Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. " Isn't the 'sir' somewhat sexist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WTF????." I watched black adder and I'm with you, wtf  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point." Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A " That helped a lot! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A " Thanks for clearing that up, I was initially confused, bewilderment has now set in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A " We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Put the crack pipe down and very slowly step away from it. And DON'T make any sudden movements." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. " Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who said this? " After a pretty in-depth scroll of the thread I quoted it from this afternoon (What is Wokeness), it looks like it may well have gone the way of Percy’s old oak table from the above mentioned Blackadder & vanished ¯\_  _/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯
THAT’S bantz  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning." It’s actually a quirky translation this one. It apparently translates verbatim to quite the mouthful. And is as follows - ‘I’m a spiteful, bitter, boomer who resents your ability to warmly accept as your neighbours & friends & work colleagues those who I deem to be ‘the other’ & am frankly terrified of so we’ve warped a word that essentially means ‘inclusive’ to mean something vaguely negative when uttered with a sneer in the company of fellow sufferers of high blood pressure with equally moribund souls’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who said this? After a pretty in-depth scroll of the thread I quoted it from this afternoon (What is Wokeness), it looks like it may well have gone the way of Percy’s old oak table from the above mentioned Blackadder & vanished ¯\_ _/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯
THAT’S bantz "Just saw the other thread and found that you are quoting me. If you wanted a debate, you should called me out directly. Instead, you are farting in the wind in Morse code and hoping that the message reaches me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. It’s actually a quirky translation this one. It apparently translates verbatim to quite the mouthful. And is as follows - ‘I’m a spiteful, bitter, boomer who resents your ability to warmly accept as your neighbours & friends & work colleagues those who I deem to be ‘the other’ & am frankly terrified of so we’ve warped a word that essentially means ‘inclusive’ to mean something vaguely negative when uttered with a sneer in the company of fellow sufferers of high blood pressure with equally moribund souls’" You seem like a lovely, tolerant and inclusive person.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. " They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"you are farting in the wind in Morse code and hoping that the message reaches me" One of THE funniest things I have ever read on here. Kudos | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids" Like all those adult males in Iran taking child brides? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids" There's irony..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"you are farting in the wind in Morse code and hoping that the message reaches me One of THE funniest things I have ever read on here. Kudos "I'm fluent in Morse code but never mastered farting it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids Like all those adult males in Iran taking child brides?" Like all those adult males in the USA with a lower legal minimum age for marriage than Iran? 99% of Muslim countries have a higher minmum age than the UK. And 100% of them don't sexually groom kids at school There are over 60000 child sex offenders in the UK. Over seas child sex tourists are 95% western. UK sex tourists arrested abroad are amongst the top 3 by nationality. 90% of child sex abuse online content is in the EU, UK, Australia or North America. 2 years ago 300000 cases of child sex abuse were revealed by the government in the Catholic church alone since 1970. And it was only revealed to pressure the Pope to convert the church into the new LGBTQIA+ religion. In Canada millions of native kids were sexually abused, tortured and found burried under state Church schools. Finally the UK legal system doesn't apply outside the UK. The legal definition of Adult and Child differ from one country to another. And the last time I checked Iran is not a UK colony. Unless you can't let go of your supremacist sclave age mentality that's a different story. If we apply the legal definition of Adult/Child in most Muslim countries to judge the UK the same supremacist way you're judging Iran, that will make the UK a pedohile nationm. But since Muslims are not supremacists like you, that sutpid idea doesn't even come in their radar. Want to open a thread about this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids Like all those adult males in Iran taking child brides? Like all those adult males in the USA with a lower legal minimum age for marriage than Iran? 99% of Muslim countries have a higher minmum age than the UK. And 100% of them don't sexually groom kids at school There are over 60000 child sex offenders in the UK. Over seas child sex tourists are 95% western. UK sex tourists arrested abroad are amongst the top 3 by nationality. 90% of child sex abuse online content is in the EU, UK, Australia or North America. 2 years ago 300000 cases of child sex abuse were revealed by the government in the Catholic church alone since 1970. And it was only revealed to pressure the Pope to convert the church into the new LGBTQIA+ religion. In Canada millions of native kids were sexually abused, tortured and found burried under state Church schools. Finally the UK legal system doesn't apply outside the UK. The legal definition of Adult and Child differ from one country to another. And the last time I checked Iran is not a UK colony. Unless you can't let go of your supremacist sclave age mentality that's a different story. If we apply the legal definition of Adult/Child in most Muslim countries to judge the UK the same supremacist way you're judging Iran, that will make the UK a pedohile nationm. But since Muslims are not supremacists like you, that sutpid idea doesn't even come in their radar. Want to open a thread about this? " The 300 000 cases were in France alone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids Like all those adult males in Iran taking child brides? Like all those adult males in the USA with a lower legal minimum age for marriage than Iran? 99% of Muslim countries have a higher minmum age than the UK. And 100% of them don't sexually groom kids at school There are over 60000 child sex offenders in the UK. Over seas child sex tourists are 95% western. UK sex tourists arrested abroad are amongst the top 3 by nationality. 90% of child sex abuse online content is in the EU, UK, Australia or North America. 2 years ago 300000 cases of child sex abuse were revealed by the government in the Catholic church alone since 1970. And it was only revealed to pressure the Pope to convert the church into the new LGBTQIA+ religion. In Canada millions of native kids were sexually abused, tortured and found burried under state Church schools. Finally the UK legal system doesn't apply outside the UK. The legal definition of Adult and Child differ from one country to another. And the last time I checked Iran is not a UK colony. Unless you can't let go of your supremacist sclave age mentality that's a different story. If we apply the legal definition of Adult/Child in most Muslim countries to judge the UK the same supremacist way you're judging Iran, that will make the UK a pedohile nationm. But since Muslims are not supremacists like you, that sutpid idea doesn't even come in their radar. Want to open a thread about this? " I would welcome your sources for all of those claims so I can do my own reading. The point of raising Iran was the connection with Hamas who, were they to be victorious, would put in place the same regime in Palestine, ergo accepting child brides. The other point of raising Iran and child brides was because you were criticising Epstein (rightly) but I saw that as hypocritical. I think Epstein was scum but I think 13yr old girls marrying adult men is also wrong. Why is a man who organised 17yr old girls to have sex with men bad but Iran’s laws allowing child brides not bad? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt many people stand behind the churches actions. That's why it's illegal. I doubt many people stand behind the sex tourists. They are tourists because it's illegal here. And given the minimum age for marriage is 18 here (16 with parental consent) I'm not convinced by your 99pc claim. Afghanistan looks lower. Kuwait looks lower. As does qatar. I could go on. Many seem to have 18 without consent but lower with consent. I also assume that grooming at school is what you call talking about sex, sexuality, genders etc. " In Muslim countries, including Iran 1st time marriage is almost always with parental consent. So you can't raise the UK's minimum age by 2 years to make a false argument. It's 16 here not 18. The point made is not about the 99% or 90%. That's shifting the goal posts to claim a goal. It's about, if you judge Iran as a Pedophile nation based on the UK legal definition of Adult/Child. You are judging your own by your own standards. UK Law doesn't apply to Iran just as Algeria's minimum age of 21 doesn't make the UK a pedo nation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No there aren’t. That’s is legit complete and utter nonsense, sir. They're cool, just shouldn't be allowed near kids Like all those adult males in Iran taking child brides? Like all those adult males in the USA with a lower legal minimum age for marriage than Iran? 99% of Muslim countries have a higher minmum age than the UK. And 100% of them don't sexually groom kids at school There are over 60000 child sex offenders in the UK. Over seas child sex tourists are 95% western. UK sex tourists arrested abroad are amongst the top 3 by nationality. 90% of child sex abuse online content is in the EU, UK, Australia or North America. 2 years ago 300000 cases of child sex abuse were revealed by the government in the Catholic church alone since 1970. And it was only revealed to pressure the Pope to convert the church into the new LGBTQIA+ religion. In Canada millions of native kids were sexually abused, tortured and found burried under state Church schools. Finally the UK legal system doesn't apply outside the UK. The legal definition of Adult and Child differ from one country to another. And the last time I checked Iran is not a UK colony. Unless you can't let go of your supremacist sclave age mentality that's a different story. If we apply the legal definition of Adult/Child in most Muslim countries to judge the UK the same supremacist way you're judging Iran, that will make the UK a pedohile nationm. But since Muslims are not supremacists like you, that sutpid idea doesn't even come in their radar. Want to open a thread about this? I would welcome your sources for all of those claims so I can do my own reading. The point of raising Iran was the connection with Hamas who, were they to be victorious, would put in place the same regime in Palestine, ergo accepting child brides. The other point of raising Iran and child brides was because you were criticising Epstein (rightly) but I saw that as hypocritical. I think Epstein was scum but I think 13yr old girls marrying adult men is also wrong. Why is a man who organised 17yr old girls to have sex with men bad but Iran’s laws allowing child brides not bad?" Palestinians are Sunnis and Iran are Shia. Palestinians are Arab and Iran are majority Persians. Palestinians are in the Mediteranian, with their own history, culture and values. Just because Iran support their independence, it doesn't mean you put them in the same basket. Also you specifically brought up the 13 yo pedo calim 10's of times. That's a different subject. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who said this? After a pretty in-depth scroll of the thread I quoted it from this afternoon (What is Wokeness), it looks like it may well have gone the way of Percy’s old oak table from the above mentioned Blackadder & vanished ¯\_ _/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯
THAT’S bantz
