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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is the woke agenda a ruse to give the impression of burgeoning freedoms (gender/ identity etc) at a point in time when plans are afoot to erode the most basic of freedoms (net zero 2050)?

Change? Lets vote on it first because we live in a democracy. First vote imho should be the net zero agenda.

A policy that would never be approved by the general public.
 
Last edited:
I currently work in a distribution centre. There is 600 of us "grunts" . Of the 600 probably 100 of those are female. Of those 100 probably 90 %, could, if you were that way inclined, be stereotyped as butch lesbians. It's just the very physical nature of the job, a certain strength and stamina is required.

BUT if anybody called one of them "abnormal" if front of me they would receive a quick 600 psi'er !!! My girls work twice as hard, expect no preferential treatment and just crack on with the job. They are certainly less like "old women" than the majority of constantly moaning blokes who work there. :thumb:
 
''We see the world not as it is but as we are''.
In short, the world order referred to as ‘normal’ that must be protected from that deemed abnormal is nothing more than a transient. This supposed ‘common sense’ is merely current sense. The world was different before and will be again.
Indeed, but we are in the world as it is now, no matter how transient, and so is this thread. Context is everything.
 
Is the woke agenda a ruse to give the impression of burgeoning freedoms (gender/ identity etc) at a point in time when plans are afoot to erode the most basic of freedoms (net zero 2050)?

Change? Lets vote on it first because we live in a democracy. First vote imho should be the net zero agenda.

A policy that would never be approved by the general public.

In my view it is one of the measures being employed to replace Christianity and the nuclear family as cornerstones of UK/Western society.

Woke is the new religion, it seems.
 
Indeed, but we are in the world as it is now, no matter how transient, and so is this thread. Context is everything.
The context is change and the theme of this thread is resistance to it.
We cannot not change and survive. England's farmers are struggling to feed their livestock and provide food for them to winter on due to drought. LGBT people are not climbing back into the closet and nor should they. (LGBT discrimination is one of the drivers of refugee flows). People of colour are not going to willingly return to not mattering. Insulate Britain is regarded as miscreants who should be horsewhipped but Britain remains the country with the most poorly insulated homes and fastest rising energy costs (France 4%, Germany 20%) in Europe (and without a functioning government to deal with that). XR are regarded as the same but if those who were pilloried as weirdo beardo cranks had actually been listened to instead of denigrated and dismissed by big oil funded smear campaigns we'd be 40 years closer to being decarbonised instead of being dependent on Putin for gas and Ukraine for grain.
Change is necessary precisely because the past has failed us. The past failed us because it was resistant to change.
 
Here we go, another example of how it's done.
First raise the fear of loss.
In my view it is one of the measures being employed to replace Christianity and the nuclear family as cornerstones of UK/Western society.
Hypocritically ignoring that people choosing to reject Christianity and the 'nuclear family' is as directly democratic as can be - voting with their feet. There is no 'replacement', It is rejection.
Now, all we need is a bogey man to blame for it...
Woke is the new religion, it seems.
...and there it is. It's all the fault of this mythical bunch of wokes.
 
Is the woke agenda a ruse to give the impression of burgeoning freedoms (gender/ identity etc) at a point in time when plans are afoot to erode the most basic of freedoms (net zero 2050)?
Is there anything that cannot be linked to a hidden agenda and master plan for the elite to create a new world order? I knew it was only a matter of time before it was mentioned because it taps in to the same part of the basic human psyche.

Humans make sense of things they can’t easily understand by associating it with something bigger, all-powerful, and with an element of perceived threat, more often a generic thing/group that cannot be pinpointed, the concept of “they”.
 
In my view it is one of the measures being employed to replace Christianity and the nuclear family as cornerstones of UK/Western society.

Woke is the new religion, it seems.
Who is employing this measure, and which other measures are being employed? What’s the purpose of replacing Christianity and the nuclear family? Genuine questions.
 
