@wildgrass saidStart a thread on racial injustice. This link may be a bit heady for you, wilodgrass, david webb is a black man who would not agree with you. We have been through 4 generations (since 1963), and racism is certainly over. Yes, some people hate blacks, some people hate jews, some people hate asians, I hate those dern Inuits, the world is not perfect.
Abortion, guns, and taxes as social issues all would fit your definition of woke as a 'weaponized social grievance' depending on the context. Which is why I noted that your definition was too broad.
Why can't we use the definition that most people use: 'awareness of systemic issues of racial injustice'. At least that would avoid the confusion of trying to pick and choose what qualifies as 'woke' depending on who thinks whatever issue is a fake social grievance.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/525415-webb-embattled-and-flawed-nation-but-not-inherently-racist/
But on the whole, in an imperfect world where GW Univ students are supportoing genocide, you are a bit off base to claim Racism!!!! Don't be like Suzianne. I think she and Sonhouse pretty miuch cover the gamut.
@wildgrass saidPotter Stewart would have 'offffennnnnndded' you. A Supreme Court Justice, for god sakes. Wildgrass, stay with me here........He was asked to define pornograpny. He was asked to define it, he was a SC justice.
Ask techsouth, I don't get it either.
By the way, please stop starting threads about woke if you don't know what the word woke means.
Define it, accept common definitions, or use a different word.
His answer was "I could never succeed in (defining it), but "I Know It When I See It.!!!!"
So, I beg for similar license if you will. Thankyou very much. And, I do indeed know it when I see it. So do you. So do we all.
. A similar phrase appears in A. Conan Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles," in which Sherlock Holmes comments on the quality of a portrait by stating "I know what is good when I see it." The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]
198d
@averagejoe1 saidI’ll have to use that next time someone asks me what fair share means with respect to taxes.
Potter Stewart would have 'offffennnnnndded' you. A Supreme Court Justice, for god sakes. Wildgrass, stay with me here........He was asked to define pornograpny. He was asked to define it, he was a SC justice.
His answer was "I could never succeed in (defining it), but "I Know It When I See It.!!!!"
So, I beg for similar license if you will. Thankyou very muc ...[text shortened]... doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]
I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!
@athousandyoung saidAbsorb this. One cannot wake up tomorrow and just decide on his own,independently, to be woke. He has to apply it where other people are concerned. He has to ‘key off’ of others. I can wake up and say ‘I will be independent’. You see, I can do that on my own, get up walk down the street and think and do independently. They woke person has to go out and show everyone how woke he is and tell everybody what he thinks. Otherwise, his wokeness would be meaningless.
I’ll have to use that next time someone asks me what fair share means with respect to taxes.
I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!
I hope you get that , I feel very proud that I figured it out.
@wildgrass saidBecause then they couldn't rationally claim that 'woke' is destroying the world.
Abortion, guns, and taxes as social issues all would fit your definition of woke as a 'weaponized social grievance' depending on the context. Which is why I noted that your definition was too broad.
Why can't we use the definition that most people use: 'awareness of systemic issues of racial injustice'. At least that would avoid the confusion of trying to pick and choose what qualifies as 'woke' depending on who thinks whatever issue is a fake social grievance.
Jesus fukking Christ people.
Woke: comprehending that racism is systemic (much like poverty).
What you are discussing here is diversity and inclusion.
Inclusion is treating everybody in the workforce equally. So, simply put, you don’t send the blacks outside to Shyt.
Diversity is letting the workforce mirror society. So, if 10% of the population likes to suck labia, then 10% of the workforce are labia suckers.
Anyone questioning inclusion is a facist and needs their head kicked in. Better for the gene pool.
Diversity, however, is indeed debatable.
If 90% of architects are white males, then mirroring society as a whole in the architects workforce is stupidity and just gagging for disaster.
But also, hiring a 25 year old, blonde communications major to communicate with illiterate Maroccan females in a downtown ghetto is equally stupid.
What diversity should be about is hiring the right person for the job and not taking their race, gender, religion into account.
And that’s where it becomes tricky. If the people hiring are all white males, they will have a bias for all white males (generally speaking). So diversity and inclusion’s aims are to reduce that bias.
No more, no less. Yes. 95% of garbage collectors are male. Duh.
197d
@wildgrass said"awareness of systemic issues of racial injustice". If that were the only phenomenon in play, that would be fair enough.
Abortion, guns, and taxes as social issues all would fit your definition of woke as a 'weaponized social grievance' depending on the context. Which is why I noted that your definition was too broad.
Why can't we use the definition that most people use: 'awareness of systemic issues of racial injustice'. At least that would avoid the confusion of trying to pick and choose what qualifies as 'woke' depending on who thinks whatever issue is a fake social grievance.
Unfortunately, we have people declaring things such as "math is racist", people writing papers on "relationship between gender and glaciers" and campuses having a "white out" day on campus where whites are bullied into not being there. One could easily produce hundreds, if not thousands of examples of many absurd things in the name of social justice.
So now, "woke" has become a term of ridicule for some. Not against serious discussions, but against the absurdity that we've reached.
I know it has become a popular talking point for those on the left lately. Those that like to cut and paste their argument points have heard that people on the right cannot even define woke when asked. Someone asked for a definition, I gave it.
The explanation for the phenomenon behind the definition I gave is available. The definition was succinct. It could be read in a few seconds and understood by those who are familiar with culture and want to understand. Virtually every definition on dictionary.com can be nit-picked in some way, but somehow we're able to use and understand words. The word "woke", when used in a mocking way describes an observable phenomenon.
197d
@averagejoe1 saidProbably more than anything, Suzy hallucinates that you care, and then wants to mock you for it.
Thumb up from AvJoe. Coach a great analogy. I consider one of my associates, who is GREAT at getting business, a rainmaker, to be just as valuable to me as people in Arizona regard the coach of the Diamondbacks. Do you think that they give one IOTA what his race is? Suzy does.
@averagejoe1 saidCite verified examples of libs doing what you claim and then explain how you can have low taxes and small government without government financed services not suffering underfunding. Did liberals draw up a list of books deemed verboten Did the libs introduce politicised history lessons that surgically removed reference to historical facts regarding slavery and Jim Crow etc?
I would have to disagree about the school system not doing a good job. If you libs would not TOUCH the system, it could go along peacefully as it has for many many decades. I wonder why libs had to go headlong into changing the system.
Uhhhh, Kev? Did we conservatives do it? Which group did it, Kev?
No joe it’s the illiberal’s that are dead set against education free at the point of use for all US children. Apologies for introducing facts into your scattergun libs bad illiberal’s good BS thread