Just saw the other thread and found that you are quoting me. If you wanted a debate, you should called me out directly. Instead, you are farting in the wind in Morse code and hoping that the message reaches me."The thread was closed, sweetie, I went to tell you that you were talking balls in it, it said thread closed so I c&p’d it and posted here in the hope that it would be seen by the balls talker. If you’re suggesting I should have inboxed you and opened up a dialogue with you - just no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. It’s actually a quirky translation this one. It apparently translates verbatim to quite the mouthful. And is as follows - ‘I’m a spiteful, bitter, boomer who resents your ability to warmly accept as your neighbours & friends & work colleagues those who I deem to be ‘the other’ & am frankly terrified of so we’ve warped a word that essentially means ‘inclusive’ to mean something vaguely negative when uttered with a sneer in the company of fellow sufferers of high blood pressure with equally moribund souls’ You seem like a lovely, tolerant and inclusive person.." I’m a whatever ist hates k4rens & g4mmons and the type of tw4ts who congregate in politics forums on sex sites daily to make it look like, to the casual observer, that the place is rammed with RW nobcheeses who spout the unfvxkable rhetoric u tea-breathed mob spout  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who said this? After a pretty in-depth scroll of the thread I quoted it from this afternoon (What is Wokeness), it looks like it may well have gone the way of Percy’s old oak table from the above mentioned Blackadder & vanished ¯\_ _/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯ ¯\__/¯
THAT’S bantz
Just saw the other thread and found that you are quoting me. If you wanted a debate, you should called me out directly. Instead, you are farting in the wind in Morse code and hoping that the message reaches me.
The thread was closed, sweetie, I went to tell you that you were talking balls in it, it said thread closed so I c&p’d it and posted here in the hope that it would be seen by the balls talker. If you’re suggesting I should have inboxed you and opened up a dialogue with you - just no."I know the thread is closed, darling. You could have mentioned my profile name instead of dumping all your shower thoughts here and taking digs at people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning." No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer." In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? " You say ‘the’ definition - is there only one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? " He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term." We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? You say ‘the’ definition - is there only one?" Not every word has only one definition. As long as the speaker and the listener understand what's being said, what's your problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? You say ‘the’ definition - is there only one? Not every word has only one definition. As long as the speaker and the listener understand what's being said, what's your problem?" That just it - when someone says ‘Them and their ‘woke policies’, I don’t understand what’s being said. I need more detail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? You say ‘the’ definition - is there only one? Not every word has only one definition. As long as the speaker and the listener understand what's being said, what's your problem? That just it - when someone says ‘Them and their ‘woke policies’, I don’t understand what’s being said. I need more detail." The detail was given in the previous thread. If that doesn't make sense, ask the speaker to clarify. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it." Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? You say ‘the’ definition - is there only one? Not every word has only one definition. As long as the speaker and the listener understand what's being said, what's your problem? That just it - when someone says ‘Them and their ‘woke policies’, I don’t understand what’s being said. I need more detail. The detail was given in the previous thread. If that doesn't make sense, ask the speaker to clarify." I often ask what is meant when someone uses it like this. The posters never seem to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. " The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term." You really did fail to understand how the word was being used, even though I tried on many occasions to explain. Final time: You have your version of woke that you take from the dictionary, that same word has been taken by others to push personal agendas, that in turn has then allowed people to take the word woke that was being used to virtue signal and use it against people who are virtue signalling. The biggest use in this way has been against corps wishing to sell their products to certain demographics. The biggest flop was Budweiser light, by choosing a trans face for the brand Dylan Mulvaney, it cemented the term go woke, go broke as they watched the backlash form their target audience wipe millions off their share price. It has become a 360 of words… Do you have a better understanding of how the word has been taken by both sides of the divide, and your definition although correct in the dictionary is now a distant memory… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not." Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. You really did fail to understand how the word was being used, even though I tried on many occasions to explain. Final time: You have your version of woke that you take from the dictionary, that same word has been taken by others to push personal agendas, that in turn has then allowed people to take the word woke that was being used to virtue signal and use it against people who are virtue signalling. The biggest use in this way has been against corps wishing to sell their products to certain demographics. The biggest flop was Budweiser light, by choosing a trans face for the brand Dylan Mulvaney, it cemented the term go woke, go broke as they watched the backlash form their target audience wipe millions off their share price. It has become a 360 of words… Do you have a better understanding of how the word has been taken by both sides of the divide, and your definition although correct in the dictionary is now a distant memory…" Interesting. This is very different to your previous definition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean. "I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed."Lol. Whatever works for you. Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves. I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed.
Lol.
Whatever works for you.
Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves.
I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean. "And that is why you fit the description of _ostindreams, you purposely lure conflict when you know full well what they mean by the word based on the situation. Go woke, go broke  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed.
Lol.
Whatever works for you.
Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves.
I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean.
And that is why you fit the description of _ostindreams, you purposely lure conflict when you know full well what they mean by the word based on the situation.
Go woke, go broke "https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/woke-companies-broke-profits-1234710724/amp/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lol. Whatever works for you. Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves. I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean. And that is why you fit the description of _ostindreams, you purposely lure conflict when you know full well what they mean by the word based on the situation. Go woke, go broke "Did you get the right bloke there? I'm getting lost now! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed.
Lol.
Whatever works for you.
Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves.
I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean.
And that is why you fit the description of _ostindreams, you purposely lure conflict when you know full well what they mean by the word based on the situation.
Go woke, go broke "Honestly I have no idea what people mean. How are we supposed to know when, for example, people post. "I'm not voting Labour, I've had enough of their woke crap". That doesn't fit with any of you guy's definitions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lol. Whatever works for you. Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves. I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean. And that is why you fit the description of _ostindreams, you purposely lure conflict when you know full well what they mean by the word based on the situation. Go woke, go broke
Did you get the right bloke there?
I'm getting lost now!"Maybe you're woke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed.
Lol.
Whatever works for you.
Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves.
I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean. "Sure.. And people aren't obligated to explain it to you all the time if it's clear that you are doing it in bad faith due to you not being able to emotionally handle this word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do hate forum threads where the poster assumes that you know all of the stuff that's in their head, so they don't bother to explain what on earth they are talking about. I'm sure someone will be along to explain at some point. Someone, who I’m assuming is a rather witless individual as it was a big swing even for this place, suggested that whoever ‘the woke’ are (largely a mythical army who make old ppl feel a lil bit seen about being all the ists that they love being so much) are as much of an existential threat to society as the far right. Some of you near & middle-distance rights are kinda fkn crackers in yr own right. And I offer the above individual as exhibit A We had a similar thread the other day. The crew who think "woke" is a negative term and should be used as an insult, couldn't agree on what it meant. Pretty sure everyone who used the word agreed. It's only the ones who couldn't handle that insult kept repeating that the word doesn't have a meaning. No, you all had different personal definitions. One person things it means 'someone who understands climate science '. Another used it repeated to describe Labour and Starmer. In the last few comments, NotMe pointed you to the definition. No one opposed it. You forgot already? He needs to communicate that to all you guys who have your own definitions and to those who use it as a derogatory term. We are all aligned. You are the only one in that thread who repeatedly linked climate change to it. Clearly you're not aligned. You and the other chap you mentioned have different personal definitions that you wrote down. Others who use it as an insult, have other personal meanings. The words we wrote down were different even though we meant the same thing. Anyway, we cleared all your doubts in that thread. You can go back and read it at your leisure. I am not going to waste my time again on this only for you come back a day later and tell us again that the dictionary definition is different. We will keep using the word in right circumstances whether you like it or not. Crack on using your own personal definitions.
But then you can hardly be upset when people don't know what you mean.
I don't care about people who act like they don't know what it means. The left has been using "far right" and "fascist" similarly for a long time. Every problem you have about the word "woke" applies for them too. Yet they throw tantrums when someone uses the word "woke" and do all sorts of gymnastics to try and stop people from using the word. Glad that they have failed.
Lol.
Whatever works for you.
Meantime in the real world, people who use "woke" in a derogatory way are still just labelling themselves.
I will take your advice though, and continue to ask people who use it, what they mean.
Sure.. And people aren't obligated to explain it to you all the time if it's clear that you are doing it in bad faith due to you not being able to emotionally handle this word."What a bizarre set of assumptions you've made about me. Why is this even vaguely related to the points about people not knowing what they mean when they use "woke" in a derogatory manor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right I am definitely going to use “wank” instead of “woke” as it appears we can subscribe whatever meaning we want to words and it is mutable. Might cause confusing or the odd awkward silence but “wank” it is! "I'll join you. But my definition of "wank" is different to yours, and I'm not going to tell anyone what it is, and anyone who doesn't know, I'll accuse of being emotionally unable to cope. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right I am definitely going to use “wank” instead of “woke” as it appears we can subscribe whatever meaning we want to words and it is mutable. Might cause confusing or the odd awkward silence but “wank” it is!
I'll join you. But my definition of "wank" is different to yours, and I'm not going to tell anyone what it is, and anyone who doesn't know, I'll accuse of being emotionally unable to cope. "Sorry but that is total wank snowflake BS! I think? Not sure but if I disagree with you then it is, I reckon?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right I am definitely going to use “wank” instead of “woke” as it appears we can subscribe whatever meaning we want to words and it is mutable. Might cause confusing or the odd awkward silence but “wank” it is!
I'll join you. But my definition of "wank" is different to yours, and I'm not going to tell anyone what it is, and anyone who doesn't know, I'll accuse of being emotionally unable to cope.
Sorry but that is total wank snowflake BS! I think? Not sure but if I disagree with you then it is, I reckon? "The wank warriors have a lot to answer for. Anyway I'm off for a quick woke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? " Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. " Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? " I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless?" Actually... In the case of Dr Who, It should be the right character for the storyline and narrative. Then the best or most appropriate (or available) actor should be cast. That's up to the discretion of the director/team. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? Actually... In the case of Dr Who, It should be the right character for the storyline and narrative. Then the best or most appropriate (or available) actor should be cast. That's up to the discretion of the director/team." In making the of it is up to the team, but consumers have the final say. Are the producers changing things for a particular group of people and not others, is this what then starts to produce the woke divide when consumers are being turned off? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? Actually... In the case of Dr Who, It should be the right character for the storyline and narrative. Then the best or most appropriate (or available) actor should be cast. That's up to the discretion of the director/team. In making the of it is up to the team, but consumers have the final say. Are the producers changing things for a particular group of people and not others, is this what then starts to produce the woke divide when consumers are being turned off?" Not a fan of Dr Who and haven’t watched since I was a kid. What I do know was that changing the character to a woman was marketing genius as it provided so much free publicity. I would be interested to see how viewing figures were impacted (or not). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? " Some want this culture war, it seems to be driven by some on the right both right leaning politicians and media outlets.. Distraction and division perhaps.. That it is being portrayed as whitewashing again by those who seek to divide says much historically about the imbalance in that industry where black people we're given much smaller roles in film and stories about strong, successful people of colour just weren't made.. We see disabled people now on our screens presenting and being pundits in sport and that's nothing to do with woke, it's absolutely fine.. It used to be the case that disabled people, people of colour in many aspects of business, entertainment, in fact pretty much every aspect knew there was a low ceiling they could aspire to because there wasn't acceptance or access to the higher positions and that's only down to how society was.. Tbh anyone losing their shit that people are playing a role in a film are actually as close to the character etc as can be because they are disabled, gay or of colour and not a white person pretending or 'blacked' up a la minstrels they need to seriously look at why they can't accept the changes that were long overdue.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst." Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke?" What’s a white role or a black role when working with fiction? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tbh anyone losing their shit that people are playing a role in a film are actually as close to the character etc as can be because they are disabled, gay or of colour and not a white person pretending or 'blacked' up a la minstrels they need to seriously look at why they can't accept the changes that were long overdue.." And it is usually those same people who use the phrase woke to express how they feel things have changed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? What’s a white role or a black role when working with fiction? " I assume you are talking about snow white from above? Would the name snow white in the example above, not be enough to indicate the character is white, the drawings are of a white woman. What is your thoughts, not another question, you should be able to from an opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? What’s a white role or a black role when working with fiction? I assume you are talking about snow white from above? Would the name snow white in the example above, not be enough to indicate the character is white, the drawings are of a white woman. What is your thoughts, not another question, you should be able to from an opinion. " Does a name like Snow White have to reflect the ethnicity of the person, then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? What’s a white role or a black role when working with fiction? I assume you are talking about snow white from above? Would the name snow white in the example above, not be enough to indicate the character is white, the drawings are of a white woman. What is your thoughts, not another question, you should be able to from an opinion. Does a name like Snow White have to reflect the ethnicity of the person, then? " What do you think in this specific example? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares?" If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares? If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? " No, because it’s a nonsense term that doesn’t mean anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares? If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? No, because it’s a nonsense term that doesn’t mean anything. " How about the other question and I think many people would say you are wrong about the snow white. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares? If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? No, because it’s a nonsense term that doesn’t mean anything. How about the other question and I think many people would say you are wrong about the snow white." I don’t care whether they say I’m wrong. That’s the beauty of opinions. What other question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares? If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? No, because it’s a nonsense term that doesn’t mean anything. How about the other question and I think many people would say you are wrong about the snow white. I don’t care whether they say I’m wrong. That’s the beauty of opinions. What other question?" Snow White has been around for 200 years and has always been white. It's really not up for debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, Roland is described in detail. A white man, kind of a Clint Eastwood cowboy type character. Who played him in the movie? Idris Elba. Who complained? Nobody. Why? Because he did a stunning job. (Terrible script, great acting. The only good thing about the movie). Fiction is just that. Fiction. Should we have a white MLK in a serious historical drama? No. A black Churchill? In a historical drama? No. Snow White? Who cares? If someone does not have the same view as you on Churchill in a historical drama as an example, are they woke? No, because it’s a nonsense term that doesn’t mean anything. How about the other question and I think many people would say you are wrong about the snow white. I don’t care whether they say I’m wrong. That’s the beauty of opinions. What other question?" I know you don't care because your opinion trumps others, as it should be. However if I strongly believe that snow white is character that should be a white woman, it is no different to your view that Churchill should not be played by a black person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke?" Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back! "Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras. What is the message there, confusing isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tbh anyone losing their shit that people are playing a role in a film are actually as close to the character etc as can be because they are disabled, gay or of colour and not a white person pretending or 'blacked' up a la minstrels they need to seriously look at why they can't accept the changes that were long overdue.. And it is usually those same people who use the phrase woke to express how they feel things have changed. " Can't disagree with that, change does bring it's challenges and acceptance issues with some.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back!
Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras.
What is the message there, confusing isn't it? "Aww you ignored my Dune geek rant! I think the Nike marketing department were doing their job, creating awareness. Controversy create free publicity. Simple as that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless?" I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back!
Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras.
What is the message there, confusing isn't it?
Aww you ignored my Dune geek rant!
I think the Nike marketing department were doing their job, creating awareness. Controversy create free publicity. Simple as that."Out of my depth on Dune
The view point you have on sport, should collide with the nike advertising campaign and its intensions, or at least make you consider the reasoning behind such a campaign and with such a person who is not shy in courting controversy.
Which takes me to an end point, I believe that the majority of issues being discussed around the use of woke are driven out by corporate / organisational interference to sell product or ideals in a divisive way, its focus is to either increases sales in a way the items become more about the person than the product, or to separate the maybes from the pack.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. " To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion?" Something like that is subjective. Like ‘which colour paint is ‘better’? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion?" Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Something like that is subjective. Like ‘which colour paint is ‘better’?" Exactly, and why people will clash and when they clash over certain changes the argument against the other subjective view point is wokeness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. " You can't decide what is or is not important to people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people " Correct. That's what I said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people Correct. That's what I said." So we agree that we don't have the right to tell people what is or is not important to them
If I change what is important to someone, in favour of what is important to another, would it be reasonable for the person who has suffered the change negatively to consider this was made for motives that are pandering to a specific person or group? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back!
Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras.
What is the message there, confusing isn't it?
Aww you ignored my Dune geek rant!
I think the Nike marketing department were doing their job, creating awareness. Controversy create free publicity. Simple as that.
Out of my depth on Dune
The view point you have on sport, should collide with the nike advertising campaign and its intensions, or at least make you consider the reasoning behind such a campaign and with such a person who is not shy in courting controversy.
Which takes me to an end point, I believe that the majority of issues being discussed around the use of woke are driven out by corporate / organisational interference to sell product or ideals in a divisive way, its focus is to either increases sales in a way the items become more about the person than the product, or to separate the maybes from the pack.
"Have Nike made any statements relating to their position on transwomen being allowed to compete in female sports categories? I honestly don’t know. Using a transwoman was to court controversy and create disruptive marketing. It’s not bold and it’s not clever it is actually a lazy trope used by lazy marketers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Something like that is subjective. Like ‘which colour paint is ‘better’?" Hmmm the answer is obviously white but is it a colour though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people Correct. That's what I said. So we agree that we don't have the right to tell people what is or is not important to them
If I change what is important to someone, in favour of what is important to another, would it be reasonable for the person who has suffered the change negatively to consider this was made for motives that are pandering to a specific person or group? "What's this got to do with people who don't understand what woke is freaking out about Dr Who being played by a female actor? If you can explain what you're getting at and put some context on the questions, it'll be easier to answer. Is someone suffering because of the Dr Who TV show picking a woman to play the Doctor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back!
Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras.
What is the message there, confusing isn't it?
Aww you ignored my Dune geek rant!
I think the Nike marketing department were doing their job, creating awareness. Controversy create free publicity. Simple as that.
Out of my depth on Dune
The view point you have on sport, should collide with the nike advertising campaign and its intensions, or at least make you consider the reasoning behind such a campaign and with such a person who is not shy in courting controversy.
Which takes me to an end point, I believe that the majority of issues being discussed around the use of woke are driven out by corporate / organisational interference to sell product or ideals in a divisive way, its focus is to either increases sales in a way the items become more about the person than the product, or to separate the maybes from the pack.
Have Nike made any statements relating to their position on transwomen being allowed to compete in female sports categories? I honestly don’t know.
Using a transwoman was to court controversy and create disruptive marketing. It’s not bold and it’s not clever it is actually a lazy trope used by lazy marketers."Or some would say they have gone woke. Woke as a slur, will be used to say: It’s not bold and it’s not clever it is actually a lazy trope used by lazy marketers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people Correct. That's what I said. So we agree that we don't have the right to tell people what is or is not important to them
If I change what is important to someone, in favour of what is important to another, would it be reasonable for the person who has suffered the change negatively to consider this was made for motives that are pandering to a specific person or group?
What's this got to do with people who don't understand what woke is freaking out about Dr Who being played by a female actor?
If you can explain what you're getting at and put some context on the questions, it'll be easier to answer. Is someone suffering because of the Dr Who TV show picking a woman to play the Doctor?"putting it simply, having things change for some people is a challenge and they react badly to things changing. If they see something changing and it seems to fall into a tick box pleasing exercise, they are likely to use the term woke as a slur to explain why they are not happy. It is that simple, and that is how the word has changed in its use. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. " The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people Correct. That's what I said. So we agree that we don't have the right to tell people what is or is not important to them
If I change what is important to someone, in favour of what is important to another, would it be reasonable for the person who has suffered the change negatively to consider this was made for motives that are pandering to a specific person or group?
What's this got to do with people who don't understand what woke is freaking out about Dr Who being played by a female actor?
If you can explain what you're getting at and put some context on the questions, it'll be easier to answer. Is someone suffering because of the Dr Who TV show picking a woman to play the Doctor?
putting it simply, having things change for some people is a challenge and they react badly to things changing. If they see something changing and it seems to fall into a tick box pleasing exercise, they are likely to use the term woke as a slur to explain why they are not happy.
It is that simple, and that is how the word has changed in its use."So rather than explaining ‘I don’t like the way things are changing’ they attack not the people who are making the change, but those who have previously been downtrodden before the change - by taking an existing term and affecting it to suit their means | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke?" If the Prince in Snow White was replaced by a Princess, some people would decry it as woke, wouldn’t they? And that’s the level of inane bollocks that we’re discussing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? I think actors are acting so they should be able to play any part they have sufficient skill for! Thinking Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot Luke Evans playing straight men. Jodie Foster playing straight women. I think race would be different. I think the SJW argument has some credibility where there have been some films (the last Star Wars trilogy for example) where female characters are portrayed as always highly competent and make characters bumbling at best or incompetent at worst. Sounds sensible, until a character does change race. Whitewashing is not acceptable, how can it then be acceptable for a black character to play a white role? I ask this because I was reading about disney using a black actress to play snow white, that seems to have blow the roof of the use of the term woke. Trans, can a trans woman play the role of a female character? Can a trans woman advertise female sports wear? The general rule of thumb in here is trans woman should not be taking the places or medals from female athletes, how does using a trans woman then fit in to those views? Is that being too woke? Is the transwoman athlete advertising to women or to transwomen if they are known to be a transwoman? My position on sports categories has been stated ad nauseam on here. When it comes to acting I was going to say you should not change/mask the actors physical attributes (so black actors play black characters for example). Being gay/straight is not a physical attribute so acting is acting. Where this could fall down is playing people with disabilities. I use Daniel Day-Lewis as the example. Was there a disabled actor of sufficient skill with a corresponding/same disability who could play the character in My Left Foot (a real person too not fictional)? I suspect not. In the 50s/60s white actors “blacked up” (thinking Alec Guinness in Laurence of Arabia). Today that won’t/or shouldn’t happen. Deep geek alert… But a recent example of “bad woke” was the furore that some groups tried to whip up over the first Dune movie. The film, based in trailers, was accused of whitewashing by not casting Arab or middle eastern actors in main roles as the Freman people. They argued that the Freman were Arabic. But they were wrong and anyone familiar with the Frank Herbert books could tell them that. Herbert was influenced by several cultures in creating the fictional Freman people and certainly Arab and Muslim culture was one. But not all. The Freman people were from multiple races drawn from across the universe. They also missed the point that Dune is set 20,000 years into the future after the human race colonised the universe. Anthropologically speaking the human race would evolve according to local conditions on each planet they inhabited. So these “bad woke” activists were wrong and just looking for the next big thing to attack! Sorry deep geek rabbit hole there…and back!
Nike used a trans woman, not an athlete, to advertise female sports bras.
What is the message there, confusing isn't it?
Aww you ignored my Dune geek rant!
I think the Nike marketing department were doing their job, creating awareness. Controversy create free publicity. Simple as that.
Out of my depth on Dune
The view point you have on sport, should collide with the nike advertising campaign and its intensions, or at least make you consider the reasoning behind such a campaign and with such a person who is not shy in courting controversy.
Which takes me to an end point, I believe that the majority of issues being discussed around the use of woke are driven out by corporate / organisational interference to sell product or ideals in a divisive way, its focus is to either increases sales in a way the items become more about the person than the product, or to separate the maybes from the pack.
Have Nike made any statements relating to their position on transwomen being allowed to compete in female sports categories? I honestly don’t know.
Using a transwoman was to court controversy and create disruptive marketing. It’s not bold and it’s not clever it is actually a lazy trope used by lazy marketers.
Or some would say they have gone woke.
Woke as a slur, will be used to say: It’s not bold and it’s not clever it is actually a lazy trope used by lazy marketers.
"But unless Nike have issued statements saying they believe transwomen athletes should be allowed to compete in female categories, then they haven’t “gone woke” they have cynically used a controversial topic/individual to create disruptive marketing and buzz. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke?" Depends where she is kissed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke? If the Prince in Snow White was replaced by a Princess, some people would decry it as woke, wouldn’t they? And that’s the level of inane bollocks that we’re discussing." This is not aimed directly at you.. It is bollocks because it keeps getting brought up as not understood. I can keep going around the houses as long as people keep putting their fingers in their ears, but boy has it become boring as the steam runs out of the argument... I have been clear that people who see change as being caused by a group or tick box diversity, inclusion policy or other in that space will most likely call it woke, it is seen as changed to accommodate the woke. Don't like the message don't shoot the messenger. I have also provided examples of corps making advertising changes that are seen as driven through woke choices, films and others, if you can't understand this now it is time to walk away and accept you never will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke? Depends where she is kissed "totally different film, I think it is called something totally inappropriate too, definitely 7 men in it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke? Depends where she is kissed
totally different film, I think it is called something totally inappropriate too, definitely 7 men in it "I do like to occasionally remind us all this is a swinger website and sex is the core issue!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have been clear that people who see change as being caused by a group or tick box diversity, inclusion policy or other in that space will most likely call it woke, it is seen as changed to accommodate the woke." I agree with you fully. People will call it woke, and assume that it’s been done to accommodate some [other] group at their own disregard. And they choose to brush it off as ‘woke’ rather than actually contemplating the changing world around them. It’s simplistic thinking, nothing more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a link that was posted in the thread and it got me thinking about woke.. The entertainment industry and advertisers are very much at the centre of being called out as woke. Example: When making a film, if the character is gay, it should be played only by someone is gay, the same for disabled, or race of character, namely whitewashing. This stokes the fires of the anti woke, is this woke going too far or acceptable? Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? I have no opinion on the gender of an actor chosen to play the part of the Doctor. It's a TV show. Dr Who isn't real, it's a made up character. To you, but Rod and Jane down the road have been watching it since they can remember and have a very strong view on how things should progress. Who is right and who is wrong? You with no opinion or those with a strong opinion? Rod and Jane are entitled to be confused and freak out about a fictional shape shifting character shifting into a form that they disapprove of on a make believe TV show. Why wouldn't they be? No one is right, no one is wrong. People are entitled to freak about about meaningless bullshit like this, and get confused about the woke etc. You can't decide what is or is not important to people Correct. That's what I said. So we agree that we don't have the right to tell people what is or is not important to them
If I change what is important to someone, in favour of what is important to another, would it be reasonable for the person who has suffered the change negatively to consider this was made for motives that are pandering to a specific person or group?
What's this got to do with people who don't understand what woke is freaking out about Dr Who being played by a female actor?
If you can explain what you're getting at and put some context on the questions, it'll be easier to answer. Is someone suffering because of the Dr Who TV show picking a woman to play the Doctor?
putting it simply, having things change for some people is a challenge and they react badly to things changing. If they see something changing and it seems to fall into a tick box pleasing exercise, they are likely to use the term woke as a slur to explain why they are not happy.
It is that simple, and that is how the word has changed in its use."Got you. And I agree. People consider things like the gender of the actor playing a character in a TV show a top issue, and freak out, start yelling "woke" at everyone. Seeing conspiracies where there aren't any etc. This is the kind of person I can see using "woke" in a derogatory context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, like when Dr Who was played by a non-male actor. The woke confusion folks lost their shit. Why are they losing their shit, is it the right thing or the wrong thing to change a character to the opposite sex, or would the best actor for the role be the right way to go regardless? Actually... In the case of Dr Who, It should be the right character for the storyline and narrative. Then the best or most appropriate (or available) actor should be cast. That's up to the discretion of the director/team. In making the of it is up to the team, but consumers have the final say. Are the producers changing things for a particular group of people and not others, is this what then starts to produce the woke divide when consumers are being turned off?" This is exactly it. There is lot of nuance to how consumers react to it. Most people won't care about casting choices in imaginative magical or fantasy works. But if it's a story that has a lot of links to reality, bad casting choices will put off the audience. If it is a biographical story, your casting choices have to be to the point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snow White should only be performed in German. Anything else is wokeness gone made. The story ends with Snow White being awakened by a true love's kiss. Is that woke?" no idea why it would be woke. But according to wiki, the OG story had her awakening when a stumble dislodged the poisoned apple from her throat while comatosed. Never knew that. Disney lied. Next you will be telling me robin hood wasn't a fix with an American accent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry but wokeness or being polictically correct doesn't mean being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say and think and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch and it is beginning to be a problem" Exactly. The assumption that woke equates to compassionate, and that anti-woke is a form of fascism, is just laughable. People who are called 'woke' are the types who obsessively look for problems when they don't exist, or invent new oppressions or definitions of words in order to create division - and then stifle any debate that doesn't align with their ideas. It's the left wing equivalent of fascism. They seem ideologically opposed to anyone getting along or just enjoying their lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