Setting aside fthe usual “not common sense” and “forcing the will of the minority on to the majority” arguments are there any ways in which this “stupid woke” stuff negatively affects a person, a group or society as a whole, in an identifiable way?

For example does the “chest feeding” replacing “breast feeding” have any detrimental impact?
 
The context is change and the theme of this thread is resistance to it.
We cannot not change and survive. England's farmers are struggling to feed their livestock and provide food for them to winter on due to drought. LGBT people are not climbing back into the closet and nor should they. (LGBT discrimination is one of the drivers of refugee flows). People of colour are not going to willingly return to not mattering. Insulate Britain is regarded as miscreants who should be horsewhipped but Britain remains the country with the most poorly insulated homes and fastest rising energy costs (France 4%, Germany 20%) in Europe (and without a functioning government to deal with that). XR are regarded as the same but if those who were pilloried as weirdo beardo cranks had actually been listened to instead of denigrated and dismissed by big oil funded smear campaigns we'd be 40 years closer to being decarbonised instead of being dependent on Putin for gas and Ukraine for grain.
Change is necessary precisely because the past has failed us. The past failed us because it was resistant to change.
And what exactly do global warming, the (vast majority of the) LGBT community, energy costs, decarbonisation, Russian gas, and the world shortage of grain, have to do with poking fun at those who make absurd statements like describing women as 'birthing people'? Do you not find that statement absurd?
 
Setting aside fthe usual “not common sense” and “forcing the will of the minority on to the majority” arguments are there any ways in which this “stupid woke” stuff negatively affects a person, a group or society as a whole, in an identifiable way?

For example does the “chest feeding” replacing “breast feeding” have any detrimental impact?
Why do you set aside the 'common sense' view? In the real world, in which most of us live, that's entirely valid.

Detrimental impact? Well, it's silly. It's silly in a way that attracts ridicule. It's 'woke' way overdone, which I laugh at, and bring to the attention of others in the reasonable expectation that most of them ('common sense' again) will be amused too. We're told that laughter is good for us, so I suppose you could say it's actually beneficial... :D

I have no time for far Left, or far Right, or far Woke cranks.
 
Why do you set aside the 'common sense' view? In the real world, in which most of us live, that's entirely valid.
Setting aside as those two points have been made a few times, so I was interested in other reasons, like something which has an cruel detrimental impact.
 
For example does the “chest feeding” replacing “breast feeding” have any detrimental impact?
If we had a few more female forum members, I think a lot of them would tell you why they object to references to women and women's anatomy being removed from NHS terminology.
 
Is there anything that cannot be linked to a hidden agenda and master plan for the elite to create a new world order? I knew it was only a matter of time before it was mentioned because it taps in to the same part of the basic human psyche.

Humans make sense of things they can’t easily understand by associating it with something bigger, all-powerful, and with an element of perceived threat, more often a generic thing/group that cannot be pinpointed, the concept of “they”.
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?
 
Who is employing this measure, and which other measures are being employed? What’s the purpose of replacing Christianity and the nuclear family? Genuine questions.

Are you saying you have not noticed any decline in either or both? Genuine question.
 
Regarding it as ‘abnormal’ is a relatively recent phenomenon. Ditto transgender – its history spans several thousand years.

I think you're wrong on it being recent.

The difference is between something that just happens to be around but is swept under the carpet to something that is discussed a bit (less recent) and discussed more (recent) and then starts to involve parades and flags.

The other thing is that just because something is illegal or forbidden doesn't mean it isn't out there and visible in its own way - it may be that it's just not talked about and therefore desn't appear to exist.

The difference in the last decade or two is the establishment of assertive identity associated with these groups. The woke thing is an additional factor.

Where this has become dangerous is that some people are allowed to have an identity and some are not. Some people have to watch what they might have to apologies for in terms of what they might think and say - and some - do not.

The other issue is how apparent groups are. So you say 4.2% of the population is homosexual. Well what % of these people are active and vocal about the identity associated with it. A minority of a minority perhaps - but overly visible. It's a bit like politics. If 40% of the population vote for a political party it doesn't mean all of them are party members or are activists.

