Just How Stupid Can the 'Woke' Culture Get...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Disingenuous use of the terms agenda, master plan, elite and new world order do your behavioural 'science' notions no favours.

Most now are informed enough to know the UK government and big business (ESG & TCFD) are head of the class when it comes to being legally bound to net zero by 2050. The consequences for the populace of these policies - unknown. Not really good enough is it?
What are the correct terms for agenda and masterplan? Those are germs I see in posts in this thread and others like it. As you almost certainly know I’m not convinced there is a bigger agenda or masterplan so they’re not words I would use in this context.

What’s not good enough exactly? Being net zero by 2050 appears to be in the public interest - what is it that you disagree with about reducing carbon emissions and detrimental impact upon the world around us? Renewable energy makes sense, both for emissions and to mitigate the impact of depleting our carbon based fuel reserves?

Maybe I’m missing something. Who’d have thought that “stupid woke” would end up in the merits or otherwise or decarbonisation. Perhaps worthy of another thread so it doesn’t take this one too far off course.
 
Are you saying you have not noticed any decline in either or both? Genuine question.
I have no hard data to hand to support it but I would say that there has been an ongoing reduction in the number of people actively practicing Christianity over the last century, and I would expect that to continue. Not sure that is a result of a deliberate desire to replace Christianity though - if it is then it’s a plan on a very long timescale.

I would say that there is also generally declining trend in what we term as the nuclear family, however I would also say that it’s not as clear cut as that because it’s a reasonably modern concept, and the past isn’t what many of us believe it to be.

A century or more ago, not only were children “born outside of wedlock” and separations relatively common, the mortality rate of parents with dependent children meant that single parent families cohabiting with extended family or another single parent family, or even families completely separated with children moved to live with friends/family were all surprisingly common.

Social norms and the influence of a greater practicing Christian population also meant that couples would stay together - faithfully or otherwise - as the stigma and social pressure dictated as such. Similarly children were born into families with a different father - knowingly or unknowingly - and accepted for fear out stigma. Also children born to those not married were also invisibly passed on to a parent, sibling or other family member to cover up reality.

All of those things were much less visible than it might be today, because large numbers of children, cohabitation of family groups in relatively small homes were commonplace. It’s much less common today, because we now expect to have our own home, our own bedroom even, and relative wealth and social housing and support mean that this is attainable to even the poorest parts of society.

Those things happened until relatively recently, and still do. Thankfully societal norms have evolved and we’re all more accepting of such situations, avoiding the need to do things which would be unthinkable today.

The taboo nature of these things meant that it wasn’t openly discussed - or deliberately hidden - and so terms like blended families weren’t really required. One of the benefits we all enjoy today of the forerunners to what is described as “woke” today is the acceptance and removal of stigma associated with single parent families, blended families, etc.

Personally I shudder to think what life would be like if those stigma still existed today, but my grandparents or their parents might have been horrified at the thought of how things are now. Perhaps future generations would also shudder to think what life would be like had the current “woke” changes not happened.

Do you think there’s a decline?
 
Genuine question. I understand if you don’t feel able to say though.
You are fully aware of what I’m talking about when I refer to the ranges in statistical analysis. It is not for me to say what is or what is not normal in a human context. One thing I’m reasonably sure of is that your views will differ to mine.
 
What are the correct terms for agenda and masterplan? Those are germs I see in posts in this thread and others like it. As you almost certainly know I’m not convinced there is a bigger agenda or masterplan so they’re not words I would use in this context.

What’s not good enough exactly? Being net zero by 2050 appears to be in the public interest - what is it that you disagree with about reducing carbon emissions and detrimental impact upon the world around us? Renewable energy makes sense, both for emissions and to mitigate the impact of depleting our carbon based fuel reserves?

Maybe I’m missing something. Who’d have thought that “stupid woke” would end up in the merits or otherwise or decarbonisation. Perhaps worthy of another thread so it doesn’t take this one too far off course.
You are not convinced there is a bigger plan or masterplan called net zero by 2050?

The UK government made it a legal requirement in 2018. UK big businesses environmental credentials are scrutinised by the TCFD. TCFD chair Bloomberg also has a hand in the breathe London sensor data. Fingers in many environmental pies but he is no David Bellamy. Welcome to the world of faux environmentalism. Another billionaire now concerned with the environment, almost as if there are new fortunes to be made.


The publics interest does not come into it although maybe it will when the elderly start to freeze this winter. That is if the media bother reporting the direct effects of placing 'green' policies above ordinary peoples basic needs.
 
Last edited:
We’re all the majority and we’re all the minority, it just depends upon the situation and whether we are able to choose to be in that situation or not.

I’m a white, British, English, middle-aged, meat-eating, non-practicing Christian, heterosexual, male, with a nuclear family, etc. Not only would I be considered to be the majority - certainly in the often cited “99%” in this thread - but I would be considered to be in the majority in almost all dimensions that spring to mind without thinking too hard.

Demographically I’m probably what some people might describe as being a big part of the problem. However I have been on the receiving end of both racism and sexism. Thankfully I was lucky though, I was able to relatively easily remove myself from both of those situations.

I left the nightclub and I got another job. I could have been physically hurt and I could be have become depressed had I not removed myself from those situations. Thankfully in the 25-30 years that have passed since then, both situations are much less likely to happen again, but they could happen again even to me, the 99%.

Unfortunately there are many minorities who can’t remove themselves from a similar situation, from prejudice and bias and have to live with it all day, every day. That’s one of the reasons that we must all play a part in shifting societal norms, and not just the vocal minority.
 
You are fully aware of what I’m talking about when I refer to the ranges in statistical analysis. It is not for me to say what is or what is not normal in a human context. One thing I’m reasonably sure of is that your views will differ to mine.
I would be disappointed with myself if I surrounded myself only with people who share a common view point. I do the opposite. It makes life interesting and it makes me wiser than I would otherwise have been. Not wise enough to work out what you’re referring to though.
 
Last edited:
Women (yes I used the ’W' word) have been BREAST FEEDING since humanity began. Why does it need to be changed to meets the needs of a minority?
They have. I wonder whether it was always called “breast feeding” (since the beginning of humanity)?

Probably not. And it didn’t change what the mother and baby do either. The world also didn’t end. Probably OK to change it again.
 
You are not convinced there is a bigger plan or masterplan called net zero by 2050?

The UK government made it a legal requirement in 2018. UK big businesses environmental credentials are scrutinised by the TCFD. TCFD chair Bloomberg also has a hand in the breathe London sensor data. Fingers in many environmental pies but he is no David Bellamy. Welcome to the world of faux environmentalism. Another billionaire now concerned with the environment, almost as if there are new fortunes to be made.


The publics interest does not come into it although maybe it will when the elderly start to freeze this winter. That is if the media bother reporting the direct effects of placing 'green' policies above ordinary peoples basic needs.
I definitely am convinced that Net Zero by 2050 is a thing. What I’m not convinced by is the sinister ulterior motive which is often implied, but rarely explained with anything other than inferences and vague notions.
 
Women (yes I used the ’W' word) have been BREAST FEEDING since humanity began. Why does it need to be changed to meets the needs of a minority?
Indeed. Before there was even a word for it. Before there were any words at all. Proof that the word used doesn't matter one jot. Why get hung up about it? Is it because someone changed the word without your express permission? How often do you actually have to discuss breast/chest feeding in your day to day life? Are you committing the cardinal woke sin of being offended on behalf of another?
 
I definitely am convinced that Net Zero by 2050 is a thing. What I’m not convinced by is the sinister ulterior motive which is often implied, but rarely explained with anything other than inferences and vague notions.
Three posts more maximum before Soros gets blamed.
Anyway, much more important - is Hilary Clinton still running that paedophile ring from the Pizza joint's basement.
 
They have. I wonder whether it was always called “breast feeding” (since the beginning of humanity)?

Probably not. And it didn’t change what the mother and baby do either. The world also didn’t end. Probably OK to change it again.
Why should it change? Simple question.
Why do we need to describe multiple sexualities? Simple question.

My thinking is that minority insecurities are driving their agenda of making language non-descriptive.

You seem very defensive of this agenda.
 
You seem very defensive of this agenda.
There are two primary explanations.

1. I am defensive, and so am likely to see your opposing viewpoint as being defensive or offensive, and unlikely to see them as being neutral.

2. You are offensive, and so are likely to see my opposing viewpoints as being defensive or offensive, and unlikely to see them as being neutral.

I don’t see you as being either defensive or offensive, so I have reached a conclusion. It will be coloured by my own preconceptions though so you may reach your own different conclusion. And that’s OK. Humans do that.
 
Why do we need to describe multiple sexualities? Simple question.
It’s definitely not to create more labels.

One reason might be to widely acknowledge that those sexualities exist, which is an important part of those people who identify with those sexualities feeling accepted and equal to others.

Another might be because those sexualities do exist. We could have stopped with “sexuality” and left it at that. We could have also stopped at “bird” and not described, parrots, flamingos, emus, etc. We see lots of sparrows in the UK so we could just assume that all birds are sparrows. Anything more is unnecessary.
 
There are two primary explanations.

1. I am defensive, and so am likely to see your opposing viewpoint as being defensive or offensive, and unlikely to see them as being neutral.

2. You are offensive, and so are likely to see my opposing viewpoints as being defensive or offensive, and unlikely to see them as being neutral.

I don’t see you as being either defensive or offensive, so I have reached a conclusion. It will be coloured by my own preconceptions though so you may reach your own different conclusion. And that’s OK. Humans do that.
More behavioural 'science' insights.

As an aside did you know Susan Michie the communist and former member of the SAGE group has now landed herself a job at the World Health Organisation. Kerching.


Change when forced is not a good thing.
 
My thinking is that minority insecurities are driving their agenda of making language non-descriptive.
Why would minorities want to make language non descriptive? And which minorities is it that want to, or is it all of them?

Probably easier to say all of them, “they” for shorthand. Trouble is that includes everyone as we’re all a minority in some shape or form. Gets a bit confusing when the minority is everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom