because of his open admiration of Marxism and calling Hamas his friends. I get Corbyn being called far left because of admiration of Marxism. That makes sense. The Hamas point is ridiculous though. It has nothing to do with being left or right. It is to do with whether you are pro-palestinian. I think Corbyn was naive in the extreme. He knew that no matter what point he was actually trying to make, it would be twisted. Associating with terrorist organisations was not going to end well. But far left? Nah! Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Corbyn calling Hamas his friends is him being socially far left because he went too deep into the social justice rabbit hole that he started supporting known terrorist groups. Labour being caught of anti-Semitism under his leadership is basically the horseshoe theory in action. Nice try but no. You creating linkages and a narrative to try and associate being (far) left wing with the support of terrorists is nonsense. You could make an argument that any organisation that promotes or supports the idea of a theocracy is actually right wing as far left wing politics (Communism) is anti religion and far right tend to be traditionalists and conservative like religions. It depends on the reason why you are supporting terrorists for. If you support a terrorist organisation because you think they belong to oppressed group, you are being far left. If you are supporting a terrorist organisation because you believe in their religious ideals, you are far right. Hence, horseshoe theory." Horseshoe theory removes the concept of far left and far right though so becomes a moot point. Also are you saying only the far left support terrorist organisations that belong to oppressed groups? Really? And while we at it, Hamas therefore tick both boxes! So I am confused by your argument? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’?" He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other. To be called woke, is it different to being woke? No idea. Seems that one's definition is personal and mutable depending on your world view and how you feel today! I might start using wank instead or woke. " That would work, you are being wank or you are being woke. Interchangeable for those who use woke I would have thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right." On that much, we can agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right." What has Farage done that you would call far right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous It can be yes. Tax the wealthy and lose their income when they move or find loopholes. Strengthen the unions and face the potential for business to be held over a barrel and not move forward with new ways of working, look at the uk motor industry. Nationalisation, the broadband idea was perfect example of something sounding good on paper but would have caused a disaster. By doing nationalising broadband the market would have collapsed, we would have lost the other real providers such as cable. We would have lost the driving force to be better and with it the service improvements that have given us faster, broadband at competitive prices. not to mention the thousands of jobs that would have been lost. " Fair opinions. I disagree. Taxing the wealthy might push more to find tax loopholes. So it should be put in place with closure of the loopholes. Fair pay and good working conditions, aren't necessarily bad for business. Lots of studies show that workers who feel like they're treated well are more loyal to their employer and work harder. I don't know the details of the free broadband plan to be honest. Maybe it would have paid the existing suppliers and would have created more jobs. Nevertheless, none of this is posing a danger to society such as far right fascists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other." This, common decency, respect and tolerance for others..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Horseshoe theory removes the concept of far left and far right though so becomes a moot point. " It doesn't remove the concept. It says how people who go far to the left or right, get sucked into their ideology that they would start accepting violence as an acceptable method to achieve it. The core values are different. But the outcome is the same. " Also are you saying only the far left support terrorist organisations that belong to oppressed groups? Really? " I never said that. The reason for far left to support terrorist organisation is because they consider them oppressed. Far right can also support an oppressed group terrorist organisation for religious reasons. " And while we at it, Hamas therefore tick both boxes! So I am confused by your argument?" As I said above, religious Muslims can support Hamas for far right reasons. People like Corbyn can support Hamas for far left reasons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other. To be called woke, is it different to being woke? No idea. Seems that one's definition is personal and mutable depending on your world view and how you feel today! I might start using wank instead or woke. That would work, you are being wank or you are being woke. Interchangeable for those who use woke I would have thought. " I agree. No caveats. No contradictions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right. What has Farage done that you would call far right?" Socially speaking, he is historically known to have used Nazi lines about gassing people from what I know. He has chilled down a bit for the sake of modern politics. But I do believe that he personally holds far right views even though he doesn't bring them out into his politics these days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous It can be yes. Tax the wealthy and lose their income when they move or find loopholes. Strengthen the unions and face the potential for business to be held over a barrel and not move forward with new ways of working, look at the uk motor industry. Nationalisation, the broadband idea was perfect example of something sounding good on paper but would have caused a disaster. By doing nationalising broadband the market would have collapsed, we would have lost the other real providers such as cable. We would have lost the driving force to be better and with it the service improvements that have given us faster, broadband at competitive prices. not to mention the thousands of jobs that would have been lost. Fair opinions. I disagree. Taxing the wealthy might push more to find tax loopholes. So it should be put in place with closure of the loopholes. Fair pay and good working conditions, aren't necessarily bad for business. Lots of studies show that workers who feel like they're treated well are more loyal to their employer and work harder. I don't know the details of the free broadband plan to be honest. Maybe it would have paid the existing suppliers and would have created more jobs. Nevertheless, none of this is posing a danger to society such as far right fascists." It would be a better to remove the tax loopholes and stop the idea of taking money from individual success and hard work. Workers will feel better if they are looked after and appreciated, but innovation will mean role changes, that is what the unions block and create vacuums in industry when things don't move as required. Services are impacted and it hits the end consumer every time until either the union is broken or the business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail" Nationalisation of the services and infrastructure, would add core manufacturing eg steel industry etc to those might have been labelled as Marxist forty years ago but now given the over privatisation of them that label is out of date.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as “we” are not going to accept dictionary definitions and just put our own spin on what words mean. Here’s my definition of “woke” = Not being shit to each other." That would be nice. This forum could do with less of people calling each other "disgusting" and "repulsive" just because they expressed a difference of opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right. What has Farage done that you would call far right?" Discussed heading a group including Orban and Duterte, funded by Steve Bannon, also linked with Modrikamen. He was quoted as saying that “conceptually, I like it” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? He isn't able now. But with enough power, who knows? But either way, the debate is whether Corbyn is far left or not. There is enough evidence to believe that he is. To further illustrate my point (that one’s own beliefs dictate how they perceive others) - would you describe Nigel Farage as ‘far right’? He is far right both on economic and social terms. While he has tried to chill down his far right views recently for the sake of politics, just like how Corbyn chilled down his far left views for his manifesto, I believe Farage is far right. What has Farage done that you would call far right? Socially speaking, he is historically known to have used Nazi lines about gassing people from what I know. He has chilled down a bit for the sake of modern politics. But I do believe that he personally holds far right views even though he doesn't bring them out into his politics these days." I have read these types of stories, people recollecting that he sang nazi songs, and it sounds plausible but is it true? I can't recall any hard evidence, the billboard poster is another example, was it as others saw it or was it as he intended it to be. All plausible, but no hard evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous It can be yes. Tax the wealthy and lose their income when they move or find loopholes. Strengthen the unions and face the potential for business to be held over a barrel and not move forward with new ways of working, look at the uk motor industry. Nationalisation, the broadband idea was perfect example of something sounding good on paper but would have caused a disaster. By doing nationalising broadband the market would have collapsed, we would have lost the other real providers such as cable. We would have lost the driving force to be better and with it the service improvements that have given us faster, broadband at competitive prices. not to mention the thousands of jobs that would have been lost. Fair opinions. I disagree. Taxing the wealthy might push more to find tax loopholes. So it should be put in place with closure of the loopholes. Fair pay and good working conditions, aren't necessarily bad for business. Lots of studies show that workers who feel like they're treated well are more loyal to their employer and work harder. I don't know the details of the free broadband plan to be honest. Maybe it would have paid the existing suppliers and would have created more jobs. Nevertheless, none of this is posing a danger to society such as far right fascists. It would be a better to remove the tax loopholes and stop the idea of taking money from individual success and hard work. Workers will feel better if they are looked after and appreciated, but innovation will mean role changes, that is what the unions block and create vacuums in industry when things don't move as required. Services are impacted and it hits the end consumer every time until either the union is broken or the business. " Plenty of poor people work extremely hard. Rich does not equal "hard worker". Unions play a vital role in making sure workers rights and working conditions are good. Of course there are some fringe instances when they go too far. I won't disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail Nationalisation of the services and infrastructure, would add core manufacturing eg steel industry etc to those might have been labelled as Marxist forty years ago but now given the over privatisation of them that label is out of date.. " It depends on how they would be nationalised? If it is state owned and state ran it is certainly in the marxist ball park. State owned and privately managed, not so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail Nationalisation of the services and infrastructure, would add core manufacturing eg steel industry etc to those might have been labelled as Marxist forty years ago but now given the over privatisation of them that label is out of date.. It depends on how they would be nationalised? If it is state owned and state ran it is certainly in the marxist ball park. State owned and privately managed, not so. " But Marxism requires no private enterprise. A nation with a mix of public/private industry (as is the norm literally everywhere in the world, including the U.K) is not Marxist. Privatisation ruined our railways. It was *great* for staff salaries, but terrible for the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We had stronger workers rights and union power in the 90’s, as well as nationalised services. Was Thatcher a Marxist?" I'm fairly sure that Thatcher reduced union power during her tenure. So no, not a Marxist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We had stronger workers rights and union power in the 90’s, as well as nationalised services. Was Thatcher a Marxist? I'm fairly sure that Thatcher reduced union power during her tenure. So no, not a Marxist." Unions were far more powerful even at the end of her leadership than they are today. Workers rights stronger too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail And this is being equated to being as equally dangerous to society as far right fascism by the other chap. Ridiculous It can be yes. Tax the wealthy and lose their income when they move or find loopholes. Strengthen the unions and face the potential for business to be held over a barrel and not move forward with new ways of working, look at the uk motor industry. Nationalisation, the broadband idea was perfect example of something sounding good on paper but would have caused a disaster. By doing nationalising broadband the market would have collapsed, we would have lost the other real providers such as cable. We would have lost the driving force to be better and with it the service improvements that have given us faster, broadband at competitive prices. not to mention the thousands of jobs that would have been lost. Fair opinions. I disagree. Taxing the wealthy might push more to find tax loopholes. So it should be put in place with closure of the loopholes. Fair pay and good working conditions, aren't necessarily bad for business. Lots of studies show that workers who feel like they're treated well are more loyal to their employer and work harder. I don't know the details of the free broadband plan to be honest. Maybe it would have paid the existing suppliers and would have created more jobs. Nevertheless, none of this is posing a danger to society such as far right fascists. It would be a better to remove the tax loopholes and stop the idea of taking money from individual success and hard work. Workers will feel better if they are looked after and appreciated, but innovation will mean role changes, that is what the unions block and create vacuums in industry when things don't move as required. Services are impacted and it hits the end consumer every time until either the union is broken or the business. Plenty of poor people work extremely hard. Rich does not equal "hard worker". Unions play a vital role in making sure workers rights and working conditions are good. Of course there are some fringe instances when they go too far. I won't disagree." Rich as you describe rarely work, hard working, well off people do. Poorer paid workers tend to work harder because the jobs they do, tend to be more manual or repetitively boring. Most people can do that work and that is reflected in the pay, and many people like that type of work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail Nationalisation of the services and infrastructure, would add core manufacturing eg steel industry etc to those might have been labelled as Marxist forty years ago but now given the over privatisation of them that label is out of date.. It depends on how they would be nationalised? If it is state owned and state ran it is certainly in the marxist ball park. State owned and privately managed, not so. But Marxism requires no private enterprise. A nation with a mix of public/private industry (as is the norm literally everywhere in the world, including the U.K) is not Marxist. Privatisation ruined our railways. It was *great* for staff salaries, but terrible for the public. " I would argue the unions broke / are breaking the railways. Taking national ownership from privatised capabilities is marxist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Corbyn supporting Marxism is him being economically far left. Were there any Marxist economic policies in the 2017 or 2019 manifestos? He openly said he likes Marxism. Doesn't mean he actually has to bring those ideas into his election manifesto. He doesn't have the power to enforce Marxist doctrine here. Thank God we have democracy. So if someone is a Marxist, but isn’t able or going to introduce Marxist policy, what’s the problem? some of the polices could be thought of marxist. Worker Rights and Union Power: Labour pledged to strengthen workers rights and empower trade unions. Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Nationalisation: railways, water and the Royal Mail Nationalisation of the services and infrastructure, would add core manufacturing eg steel industry etc to those might have been labelled as Marxist forty years ago but now given the over privatisation of them that label is out of date.. It depends on how they would be nationalised? If it is state owned and state ran it is certainly in the marxist ball park. State owned and privately managed, not so. But Marxism requires no private enterprise. A nation with a mix of public/private industry (as is the norm literally everywhere in the world, including the U.K) is not Marxist. Privatisation ruined our railways. It was *great* for staff salaries, but terrible for the public. I would argue the unions broke / are breaking the railways. Taking national ownership from privatised capabilities is marxist. " It really isn’t, unless the aim is to create a Marxist economy. And I can assure you that the unions have done far less damage to the railway than privatisation (which has also had some positive impact, I won’t deny). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Need to also pick up on this point: Liberalism is based on individual freedom. Freedom of speech is a core tenet. Are you saying everybody should have the right to say absolutely anything at all no matter how offensive, inflammatory or threatening it is? So it is ok for Extremist Muslims to call for MPs to be killed? Or is there a line in that total freedom of speech that you don’t cross? In which case who decides where that line is? Liberalism is about doing things which don't physically affect anyone. It was a rebel against religious power in the past which forbid people to even talk about things that go against the religious doctrines. So freedom of speech is obviously a basic tenet - I may not like what you said. But I would fight for your right to say it. If being "offensive" is a problem, we wouldn't have taken down religious power at all. You didn’t answer my question I see! Where do you draw the line or does freedom there is no line? If we have absolute freedom of speech, anything would be fine. But for practical reasons, US draws the line at direct call for violence. I asked where you would draw the line not the US (that was USA not “us” right?) And my question stands. Who decides where to draw the line? Why there? Why can’t someone who is passionate and angry call for someone to be killed (happens in the pub most Friday nights). Who decides what level of “offence” is acceptable? Why? The decision is made by people and the government. We are talking about what liberal values are. Freedom of speech is a value or social liberalism. How far socially liberal we want to be is a decision made by government and people. Unfortunately, being supportive of freedom of speech is called far right these days, which doesn't make any sense." I disagree. Being a wanker and a cunt towards people is criticised (not only called far right as far left are just as bad). That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who live in Western democracies value and expect freedom of speech. But that doesn’t mean everyone has a right to be a cunt and say absolutely anything does it? So where would YOU draw the line? How free is your desire for freedom of speech? And if you don’t have a line and I disagree does that make me woke and anti-freedom of speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Horseshoe theory removes the concept of far left and far right though so becomes a moot point. It doesn't remove the concept. It says how people who go far to the left or right, get sucked into their ideology that they would start accepting violence as an acceptable method to achieve it. The core values are different. But the outcome is the same. Also are you saying only the far left support terrorist organisations that belong to oppressed groups? Really? I never said that. The reason for far left to support terrorist organisation is because they consider them oppressed. Far right can also support an oppressed group terrorist organisation for religious reasons. And while we at it, Hamas therefore tick both boxes! So I am confused by your argument? As I said above, religious Muslims can support Hamas for far right reasons. People like Corbyn can support Hamas for far left reasons" We could debate horseshoe theory but it doesn’t really matter. The core point I was/am making is that the world and people’s views are far more complex and three dimensional than a simple concept of left and right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Horseshoe theory removes the concept of far left and far right though so becomes a moot point. It doesn't remove the concept. It says how people who go far to the left or right, get sucked into their ideology that they would start accepting violence as an acceptable method to achieve it. The core values are different. But the outcome is the same. Also are you saying only the far left support terrorist organisations that belong to oppressed groups? Really? I never said that. The reason for far left to support terrorist organisation is because they consider them oppressed. Far right can also support an oppressed group terrorist organisation for religious reasons. And while we at it, Hamas therefore tick both boxes! So I am confused by your argument? As I said above, religious Muslims can support Hamas for far right reasons. People like Corbyn can support Hamas for far left reasons We could debate horseshoe theory but it doesn’t really matter. The core point I was/am making is that the world and people’s views are far more complex and three dimensional than a simple concept of left and right." I never denied that people's views are multi dimensional. But the best approximation we have got is something akin to political compass where we have separate spectrum for social and economic views. My original point was anyway about Corbyn's support for Hamas being driven by his views on social justice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. " In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. " Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. " Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. " Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed?" 2 of those three are specifically intended to harm. The first is not, and takes place in an environment where edgy jokes should be expected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. " So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? " Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you." I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed? 2 of those three are specifically intended to harm. The first is not, and takes place in an environment where edgy jokes should be expected. " By that argument you could say that the other 2 scenarios you could expect to hear taunting at a football match and antisemitic chants at a pro-palestine march, due to the environment? What makes those different to the comedian scenario? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility." Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words." I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences." Parliamentary privilege would say differently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed?" Precisely the question I keep asking. How free should freedom of speech be? Where is the line? Who decides? Why? Are we then “woke” if we take to task those that crossed the line? Are those who cross the line and stopped being “cancelled”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences." I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility." Where you are headed with this view is making people vicariously liable for each other, which doesn't work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested." Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. " But you want them punished. How? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How?" Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How?" Can't use the stocks that technology and skills have long gone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" " Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this." I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed? Precisely the question I keep asking. How free should freedom of speech be? Where is the line? Who decides? Why? Are we then “woke” if we take to task those that crossed the line? Are those who cross the line and stopped being “cancelled”?" Our laws are specific, we have laws that outline where the lines are drawn, freedom of speech is secondary to those specific policies and the direction a judge would make on deciding if what you said was lawful. The lines get blurred when it is emotive, like the comedian making fun of a specific race through imitation or exaggerating a specific trait, is that racist or comedy. Those looking at it from a racist perspective will not move their view, but does that mean the line gets moved because people are upset | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We had stronger workers rights and union power in the 90’s, as well as nationalised services. Was Thatcher a Marxist?" "I'm fairly sure that Thatcher reduced union power during her tenure. So no, not a Marxist." "Unions were far more powerful even at the end of her leadership than they are today." Possibly so but, given that she spent her entire time cutting the unions down to size, she can't be called a Marxist. "Workers rights stronger too." What workers rights have been eroded since Thatcher's time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What workers rights have been eroded since Thatcher's time?" Strike legislation, and statutory redundancy time are two that immediately spring to mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? " I'm still trying to work out if the email I received the other day was spam, it said clink the link to read maps backwards.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed? Precisely the question I keep asking. How free should freedom of speech be? Where is the line? Who decides? Why? Are we then “woke” if we take to task those that crossed the line? Are those who cross the line and stopped being “cancelled”? Our laws are specific, we have laws that outline where the lines are drawn, freedom of speech is secondary to those specific policies and the direction a judge would make on deciding if what you said was lawful. The lines get blurred when it is emotive, like the comedian making fun of a specific race through imitation or exaggerating a specific trait, is that racist or comedy. Those looking at it from a racist perspective will not move their view, but does that mean the line gets moved because people are upset" Indeed but again the line was drawn based on criteria deemed acceptable/unacceptable at the time. Society and perceptions over what is and is not acceptable change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right?" They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? " Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. " If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Where is the line? Comedians being told not tell jokes in case it upsets someone, is that okay? Protestors chanting antisemitic slogans, is that okay? People chanting hurtful football chants, is that okay? What is the line that cannot be crossed? Precisely the question I keep asking. How free should freedom of speech be? Where is the line? Who decides? Why? Are we then “woke” if we take to task those that crossed the line? Are those who cross the line and stopped being “cancelled”? Our laws are specific, we have laws that outline where the lines are drawn, freedom of speech is secondary to those specific policies and the direction a judge would make on deciding if what you said was lawful. The lines get blurred when it is emotive, like the comedian making fun of a specific race through imitation or exaggerating a specific trait, is that racist or comedy. Those looking at it from a racist perspective will not move their view, but does that mean the line gets moved because people are upset Indeed but again the line was drawn based on criteria deemed acceptable/unacceptable at the time. Society and perceptions over what is and is not acceptable change. " I gave an example of how this is a slippery slope. Labour passing the 2003 communications act that is so vaguely worded so that it's easily up to interpretation. Tories restricting protesting rights. Freedom of speech is required to have any kind of fair political discourse. That's exactly why politicians should not be allowed to control it. That's also exactly why European politicians love passing new laws which take away your rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. " A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former." Once again, did I mention arrest? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former. Once again, did I mention arrest? " Wrong on my part. I would replace "arrested" by "punished". The idea is that a government has no business dictating my speech. Politicians whose goal is to grab power will misuse it for their authoritarian goals if you allow them to punish you for speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism " Interesting, so there are basically no woke people here or anywhere. Maybe each person who has their own personal definition like you do, could articulate it every time they use it. Then we might know what they're on about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former. Once again, did I mention arrest? Wrong on my part. I would replace "arrested" by "punished". The idea is that a government has no business dictating my speech. Politicians whose goal is to grab power will misuse it for their authoritarian goals if you allow them to punish you for speech." I think it would be quite right for a politician using such language in a derogatory manner to lose their position of authority, no? That’s what would happen if a teacher or a boss did so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former. Once again, did I mention arrest? Wrong on my part. I would replace "arrested" by "punished". The idea is that a government has no business dictating my speech. Politicians whose goal is to grab power will misuse it for their authoritarian goals if you allow them to punish you for speech. I think it would be quite right for a politician using such language in a derogatory manner to lose their position of authority, no? That’s what would happen if a teacher or a boss did so. " For politicians, we have democracy. Just don't elect that person again or pressure your local MP to start a protest against this politician. For a boss, it's up to the company to sack the person. There are lots of better ways to handle this instead of just giving a whip to the government and asking them to punish you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On freedom of speech, it’s not enough to have a limit of ‘must not call for violence’ - because as we’ve seen recently in the USA, if someone’s rhetoric and charisma is strong enough, you can lead people to act violently in your name without calling directly for violence. In that case, blame the person who performs the act of violence, not the speaker. You know the same excuse can be used by religious extremists to escape any criticism against their religion too right? The state shouldn't have too much authority to control what I speak. If you give them the power, they will easily take away all your rights because politicians are power hungry people. That's why I admire the first amendment in the US. Personally I’d blame the person making the speech and those who act upon it. Ever heard of something known as personal responsibility? If I ask you to jump off a cliff.. So, for example - Trump should hold no responsibility at all for the actions on Jan 6th? Going by US rules, if he directly asked people to perform the insurrection, he should be arrested. If he didn't and people took a different message and did it, you can blame him but he cannot be arrested. It's the insurrectionists who should be arrested. If you start arresting people for what it "could have meant", you are giving the state too much power over you, which they will gladly misuse to control you. I didn’t mention arrest - I said responsibility. Sure you can say he is partially responsible. But freedom of speech has always been about the state's response to spoken words. The state shouldn't punish someone for spoken words. I’d argue that if someone was broadcasting that a particular race was of lower intellect than another, or a particular sexual orientation was dangerous or perverted, they should be punished. Now we can discuss what that punishment should be - but people can’t be given Carte Blanche to say what they like without consequences. I don't think they should be punished by the state. Then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. The power hungry politicians will gladly move the line as far as they want. So no. They shouldn't be arrested. Once again, I’ve not mentioned arrest. But you want them punished. How? Removal from their platform, perhaps (could be temporary). Fines, mayhap. Although in the instance of someone like Abu Hamza, who would argue to remove some of the charges he was found guilty of?: "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986" "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986" Should that be driven by the government? I don't think so. If a private company has some rules on their platform, that's fair enough. The individual still can move to a different platform and voice their views. A government should not take any kind of action just because someone said something. If I start a religion tomorrow that says that the best way to reach immortality is to kill someone, do you want the right to call my religion disgusting? I know that freedom of speech means people will say things which are disgusting. My problem is with the state reacting to this. I can say such a religion is disgusting now, but fortunately that religion won’t be allowed to make such statements. Should a politician (or anyone) be allowed to stand up on a podium and use the ‘n-word’ in a derogatory manner? You think they should, right? They should be allowed. Others have the right to criticise and call it disgusting. But it's not up to the government or law enforcement to react to it. The moment you give politicians the option to control what you speak, they will pounce on the opportunity to impose more and more laws to expand their control. That's what both Labour and Tories have been doing already in the past few decades. Labour takes away your freedom of speech "for the sake of equality and justice". Tories take away your rights "for the sake of your and your children's safety". Not to mention that these laws will become impossible to enforce with more and more applications built over end to end encryption. If you’re accepting of that kind of language in society, then that’s worrisome in the extreme. I’m all for freedom of expression, but you’re openly suggesting that someone with a platform like a politician should be allowed to use that word in a derogatory manner without reprisal? Nope. I’m out. I’m actually a bit gobsmacked. A politician speaking like that is disgusting. But he shouldn't be arrested because it will open up a can of worms in form of government authoritarianism. If you read a bit of history, you can understand why the latter is much more dangerous than the former. Once again, did I mention arrest? Wrong on my part. I would replace "arrested" by "punished". The idea is that a government has no business dictating my speech. Politicians whose goal is to grab power will misuse it for their authoritarian goals if you allow them to punish you for speech. I think it would be quite right for a politician using such language in a derogatory manner to lose their position of authority, no? That’s what would happen if a teacher or a boss did so. For politicians, we have democracy. Just don't elect that person again or pressure your local MP to start a protest against this politician. For a boss, it's up to the company to sack the person. There are lots of better ways to handle this instead of just giving a whip to the government and asking them to punish you. " We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there" "What is acceptable" changes every decade precisely because we have freedom of speech. If you start punishing people for any speech that goes against "what is acceptable", you won't be able to change "what is acceptable". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there "What is acceptable" changes every decade precisely because we have freedom of speech. If you start punishing people for any speech that goes against "what is acceptable", you won't be able to change "what is acceptable". " Standing up and using the n-word hasn’t been acceptable for quite some time now. Yet you’d still accept it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there "What is acceptable" changes every decade precisely because we have freedom of speech. If you start punishing people for any speech that goes against "what is acceptable", you won't be able to change "what is acceptable". Standing up and using the n-word hasn’t been acceptable for quite some time now. Yet you’d still accept it. " I never said accept it. Criticise it. But it's not up to the government to have any authority over it. Not every bad thing should be fixed by just giving governments more control. As I said multiple times above, the results of doing that is way worse than just fighting words with words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there "What is acceptable" changes every decade precisely because we have freedom of speech. If you start punishing people for any speech that goes against "what is acceptable", you won't be able to change "what is acceptable". Standing up and using the n-word hasn’t been acceptable for quite some time now. Yet you’d still accept it. I never said accept it. Criticise it. But it's not up to the government to have any authority over it. Not every bad thing should be fixed by just giving governments more control. As I said multiple times above, the results of doing that is way worse than just fighting words with words." If you don’t want to see it punished, you are accepting of it. You may not like it (it would be weird for anyone to like it), but you’re accepting it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have different ideas about what is acceptable in the 21st century. I’m leaving it there "What is acceptable" changes every decade precisely because we have freedom of speech. If you start punishing people for any speech that goes against "what is acceptable", you won't be able to change "what is acceptable". Standing up and using the n-word hasn’t been acceptable for quite some time now. Yet you’d still accept it. I never said accept it. Criticise it. But it's not up to the government to have any authority over it. Not every bad thing should be fixed by just giving governments more control. As I said multiple times above, the results of doing that is way worse than just fighting words with words. If you don’t want to see it punished, you are accepting of it. You may not like it (it would be weird for anyone to like it), but you’re accepting it." I come across a lot of disturbing and disgusting behaviour in my day to day life in London. I wouldn't expect people to be punished by the government for that. It doesn't mean I consider it acceptable. I don't know why people have this weird fetish to give more control to the government knowing very well that politicians are power hungry scumbags who would easily misuse this power to become more authoritarian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What workers rights have been eroded since Thatcher's time?" "Strike legislation, and statutory redundancy time are two that immediately spring to mind." I'm going to say that strike legislation is not a restriction on workers, but on unions. Workers can still strike, it's just that the union has to get a mandate before it can announce one. Retirement age is not a worker's right. It only applies to non-workers, and it's not restricted to ex-workers. I would assert that worker's rights have actually increased since Thatcher came to power. An example being the Working Time Directive, which limited the number of hours a worker could be made to work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What workers rights have been eroded since Thatcher's time? Strike legislation, and statutory redundancy time are two that immediately spring to mind. I'm going to say that strike legislation is not a restriction on workers, but on unions. Workers can still strike, it's just that the union has to get a mandate before it can announce one. Retirement age is not a worker's right. It only applies to non-workers, and it's not restricted to ex-workers. I would assert that worker's rights have actually increased since Thatcher came to power. An example being the Working Time Directive, which limited the number of hours a worker could be made to work." Under current legislation an employee can vote to strike, the union can have a mandate to strike and the company can insist upon workers coming in, in order to deliver a 40% service (and depending on the company, that may be more than 40% of employees) That’s removing the right to strike for employees. And I said nothing about retirement - I said redundancy. Used to be that after a year with an employer you were entitled to redundancy. Now it’s 2 years. And yes, the WTD is a good thing indeed, although the conservative govt. fought against the council of the European Union in court before being made to accept it, of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism Interesting, so there are basically no woke people here or anywhere. Maybe each person who has their own personal definition like you do, could articulate it every time they use it. Then we might know what they're on about." this is now the official version, use this meaning at all times going forward | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What workers rights have been eroded since Thatcher's time?" "Strike legislation, and statutory redundancy time are two that immediately spring to mind." "I'm going to say that strike legislation is not a restriction on workers, but on unions. Workers can still strike, it's just that the union has to get a mandate before it can announce one. Retirement age is not a worker's right. It only applies to non-workers, and it's not restricted to ex-workers. I would assert that worker's rights have actually increased since Thatcher came to power. An example being the Working Time Directive, which limited the number of hours a worker could be made to work." "Under current legislation an employee can vote to strike, the union can have a mandate to strike and the company can insist upon workers coming in, in order to deliver a 40% service (and depending on the company, that may be more than 40% of employees) That’s removing the right to strike for employees." Ah, you mean the Minimum Service Level regulations. Yes, that does cut the right to strike, but it doesn't remove it, and it only applies to a limited number of professions. "And I said nothing about retirement - I said redundancy. Used to be that after a year with an employer you were entitled to redundancy. Now it’s 2 years." My fault, I misread your post. "And yes, the WTD is a good thing indeed ..." I certainly think so, as I am exempt from the regulations and therefore get much more work from companies that can't ask their normal workers to do more hours. It's been very profitable for me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism Interesting, so there are basically no woke people here or anywhere. Maybe each person who has their own personal definition like you do, could articulate it every time they use it. Then we might know what they're on about. this is now the official version, use this meaning at all times going forward "Excellent, you need to spread the news to all the people who use it to describe Labour, people who use the dictionary definition, people who understand climate change, people who call out bigotry, people who don't read the Daily Mail and the myriad of other strange uses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism Interesting, so there are basically no woke people here or anywhere. Maybe each person who has their own personal definition like you do, could articulate it every time they use it. Then we might know what they're on about. this is now the official version, use this meaning at all times going forward
Excellent, you need to spread the news to all the people who use it to describe Labour, people who use the dictionary definition, people who understand climate change, people who call out bigotry, people who don't read the Daily Mail and the myriad of other strange uses. "Wow, you have got this version wrong too! Stick to the script, you are starting to sound a bit woke  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone deciphered what the "we" have defined woke to be on here? Or is it still a variable that we're supposed to somehow read the person's mind and know? Yep, I will submit for inclusion to the next dictionary update with this semantic shift. Woke: is used as slur for people who are always trying to politically correct at any cost, overly sensitive to social justice issues, or support leftist ideologies**. Woke as a slur is intended to highlight idealistic social or political beliefs that fly in the face of rational thought or existing understandings. **leftist ideologies: Marxism, communism, socialism, social democracy and anarchism Interesting, so there are basically no woke people here or anywhere. Maybe each person who has their own personal definition like you do, could articulate it every time they use it. Then we might know what they're on about. this is now the official version, use this meaning at all times going forward
Excellent, you need to spread the news to all the people who use it to describe Labour, people who use the dictionary definition, people who understand climate change, people who call out bigotry, people who don't read the Daily Mail and the myriad of other strange uses.
Wow, you have got this version wrong too!
Stick to the script, you are starting to sound a bit woke "I haven't commented on this version. I'm just saying you will need to communicate your definition to the people who use it for all their other non-dictionary personal definitions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This woke crap needs to stop especially when its seems a political message is shown everywhere which is very annoying" It is annoying, but it isn't 'woke', it's just plain old virtue signalling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This woke crap needs to stop especially when its seems a political message is shown everywhere which is very annoying " Which version of "woke" upsets you? The dictionary definition, a definition provided by one of the Fab forum contributers, or your own private definition? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By no means a dictionary set of definitions. "Healthy" woke is being open to the idea that different people have different challenges, issues, concerns, obstacles, and experiences, and as a result of characteristics rather than pure individual circumstances. Normally those who are in the minority, but I'd not say that is exclusive. True wokeness would include seeking to understand the world of rich kids as well as poor kids and not dismissing the former as they have bank. "Toxic" woke is when the balance of accomodating of one group ignores or minimises that of another, just because one group is seem as being low power. There's subjectivity and a balance in there. This can be linked to virtue signalling or a saviour complex. But it could just be over compensation in a well meaning attempting to balance the scales. What I often observe is the anti-woke, who seem to show little empathy, fighting against the toxic woke. (Also, it's when people bring in DM readers etc. It's a two way street) And then those who are healthy woke get drawn in because the word woke is used as a slur. When it's healthy v anti, I tend to observe more reasoned debate without the need for ad Homs. When I see an ad hom, my starting point is both sides are probably wrong ! (Cue an as him against me to shit this argument down)" Good post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This woke crap needs to stop especially when its seems a political message is shown everywhere which is very annoying " . Well said. Yours is the voice of reality and that with which most people agree . Woke warriors are simply a very small but vocal minority . Disagree with their opinions and you will find that the voices of tolerance and reason dissappear very quickly. They will make attempts to cancel you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"‘Woke’, ‘virtue signalling’ - synonyms for being a decent person. " Disagree. There's virtue in being woke. Understanding and accommodating those around you can only be a good thing. Of course, as the post above explains, woke can get toxic. Virtue signalling has no good side. It's just someone pointing out how wonderful they are to get attention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