And this is important. The majority - including that majority of that 4.2% (or whatever) are just getting on with their lives and probably being pretty civil to one another. But the tendency is to disproportionately concentrate on the relatively small number of advocates and activists because they make most of the noise.
 
And what exactly do global warming, the (vast majority of the) LGBT community, energy costs, decarbonisation, Russian gas, and the world shortage of grain, have to do with poking fun at those who make absurd statements like describing women as 'birthing people'? Do you not find that statement absurd?
The answer to that is below (in bold).

Why do you set aside the 'common sense' view? In the real world, in which most of us live, that's entirely valid.

Detrimental impact? Well, it's silly. It's silly in a way that attracts ridicule. It's 'woke' way overdone, which I laugh at, and bring to the attention of others in the reasonable expectation that most of them ('common sense' again) will be amused too. We're told that laughter is good for us, so I suppose you could say it's actually beneficial... :D

I have no time for far Left, or far Right, or far Woke cranks.
It is as I said in an earlier post, anything identified as 'silly' is used to denigrate all that has been assigned the 'woke' mantle eg, those who advocate for global warming, LGBT, energy coats. decarbonisation etc, etc. None of these groups chose the woke term for themselves, but all are tarnished by the perception for the actions of one. This is not by accident but by design.

Replacing breast with chest and the likes? On the face of it some of that stuff seems a bit silly to me - but I'm not in the target group it aims to protect so really it's not for me to comment. Like a white man saying there is no racism - how would he know? Me personally, if it makes life more comfortable for some (where the use of the previous word made them uncomfortable) then I've no objection to making the change. It costs me nothing and if genuine, makes for a more harmonious world. Some of it may be the result of an inept self serving layer of middle management that blights this country (IMO) though.
 
I think you're wrong on it being recent.
Ancient Greece. You've heard what went on there - right?
The difference is between something that just happens to be around but is swept under the carpet to something that is discussed a bit (less recent) and discussed more (recent) and then starts to involve parades and flags.
There's a parade when a hockey team wins a tournament - they're ten a penny. So there's a parade. How is that worse than the continued secrecy of 'swept under the carpet'.
The other thing is that just because something is illegal or forbidden doesn't mean it isn't out there and visible in its own way
Shall we slip into Polari?
- it may be that it's just not talked about and therefore desn't appear to exist.
AKA a taboo.
The difference in the last decade or two is the establishment of assertive identity associated with these groups.
At last, they are standing up for themselves - no one else was.
The woke thing is an additional factor.
Lumped together with woke again... Another label when they are trying shrug off the stigma of the last ones. Their future tethered to the chest word - or a M-way sit in, or a .... as lumped together, they must all be denigrated together.
Where this has become dangerous is that some people are allowed to have an identity and some are not.
No one taking the opportunity to assert their identity who hitherto had to suppress it (possibly for their own physical safety) is denying anyone else their identity - if that's what you're hinting at. That some have not been able to express their true identity is what is being rectified here - at no cost to anyone else.
Some people have to watch what they might have to apologies for in terms of what they might think and say - and some - do not.
Unless you can be more explicit as to who 'some people' are, there's more than a whiff of defending the indefensible.
The other issue is how apparent groups are. So you say 4.2% of the population is homosexual. Well what % of these people are active and vocal about the identity associated with it. A minority of a minority perhaps - but overly visible. It's a bit like politics. If 40% of the population vote for a political party it doesn't mean all of them are party members or are activists.
So the minority of the minority who are able to speak for those in the minority who cannot yet speak for themselves in order that all can speak freely and assert their identities is an issue?
And this is important. The majority - including that majority of that 4.2% (or whatever) are just getting on with their lives and probably being pretty civil to one another. But the tendency is to disproportionately concentrate on the relatively small number of advocates and activists because they make most of the noise.
We'll just have to wait and see if the majority of the minority you refer to are happy to continue as you suggest or will find greater freedom through the actions of the minority. Their choice - a choice hitherto denied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom