A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Personally I’m happy to use the terms “wokery” and “woke” to disparage the more ridiculous aspects of left-wing identity politics, but it’s clear that for many left-wingers, this is a deeply uncomfortable “trigger” term.

I’m thinking this may be because in the privacy of their own minds, they agree that the more extreme examples of lefty identity politics are indeed foolish and self-defeating, but they’re too frightened to actually say so.

It’s much safer to discount wokery as an invention of the right wing press, and keep your misgivings to yourself – or let a few brave rational souls call it out, while sneakily disowning them.

Bubblecar said:

A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Doesn’t seem to have caught on yet.

Bubblecar said:

Personally I’m happy to use the terms “wokery” and “woke” to disparage the more ridiculous aspects of left-wing identity politics, but it’s clear that for many left-wingers, this is a deeply uncomfortable “trigger” term.

I’m thinking this may be because in the privacy of their own minds, they agree that the more extreme examples of lefty identity politics are indeed foolish and self-defeating, but they’re too frightened to actually say so.

It’s much safer to discount wokery as an invention of the right wing press, and keep your misgivings to yourself – or let a few brave rational souls call it out, while sneakily disowning them.

LOL.

Bubblecar said:

Personally I’m happy to use the terms “wokery” and “woke” to disparage the more ridiculous aspects of left-wing identity politics, but it’s clear that for many left-wingers, this is a deeply uncomfortable “trigger” term.

I’m thinking this may be because in the privacy of their own minds, they agree that the more extreme examples of lefty identity politics are indeed foolish and self-defeating, but they’re too frightened to actually say so.

It’s much safer to discount wokery as an invention of the right wing press, and keep your misgivings to yourself – or let a few brave rational souls call it out, while sneakily disowning them.

So what is your objection to being: “alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism:”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what is your objection to being: “alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism:”?

That’s not what’s generally referred to as “wokery”.

Wokery usually involves the more extreme, contradictory and indefensibly partisan aspects of left-wing identity politics.

Examples:

Lefties who pose as feminists in one context and regard Islamists as friends and allies in another.

Lefties who ostensibly support feminism while seeking to cancel all of women’s sex-based rights in support of cross-dressing men.

In the same vein, lefties who abhor whites who present as blacks, but are happy for men to not merely colonise the category “women” but completely redefine it to suit a male fetishist agenda.

I’m hopeless with this sort of stuff. I still wonder why it is apparently all and only about something called lefties? So were they left behind or something?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what is your objection to being: “alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism:”?

That’s not what’s generally referred to as “wokery”.

Wokery usually involves the more extreme, contradictory and indefensibly partisan aspects of left-wing identity politics.

Examples:

Lefties who pose as feminists in one context and regard Islamists as friends and allies in another.

Lefties who ostensibly support feminism while seeking to cancel all of women’s sex-based rights in support of cross-dressing men.

In the same vein, lefties who abhor whites who present as blacks, but are happy for men to not merely colonise the category “women” but completely redefine it to suit a male fetishist agenda.

But that’s just what the people who use the word as a term of abuse mean by it.

Never having seen the word used in a positive sense I can only go by the dictionary definition.

So I’ll continue to stop reading when I see the word “woke” as a term of abuse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what is your objection to being: “alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism:”?

That’s not what’s generally referred to as “wokery”.

Wokery usually involves the more extreme, contradictory and indefensibly partisan aspects of left-wing identity politics.

Examples:

Lefties who pose as feminists in one context and regard Islamists as friends and allies in another.

Lefties who ostensibly support feminism while seeking to cancel all of women’s sex-based rights in support of cross-dressing men.

In the same vein, lefties who abhor whites who present as blacks, but are happy for men to not merely colonise the category “women” but completely redefine it to suit a male fetishist agenda.

But that’s just what the people who use the word as a term of abuse mean by it.

Never having seen the word used in a positive sense I can only go by the dictionary definition.

So I’ll continue to stop reading when I see the word “woke” as a term of abuse.

Fine, I don’t mind :)

roughbarked said:

I’m hopeless with this sort of stuff. I still wonder why it is apparently all and only about something called lefties? So were they left behind or something?

Right-wing identity politics are of course also often extreme, ridiculous and contemptible.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

That’s not what’s generally referred to as “wokery”.

Wokery usually involves the more extreme, contradictory and indefensibly partisan aspects of left-wing identity politics.

Examples:

Lefties who pose as feminists in one context and regard Islamists as friends and allies in another.

Lefties who ostensibly support feminism while seeking to cancel all of women’s sex-based rights in support of cross-dressing men.

In the same vein, lefties who abhor whites who present as blacks, but are happy for men to not merely colonise the category “women” but completely redefine it to suit a male fetishist agenda.

But that’s just what the people who use the word as a term of abuse mean by it.

Never having seen the word used in a positive sense I can only go by the dictionary definition.

So I’ll continue to stop reading when I see the word “woke” as a term of abuse.

Fine, I don’t mind :)

FWIW, having read CE’s woke-free post about how this group wants to remove the terms “man” and “woman” from science, I agree that is ridiculous (and entirely un-woke).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that’s just what the people who use the word as a term of abuse mean by it.

Never having seen the word used in a positive sense I can only go by the dictionary definition.

So I’ll continue to stop reading when I see the word “woke” as a term of abuse.

Fine, I don’t mind :)

FWIW, having read CE’s woke-free post about how this group wants to remove the terms “man” and “woman” from science, I agree that is ridiculous (and entirely un-woke).

https://www.eeblanguageproject.com/repository

Link

These terms were identified as harmful by respondents to a survey of the EEB community. Here, we report the most commonly-identified terms, and some potential replacements offered by the respondents. This repository is meant to serve as a starting point for dialogue within the scientific community.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that’s just what the people who use the word as a term of abuse mean by it.

Never having seen the word used in a positive sense I can only go by the dictionary definition.

So I’ll continue to stop reading when I see the word “woke” as a term of abuse.

Fine, I don’t mind :)

FWIW, having read CE’s woke-free post about how this group wants to remove the terms “man” and “woman” from science, I agree that is ridiculous (and entirely un-woke).

You’re free to use the term “woke” in a way opposite to the majority of people.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Fine, I don’t mind :)

FWIW, having read CE’s woke-free post about how this group wants to remove the terms “man” and “woman” from science, I agree that is ridiculous (and entirely un-woke).

You’re free to use the term “woke” in a way opposite to the majority of people.

The majority of people don’t use the term at all.

I don’t agree with just accepting it as OK when one extreme group hijacks a word used in a non-extreme sense, so they can use it as a term of abuse.

I’ll just stick with the definition.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

FWIW, having read CE’s woke-free post about how this group wants to remove the terms “man” and “woman” from science, I agree that is ridiculous (and entirely un-woke).

You’re free to use the term “woke” in a way opposite to the majority of people.

The majority of people don’t use the term at all.

I don’t agree with just accepting it as OK when one extreme group hijacks a word used in a non-extreme sense, so they can use it as a term of abuse.

I’ll just stick with the definition.

Dictionary definitions are supposed to reflect usage. As has been pointed out, in a political context the terms “woke” and “wokery” are only ever used in a critical or disparaging sense.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You’re free to use the term “woke” in a way opposite to the majority of people.

The majority of people don’t use the term at all.

I don’t agree with just accepting it as OK when one extreme group hijacks a word used in a non-extreme sense, so they can use it as a term of abuse.

I’ll just stick with the definition.

Dictionary definitions are supposed to reflect usage. As has been pointed out, in a political context the terms “woke” and “wokery” are only ever used in a critical or disparaging sense.

Yes, at least in Australia, the word has been hijacked by Bolt and friends.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The majority of people don’t use the term at all.

I don’t agree with just accepting it as OK when one extreme group hijacks a word used in a non-extreme sense, so they can use it as a term of abuse.

I’ll just stick with the definition.

Dictionary definitions are supposed to reflect usage. As has been pointed out, in a political context the terms “woke” and “wokery” are only ever used in a critical or disparaging sense.

Yes, at least in Australia, the word has been hijacked by Bolt and friends.

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Dictionary definitions are supposed to reflect usage. As has been pointed out, in a political context the terms “woke” and “wokery” are only ever used in a critical or disparaging sense.

Yes, at least in Australia, the word has been hijacked by Bolt and friends.

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, at least in Australia, the word has been hijacked by Bolt and friends.

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Why should that matter? It’s a useful and fittingly ironic term.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Why should that matter? It’s a useful and fittingly ironic term.

It is nothing of the sort. It is a term used to denigrate positions that should be discussed, without discussion.

Just like “political correctness”.

The word woke was hijacked

The original meaning of ‘woke’ was to be awake to social injustice – particularly injustices about race. But its meaning has been hijacked and subverted in recent years. If you follow Piers Morgan on Twitter or watch Good Morning Britain with any regularity, you won’t have missed his penchant for the word.

It seems to be woking.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Why should that matter? It’s a useful and fittingly ironic term.

It is nothing of the sort. It is a term used to denigrate positions that should be discussed, without discussion.

Just like “political correctness”.

The word woke was hijacked

The original meaning of ‘woke’ was to be awake to social injustice – particularly injustices about race. But its meaning has been hijacked and subverted in recent years. If you follow Piers Morgan on Twitter or watch Good Morning Britain with any regularity, you won’t have missed his penchant for the word.

Ha, try to discuss these issues with the uber-woke :)

They don’t do debate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Why should that matter? It’s a useful and fittingly ironic term.

It is nothing of the sort. It is a term used to denigrate positions that should be discussed, without discussion.

Just like “political correctness”.

The word woke was hijacked

The original meaning of ‘woke’ was to be awake to social injustice – particularly injustices about race. But its meaning has been hijacked and subverted in recent years. If you follow Piers Morgan on Twitter or watch Good Morning Britain with any regularity, you won’t have missed his penchant for the word.

That’s people for you though isn’t it, hijack words or justice type movements to act inappropriately then excuse the behaviour by using the aforementioned

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Why should that matter? It’s a useful and fittingly ironic term.

It is nothing of the sort. It is a term used to denigrate positions that should be discussed, without discussion.

Just like “political correctness”.

The word woke was hijacked

The original meaning of ‘woke’ was to be awake to social injustice – particularly injustices about race. But its meaning has been hijacked and subverted in recent years. If you follow Piers Morgan on Twitter or watch Good Morning Britain with any regularity, you won’t have missed his penchant for the word.

That’s people for you though isn’t it, hijack words or justice type movements to act inappropriately then excuse the behaviour by using the aforementioned

Just what they deserve. Using woke instead of awakened..

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, at least in Australia, the word has been hijacked by Bolt and friends.

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Sounds gay to me.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Sounds gay to me.

Another hijacked word.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Nah, it’s used throughout the world as a term disparaging the more irrational aspects of left-wing identity politics. Even some lefties use it in that way :)

Nobody uses it in any other way these days.

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Sounds gay to me.

and that’s been highjacked too.

so what yous’re all saying is, hijacked is a brilliant self referencing pun

I have no problems with the term woke, or wokeness, happy to use it in a non-pejorative way, happy for the woke

there are some supremely uninteresting people that need identify with something, they aren’t all woke

not that there’s anything wrong with being uninteresting, or even very modestly interesting

supremely uninteresting is a different thing

transition said:

I have no problems with the term woke, or wokeness, happy to use it in a non-pejorative way, happy for the woke

there are some supremely uninteresting people that need identify with something, they aren’t all woke

not that there’s anything wrong with being uninteresting, or even very modestly interesting

supremely uninteresting is a different thing

What about woke joke?

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you agree, the word has been hijacked.

Sounds gay to me.

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Sounds gay to me.

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I don’t like the term “queer”. And you’ll find that these days, those who identify as “queer” are increasingly heterosexuals.

It’s just names, people can bloody identify as whatever they like.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I don’t like the term “queer”. And you’ll find that these days, those who identify as “queer” are increasingly heterosexuals.

Example:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I don’t like the term “queer”. And you’ll find that these days, those who identify as “queer” are increasingly heterosexuals.

Oh well, how about “witch” then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I don’t like the term “queer”. And you’ll find that these days, those who identify as “queer” are increasingly heterosexuals.

Oh well, how about “witch” then?

Now you’re talking.

My last word in this thread for a while:

One pitfall for the left in continually dismissing all “anti-woke” criticism as right-wing (and I agree that many right-wingers use “woke” to denigrate reasonable social justice movements as well as the lunatic fringe) is that the term “woke” is now increasingly used by left-wing critics of the left, and many people with no particular political alignment.

Thus if the rest of us get the impression that left-wing conformists will never accept that criticism of wokery is sometimes justified, it will tend to confirm that most of the left are now “hopelessly woke” and beyond appeal to rational debate.

SCIENCE said:

It’s just names, people can bloody identify as whatever they like.

like a social constructionist circus out there, not happy with not knowing how minds work there’s a tendency to send everyone into the territory of how minds should work

i’m mostly content with my own hoodoo, some of it leaks out of my cranium but there’s no project to change the world

Bubblecar said:

My last word in this thread for a while:

One pitfall for the left in continually dismissing all “anti-woke” criticism as right-wing (and I agree that many right-wingers use “woke” to denigrate reasonable social justice movements as well as the lunatic fringe) is that the term “woke” is now increasingly used by left-wing critics of the left, and many people with no particular political alignment.

Thus if the rest of us get the impression that left-wing conformists will never accept that criticism of wokery is sometimes justified, it will tend to confirm that most of the left are now “hopelessly woke” and beyond appeal to rational debate.

The point is, I have never ever seen the term used as part of a reasoned discussion.

It’s always that’s woke and that’s all there is to it.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

It’s just names, people can bloody identify as whatever they like.

like a social constructionist circus out there, not happy with not knowing how minds work there’s a tendency to send everyone into the territory of how minds should work

i’m mostly content with my own hoodoo, some of it leaks out of my cranium but there’s no project to change the world

oh well we guess that if words are actually consequential then they should be regulated like any other consequential action rather than upheld in a pretence of freedom of speech

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

My last word in this thread for a while:

One pitfall for the left in continually dismissing all “anti-woke” criticism as right-wing (and I agree that many right-wingers use “woke” to denigrate reasonable social justice movements as well as the lunatic fringe) is that the term “woke” is now increasingly used by left-wing critics of the left, and many people with no particular political alignment.

Thus if the rest of us get the impression that left-wing conformists will never accept that criticism of wokery is sometimes justified, it will tend to confirm that most of the left are now “hopelessly woke” and beyond appeal to rational debate.

The point is, I have never ever seen the term used as part of a reasoned discussion.

It’s always that’s woke and that’s all there is to it.

so you mean it’s a bullshit thought stopping cliché and it needs to be reclaimed

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

My last word in this thread for a while:

One pitfall for the left in continually dismissing all “anti-woke” criticism as right-wing (and I agree that many right-wingers use “woke” to denigrate reasonable social justice movements as well as the lunatic fringe) is that the term “woke” is now increasingly used by left-wing critics of the left, and many people with no particular political alignment.

Thus if the rest of us get the impression that left-wing conformists will never accept that criticism of wokery is sometimes justified, it will tend to confirm that most of the left are now “hopelessly woke” and beyond appeal to rational debate.

The point is, I have never ever seen the term used as part of a reasoned discussion.

It’s always that’s woke and that’s all there is to it.

so you mean it’s a bullshit thought stopping cliché and it needs to be reclaimed

Not really, I just mean I’ll continue to stop reading/listening when i see or hear the word used as a term of abuse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Sounds gay to me.

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Noddy felt a little queer.

An Enid Blyton book was banned in Australia for that line (or something similar).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

My last word in this thread for a while:

One pitfall for the left in continually dismissing all “anti-woke” criticism as right-wing (and I agree that many right-wingers use “woke” to denigrate reasonable social justice movements as well as the lunatic fringe) is that the term “woke” is now increasingly used by left-wing critics of the left, and many people with no particular political alignment.

Thus if the rest of us get the impression that left-wing conformists will never accept that criticism of wokery is sometimes justified, it will tend to confirm that most of the left are now “hopelessly woke” and beyond appeal to rational debate.

The point is, I have never ever seen the term used as part of a reasoned discussion.

It’s always that’s woke and that’s all there is to it.

How do you know, since you stop reading as soon as you see the word?

Or is that what you mean – “I stop reading, so inevitably that’s all there is to it.”

:)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I don’t like the term “queer”. And you’ll find that these days, those who identify as “queer” are increasingly heterosexuals.

Oh well, how about “witch” then?

I’m happy with “witch”. Or “hag”. Or “Dragon” (now I have inherited the name).

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Another hijacked word.

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Noddy felt a little queer.

An Enid Blyton book was banned in Australia for that line (or something similar).

He was known to have slept with a bloke called Big Ears.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hijacking isn’t always bad.

I think queer people repossessing the word “queer” is a good thing.

Noddy felt a little queer.

An Enid Blyton book was banned in Australia for that line (or something similar).

He was known to have slept with a bloke called Big Ears.

and his horn went parp parp.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The point is, I have never ever seen the term used as part of a reasoned discussion.

It’s always that’s woke and that’s all there is to it.

so you mean it’s a bullshit thought stopping cliché and it needs to be reclaimed

Not really, I just mean I’ll continue to stop reading/listening when i see or hear the word used as a term of abuse.

ah you mean the sensible approach of departing when someone loses their debate by resorting to name calling

fair

My local Chinese nosh shop is called “The Wokery”.

Not really……. just made that bit up. 😁

It’s a serious subject and we don’t need any Woodery.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a serious subject and we don’t need any Woodery.

wait until we get wookiery

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

It’s just names, people can bloody identify as whatever they like.

like a social constructionist circus out there, not happy with not knowing how minds work there’s a tendency to send everyone into the territory of how minds should work

i’m mostly content with my own hoodoo, some of it leaks out of my cranium but there’s no project to change the world

oh well we guess that if words are actually consequential then they should be regulated like any other consequential action rather than upheld in a pretence of freedom of speech

possibly a dissemblers paradise though

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire

By George F. Will
Columnist

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/stanford-usc-woke-language-ridiculous/?

“if you don’t “ well anyway

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire

By George F. Will
Columnist

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/stanford-usc-woke-language-ridiculous/?

Reads header
Hits back arrow.

It’s not nice being called names and everything so I have a bit of sympathy for the snowflakes.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s not nice being called names and everything so I have a bit of sympathy for the snowflakes.

sticks and stones..

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire

By George F. Will
Columnist

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/stanford-usc-woke-language-ridiculous/?

Reads header
Hits back arrow.

But, but prominent conservative intellectual…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire

By George F. Will
Columnist

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/stanford-usc-woke-language-ridiculous/?

Reads header
Hits back arrow.

So you confess – the reason you never find any substance to critics of wokery is that you never read them :)

>Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

Another reason this forum is going to miss sibeen. While generally sympathetic to the left he was always happy to laugh at their excesses, and would often refer us to the latest “peak Grauniard” piece.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire

By George F. Will
Columnist

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/stanford-usc-woke-language-ridiculous/?

Reads header
Hits back arrow.

So you confess – the reason you never find any substance to critics of wokery is that you never read them :)

There is no criticism of wokery in that piece at all.

There may be quite justified criticism of people doing stupid things, but that’s something else.

Woke Virus Achieves SexGender Equality Soon After International PeopleWhoMenstruate’s Day

SCIENCE said:

Woke Virus Achieves SexGender Equality Soon After International PeopleWhoMenstruate’s Day

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/far-right-culture-war-working-class

The Far-Right’s Culture Wars Are Just a Distraction So Oligarchs Can Keep Looting the Working Class

surely not

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-charge-against-teacher-overturned/102080754

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Witty Rejoinder said:

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

I haven’t read the article, so I don’t know if the short summary given is accurate, but why does it need a one-word term to describe it anyway?

Why not just say it imposes restrictions on the use of English for no good reason, or some other short statement of what the problems are?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

I haven’t read the article, so I don’t know if the short summary given is accurate, but why does it need a one-word term to describe it anyway?

Why not just say it imposes restrictions on the use of English for no good reason, or some other short statement of what the problems are?

Because it’s just one example of a policy that has become widespread, so having a term to describe this phenomenon would be appear to be useful and justified.

Bubblecar said:

A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Has anyone here used “woke” or any of its derivatives, other than in this thread, since you posted this bubbles?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

I haven’t read the article, so I don’t know if the short summary given is accurate, but why does it need a one-word term to describe it anyway?

Why not just say it imposes restrictions on the use of English for no good reason, or some other short statement of what the problems are?

Because it’s just one example of a policy that has become widespread, so having a term to describe this phenomenon would be appear to be useful and justified.

But the accepted definition of the word “woke” in no way suggests that large international aid organisations should put ridiculous limitations on the use of common English words, in fact it suggests just the opposite.

Use of the term woke for this sort of nonsense merely serves to alienate people for no good reason, and lends support to those who are genuinely anti-woke, like Murdoch and Bolt and chums.

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Has anyone here used “woke” or any of its derivatives, other than in this thread, since you posted this bubbles?

Probably not, because only Rupert’s fascists use terms like that :)

We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.

But we don’t say “we stand with the woke”, because apart from anything else, that’s an ableist expression that may alienate people who are unable to stand.

>But the accepted definition of the word “woke”

Accepted by whom? Dictionaries that are doing their job are supposed to reflect contemporary usage, whatever the words used to mean.

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Has anyone here used “woke” or any of its derivatives, other than in this thread, since you posted this bubbles?

Probably not, because only Rupert’s fascists use terms like that :)

We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.

But we don’t say “we stand with the woke”, because apart from anything else, that’s an ableist expression that may alienate people who are unable to stand.

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

Aye, science and reason are only passing fads anyway.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

Aye, science and reason are only passing fads anyway.

You mean “were only passing fads”.

Not much hope for a revival, let’s face it.

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Has anyone here used “woke” or any of its derivatives, other than in this thread, since you posted this bubbles?

Probably not, because only Rupert’s fascists use terms like that :)

We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.

But we don’t say “we stand with the woke”, because apart from anything else, that’s an ableist expression that may alienate people who are unable to stand.

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

It also seems to be taking comments out of context, and trying to find fault were it often doesn’t exist.
Setting people up as well

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

Aye, science and reason are only passing fads anyway.

WTF has people hijacking a word so they can deride those who advocate a bit of empathy in our relationships with others got to do with science and reason?

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Probably not, because only Rupert’s fascists use terms like that :)

We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.

But we don’t say “we stand with the woke”, because apart from anything else, that’s an ableist expression that may alienate people who are unable to stand.

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

I’ve made my opinion on that absolutely clear.

And the suggested restrictions have nothing to do with “empathy” either.

Are you supporting the hijacking of that word as well now?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

Are people actually upset by those terms or is it all a setup to make certain minority groups come across as precious and convince undecided people to dislike them.
Ignorance as well, people haven’t asked if others are upset by those terms but decide for them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

I’ve made my opinion on that absolutely clear.

And the suggested restrictions have nothing to do with “empathy” either.

Are you supporting the hijacking of that word as well now?

Well the meme DA posted makes it clear that people like me who do criticise such policies only do so because we lack basic empathy :)

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who in this discussion has agreed that those terms should be avoided?

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

Are people actually upset by those terms or is it all a setup to make certain minority groups come across as precious and convince undecided people to dislike them.
Ignorance as well, people haven’t asked if others are upset by those terms but decide for them.

You think Oxfam are trying to manipulate people into disliking certain minority groups?

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Probably not, because only Rupert’s fascists use terms like that :)

We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.

But we don’t say “we stand with the woke”, because apart from anything else, that’s an ableist expression that may alienate people who are unable to stand.

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

That is classic woke.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

Are people actually upset by those terms or is it all a setup to make certain minority groups come across as precious and convince undecided people to dislike them.
Ignorance as well, people haven’t asked if others are upset by those terms but decide for them.

You think Oxfam are trying to manipulate people into disliking certain minority groups?

Not Oxfam but if they are against those words it is silly, they are legitimate words people can use, probably not even intended to insult but an oversight
You do get people who are against certain groups but sneakily make up that these groups are against certain words/traditions to paint them in a bad light.

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Yeah

Nah

Hmm

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m asking people if they do agree that they should be avoided. If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies or should we err on the side of “empathy” and keep our mouths shut?

I’ve made my opinion on that absolutely clear.

And the suggested restrictions have nothing to do with “empathy” either.

Are you supporting the hijacking of that word as well now?

Well the meme DA posted makes it clear that people like me who do criticise such policies only do so because we lack basic empathy :)

It does nothing of the sort.

It makes it clear that some people like to present having basic empathy as being a sign of stupidity.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Oxfam’s language guide says sorry for using English and urges staff to not use ‘mother’ and ‘father’

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/bba505e7-ef58-4442-9aff-d69561f1880e

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

That is classic woke.

It’s the opposite of classic woke.

never seen so much strawman and playing the victim.

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

Who has dismissed the criticism of such policies as “right-wing”?

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

I think its silly, they are legitimate words, they have uses worldwide not just in human society either.
If someone doesn’t want to be addressed using those words that’s fair enough, you use what they prefer, its not a blanket approach though.

JudgeMental said:

never seen so much strawman and playing the victim.

?

I’m certainly not “playing the victim”. Victim of what?

I’m saying I’m happy to criticise Oxfam’s language proposals, but I’m aware that in doing so I would presumably be regarded by many as a follower of Bolt etc (which I’m definitely not :)).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe most card-carrying lefties would agree that those language proposals are absurd.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

That is classic woke.

It’s the opposite of classic woke.

Classic irony

Bubblecar said:

JudgeMental said:

never seen so much strawman and playing the victim.

?

I’m certainly not “playing the victim”. Victim of what?

I’m saying I’m happy to criticise Oxfam’s language proposals, but I’m aware that in doing so I would presumably be regarded by many as a follower of Bolt etc (which I’m definitely not :)).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe most card-carrying lefties would agree that those language proposals are absurd.

I agree, I’m all for people being whom they want to be, most of the time its not even my business anyway.
I might on occasion use the wrong terminology buts its unintended and certainty not an insult or non acceptance
The extremes are a disservice even if the intention is to be empathetic as people who are on the fence or against it will run with it as being some sort of censorship
Like I mentioned its also a sneaky way to turn opinion against groups as its more subtle instead of outright nastiness

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

Just out of curiosity then Ian, do you agree with the suggestion that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother” “father” etc?

If not, is it legitimate to criticise such policies?

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Most people here think it’s wrong to describe that sort of thing as “woke” so perhaps they could suggest another term.

Or maybe we’re supposed to agree that policies like this are indeed woke, in a positive sense, and should be applauded.

I haven’t read the article, so I don’t know if the short summary given is accurate, but why does it need a one-word term to describe it anyway?

Why not just say it imposes restrictions on the use of English for no good reason, or some other short statement of what the problems are?

Because it’s just one example of a policy that has become widespread, so having a term to describe this phenomenon would be appear to be useful and justified.

Yes. You could always use, it’s bullshit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

Who has dismissed the criticism of such policies as “right-wing”?

Pretty sure that many left-wing people regard John Cleese (quoted in the article) as a right-winger because of the sort of comments he makes in that article.

Or maybe it’s only because he uses the term “woke” to describe such policies, as does the right-wing press.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

…then

“We’re all left-wing here and we agree that we should avoid terms like “female”, “mother”, “father” etc.”

Serious or sarcastic?

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

years ago i read a book entitled manmade language. one term i remember discussed was “motherhood”. The general view of that word is one of nurture. Unfortunately not every mother feels that way. It wasn’t advocating not using the term just to be aware that it has different meanings for different women.

Bubblecar said:

JudgeMental said:

never seen so much strawman and playing the victim.

?

I’m certainly not “playing the victim”. Victim of what?

I’m saying I’m happy to criticise Oxfam’s language proposals, but I’m aware that in doing so I would presumably be regarded by many as a follower of Bolt etc (which I’m definitely not :)).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe most card-carrying lefties would agree that those language proposals are absurd.

You are absolutely wrong.

No-one has remotely suggested that criticising the Oxfam document makes you a follower of Bolt etc.

In fact several, including me, have said the exact opposite.

Mother and father are easily replaced with the word parent anyway regardless of how they identify themselves, no need to invent a new word
Biologically speaking they were at one point either the mother or father

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

OTH you’re joining in the language rewrite yourself by describing those females as “cisgender”, a term from transgender ideology.

They’re not “cisgender”, they’re just actual females. And I would think the number of mothers who are actual females would be pretty close to 100% :)

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

years ago i read a book entitled manmade language. one term i remember discussed was “motherhood”. The general view of that word is one of nurture. Unfortunately not every mother feels that way. It wasn’t advocating not using the term just to be aware that it has different meanings for different women.

Housewife. Missus used to be seen tossing unopened mail into the fire. When I asked what was going on, she replied, “They are addressed to the housewife. I’m not married to a house so they aren’t for me”.

one of the funny things about trying to change language is that it rarely works unless the people are onboard.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being humorous, playing the role of someone who agrees with Oxfam’s language proposals.

But would I be right to assume that these days, most left-wing people would agree with Oxfam’s language proposals? Given that criticism of such policies is usually dismissed as “right-wing”…

Who has dismissed the criticism of such policies as “right-wing”?

Pretty sure that many left-wing people regard John Cleese (quoted in the article) as a right-winger because of the sort of comments he makes in that article.

Or maybe it’s only because he uses the term “woke” to describe such policies, as does the right-wing press.

It is interesting to note that many of those comedians from that era and later (the 80’s comedians as well) are actually dickheads in modern days.

JudgeMental said:

one of the funny things about trying to change language is that it rarely works unless the people are onboard.

The words don’t get into the dictionary unless they are already in common usage.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who has dismissed the criticism of such policies as “right-wing”?

Pretty sure that many left-wing people regard John Cleese (quoted in the article) as a right-winger because of the sort of comments he makes in that article.

Or maybe it’s only because he uses the term “woke” to describe such policies, as does the right-wing press.

It is interesting to note that many of those comedians from that era and later (the 80’s comedians as well) are actually dickheads in modern days.

Who said they weren’t that, back then.

What dickheads do you know from the ministry of slly walks?

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

OTH you’re joining in the language rewrite yourself by describing those females as “cisgender”, a term from transgender ideology.

They’re not “cisgender”, they’re just actual females. And I would think the number of mothers who are actual females would be pretty close to 100% :)

I’m not the boss of what people call themselves. The use of the term ‘cisgender’ is IME widely accepted.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

OTH you’re joining in the language rewrite yourself by describing those females as “cisgender”, a term from transgender ideology.

They’re not “cisgender”, they’re just actual females. And I would think the number of mothers who are actual females would be pretty close to 100% :)

I’m not the boss of what people call themselves. The use of the term ‘cisgender’ is IME widely accepted.

The first known use of cisgender was in 1994.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure that many left-wing people regard John Cleese (quoted in the article) as a right-winger because of the sort of comments he makes in that article.

Or maybe it’s only because he uses the term “woke” to describe such policies, as does the right-wing press.

It is interesting to note that many of those comedians from that era and later (the 80’s comedians as well) are actually dickheads in modern days.

Who said they weren’t that, back then.

What dickheads do you know from the ministry of slly walks?

Fawlty Towers did have some racist comedy in it, many shows from that era had anti black type people.
I was thinking more the American comedians from the 80’s, Chevy Chase for example, apparently a racist, sexist and hard to work with

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think such policies are misguided when they advocate calling 95% of ‘mothers’, who are cisgender females, some new term for the sake of the remaining 5%. IMO empowering minorities is a whole lot more complicated than inventing new terms especially when they are advocated for the sake of already persecuted minorities who often suffer in the crossfire.

OTH you’re joining in the language rewrite yourself by describing those females as “cisgender”, a term from transgender ideology.

They’re not “cisgender”, they’re just actual females. And I would think the number of mothers who are actual females would be pretty close to 100% :)

I’m not the boss of what people call themselves. The use of the term ‘cisgender’ is IME widely accepted.

I very much doubt that most people use that term.

Whereas the terms :male” and “female” are still most widely used to describe physical sex categories. You can’t be a mother unless you are of female sex.

A tiny proportion (very much less than 5%) of mothers might identify as “trans men”, but just as you can’t be a mother unless you are physically female, you also can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re physically female.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

It is interesting to note that many of those comedians from that era and later (the 80’s comedians as well) are actually dickheads in modern days.

Who said they weren’t that, back then.

What dickheads do you know from the ministry of slly walks?

Fawlty Towers did have some racist comedy in it, many shows from that era had anti black type people.
I was thinking more the American comedians from the 80’s, Chevy Chase for example, apparently a racist, sexist and hard to work with

Don’t mention the war.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

It is interesting to note that many of those comedians from that era and later (the 80’s comedians as well) are actually dickheads in modern days.

Who said they weren’t that, back then.

What dickheads do you know from the ministry of slly walks?

Fawlty Towers did have some racist comedy in it, many shows from that era had anti black type people.
I was thinking more the American comedians from the 80’s, Chevy Chase for example, apparently a racist, sexist and hard to work with

Don’t mention the war.

:)

Ian said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Who said they weren’t that, back then.

What dickheads do you know from the ministry of slly walks?

Fawlty Towers did have some racist comedy in it, many shows from that era had anti black type people.
I was thinking more the American comedians from the 80’s, Chevy Chase for example, apparently a racist, sexist and hard to work with

Don’t mention the war.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/2010516/

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

OTH you’re joining in the language rewrite yourself by describing those females as “cisgender”, a term from transgender ideology.

They’re not “cisgender”, they’re just actual females. And I would think the number of mothers who are actual females would be pretty close to 100% :)

I’m not the boss of what people call themselves. The use of the term ‘cisgender’ is IME widely accepted.

I very much doubt that most people use that term.

Whereas the terms :male” and “female” are still most widely used to describe physical sex categories. You can’t be a mother unless you are of female sex.

A tiny proportion (very much less than 5%) of mothers might identify as “trans men”, but just as you can’t be a mother unless you are physically female, you also can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re physically female.

I find ‘cisgender’ is usually used when this topic is discussed on the TV and in the newspaper. Obviously not used much by the hoi polloi in everyday conversation, nor are there many interested parties calling for so.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m not the boss of what people call themselves. The use of the term ‘cisgender’ is IME widely accepted.

I very much doubt that most people use that term.

Whereas the terms :male” and “female” are still most widely used to describe physical sex categories. You can’t be a mother unless you are of female sex.

A tiny proportion (very much less than 5%) of mothers might identify as “trans men”, but just as you can’t be a mother unless you are physically female, you also can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re physically female.

I find ‘cisgender’ is usually used when this topic is discussed on the TV and in the newspaper. Obviously not used much by the hoi polloi in everyday conversation, nor are there many interested parties calling for so.

TRAs use the term all the time, mostly to describe actual women. Because they want to colonise that category and need to re-categorise actual women as “cisgender women”, because they insist that “trans women are women” (even though you can’t actually be a trans woman unless you’re a man).

Ian said:

Bubblecar said:

A thread for discussion of wokery, so the “Teenage trans men” thread doesn’t get clogged with this more general topic :)

Has anyone here used “woke” or any of its derivatives, other than in this thread, since you posted this bubbles?

I have only used the word in the sense “I woke up. I was asleep. I had a bad dream.”

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

I very much doubt that most people use that term.

Whereas the terms :male” and “female” are still most widely used to describe physical sex categories. You can’t be a mother unless you are of female sex.

A tiny proportion (very much less than 5%) of mothers might identify as “trans men”, but just as you can’t be a mother unless you are physically female, you also can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re physically female.

I find ‘cisgender’ is usually used when this topic is discussed on the TV and in the newspaper. Obviously not used much by the hoi polloi in everyday conversation, nor are there many interested parties calling for so.

TRAs use the term all the time, mostly to describe actual women. Because they want to colonise that category and need to re-categorise actual women as “cisgender women”, because they insist that “trans women are women” (even though you can’t actually be a trans woman unless you’re a man).

It’s a rich tapestry.

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

How is the notion in that image “blatant transphobic shit”?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I find ‘cisgender’ is usually used when this topic is discussed on the TV and in the newspaper. Obviously not used much by the hoi polloi in everyday conversation, nor are there many interested parties calling for so.

TRAs use the term all the time, mostly to describe actual women. Because they want to colonise that category and need to re-categorise actual women as “cisgender women”, because they insist that “trans women are women” (even though you can’t actually be a trans woman unless you’re a man).

It’s a rich tapestry.

Put them all on the first rocket to Mars, but misdirect it to Pluto.

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

How is the notion in that image “blatant transphobic shit”?

She’s not referring to that image, she’s referring to critics of gender ideology, such as myself.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

How is the notion in that image “blatant transphobic shit”?

She’s not referring to that image, she’s referring to critics of gender ideology, such as myself.

So what happens if someone from a minority group in a certain nation (that being anything, race, religion, gender identity, etc) acts inappropriately, are they protected as saying anything makes you in the wrong when its them as a person you don’t like not who or what they identify as.
I find that is very common its an out for not taking personal responsibility and using a minority status as an excuse when its the behaviour or actions not anything else

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

How is the notion in that image “blatant transphobic shit”?

Some Twitter context of which we have NFI.

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

How is the notion in that image “blatant transphobic shit”?

Some Twitter context of which we have NFI.

DA posted that image because she agrees with it. And doesn’t agree that left-wing identity politics involves any excesses or absurdities.

Bubblecar said:

DA posted that image because she agrees with it. And doesn’t agree that left-wing identity politics involves any excesses or absurdities.

…and neither does dv.

I’ve never seen him acknowledge any faults at all in even the most extreme left-wing identity politics, so he presumably agrees with the Oxfam language proposals.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

DA posted that image because she agrees with it. And doesn’t agree that left-wing identity politics involves any excesses or absurdities.

…and neither does dv.

I’ve never seen him acknowledge any faults at all in even the most extreme left-wing identity politics, so he presumably agrees with the Oxfam language proposals.

dv can speak for himself.

It would be good to see you recognise the several people (including me) who have agreed that the Oxfam language proposals (if they really are as presented) are bullshit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

DA posted that image because she agrees with it. And doesn’t agree that left-wing identity politics involves any excesses or absurdities.

…and neither does dv.

I’ve never seen him acknowledge any faults at all in even the most extreme left-wing identity politics, so he presumably agrees with the Oxfam language proposals.

dv can speak for himself.

It would be good to see you recognise the several people (including me) who have agreed that the Oxfam language proposals (if they really are as presented) are bullshit.

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

…and neither does dv.

I’ve never seen him acknowledge any faults at all in even the most extreme left-wing identity politics, so he presumably agrees with the Oxfam language proposals.

dv can speak for himself.

It would be good to see you recognise the several people (including me) who have agreed that the Oxfam language proposals (if they really are as presented) are bullshit.

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv can speak for himself.

It would be good to see you recognise the several people (including me) who have agreed that the Oxfam language proposals (if they really are as presented) are bullshit.

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

Quite. Honestly it doesn’t seem to relate to racial injustice or discrimination at all but perhaps I’m underthinking it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv can speak for himself.

It would be good to see you recognise the several people (including me) who have agreed that the Oxfam language proposals (if they really are as presented) are bullshit.

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

bullshit is an old person’s term. with-it people use woke.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

Quite. Honestly it doesn’t seem to relate to racial injustice or discrimination at all but perhaps I’m underthinking it.

So, we’re all agreed then.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

bullshit is an old person’s term. with-it people use woke.

I can think of several old without it people who use the word.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

Quite. Honestly it doesn’t seem to relate to racial injustice or discrimination at all but perhaps I’m underthinking it.

So this sort of thing has nothing to do with left-wing identity politics and “inclusiveness” taken to extremes that exclude most people?

Really makes me wonder where it all came from then. Maybe these sorts of phenomena are false-flag operations run by sneaky fascists.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

bullshit is an old person’s term. with-it people use woke.

I can think of several old without it people who use the word.

How about “cooked”? This is seems to be a popular one among my kids’ generation.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, you have made that statement, but you seem to disagree that Oxfam’s motives arise from excesses of left-wing identity politics.

I was trying to tempt dv to speak for himself but I acknowledge that these issues can be difficult for people who want to retain their credentials as orthodox lefties.

Not having read the actual document, I’m in no position to guess the motives of the person who wrote it, or the motives of whoever in management accepted it.

All I can say is that it is much better to describe it as bullshit, rather than “woke”.

bullshit is an old person’s term. with-it people use woke.

Ageist!

Enough of the wokery.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

This blatant transphobic shit is why I left the forum, so see ya’s.

Aye, science and reason are only passing fads anyway.

well did we choose to leave or did we pass

all right so we’re going to begin but have any of the rest of you fuckers actually read so much as 8 words of that document they talk about

SCIENCE said:

all right so we’re going to begin but have any of the rest of you fuckers actually read so much as 8 words of that document they talk about

No, i have not.

And i don’t plan to.

And i don’t intend to spend a portion of my life squabbling about it.

SCIENCE said:

all right so we’re going to begin but have any of the rest of you fuckers actually read so much as 8 words of that document they talk about

Not I but here is the link for those that may wish to enlighten themselves

https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/

Link

JudgeMental said:

“Mother” and “father” have nothing to do with gender.

They are terms referring to the physical sex of the parents.

A parent does, objectively, have a physical sex that determines whether they are the mother or father of the child.

Pretending that reality is not real just to “respect the feelings” of a tiny number of confused people is absurd.

What is particularly laughable about Oxfam’s language proposals is that they are apologetic about using English because it’s the “language of the white colonials” etc.

But they’re perfectly happy to impose modern Western transgender ideology on traditional ethnic peoples who have no idea of such matters, and who wouldn’t dream of not using terms like “mother” and “father”.

Bubblecar said:

JudgeMental said:

“Mother” and “father” have nothing to do with gender.

They are terms referring to the physical sex of the parents.

A parent does, objectively, have a physical sex that determines whether they are the mother or father of the child.

Pretending that reality is not real just to “respect the feelings” of a tiny number of confused people is absurd.

comprehension isn’t your strong point is it?

so in general parent is used unless the parent wishes to be called either mother or father or whatever.

JudgeMental said:

Bubblecar said:

JudgeMental said:

“Mother” and “father” have nothing to do with gender.

They are terms referring to the physical sex of the parents.

A parent does, objectively, have a physical sex that determines whether they are the mother or father of the child.

Pretending that reality is not real just to “respect the feelings” of a tiny number of confused people is absurd.

comprehension isn’t your strong point is it?

so in general parent is used unless the parent wishes to be called either mother or father or whatever.

So why on earth should language reflecting physical reality, used by the vast majority of people, be sacrificed for the sake of a tiny minority who want to play roles that don’t reflect physical reality?

They could far more easily retain the usage used by 99% of the population, and just politely make exceptions for the transgender people.

JudgeMental said:

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

all right so we’re going to begin but have any of the rest of you fuckers actually read so much as 8 words of that document they talk about

No, i have not.

And i don’t plan to.

And i don’t intend to spend a portion of my life squabbling about it.

Not I but here is the link for those that may wish to enlighten themselves

https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/

Link

nah no way, that’s bullshit, everyone knows that we(1,0,0) SCIENCE here don’t bother looking at anything just to see better how the world works, we read files like this solely to win arguments here on Forum, it’s the Forum way

(remember back in 2006 or whenever it was that they published that shit about the NT and dv and SCIENCE were the only ones who read the bloody thing, or 2009 when something like 6 of us read the energy white paper)

⚠ this is in no way intended to single out captain_spalding or challenge h’ position on this matter, but rather to clarify our own (and to win arguments here on Forum, it’s the Forum way)

Interesting

No one can tell me what a woman is

wookiemeister said:

Interesting

No one can tell me what a woman is

this idiot ^here has just discovered the relational and evolving nature of natural language

fool

SCIENCE said:

we(1,0,0) SCIENCE here don’t bother looking at anything just to see better how the world works, we read files like this solely to win arguments here

anyway we may as well cast our chips

1. there’s nothing controversial here in our view but obviously the external article authors view it differently “We further recognize that this guide has its origin in English, the language of a colonizing nation. We acknowledge the Anglo-supremacy of the sector as part of its coloniality. This guide aims to support people who have to work and communicate in the English language as part of this colonial legacy. However, we recognize that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.”
2. we wouldn’t have called it “feminist”, given it’s potentially just “more responsible use of language”, so that looks like a position they’ve taken on this
3. we understand that language is first and foremost a means of communication, and that communication may or may not refer to the communicators themselves, in which case “we will be led by how the people in question prefer to be referred to” would seem to be less useful except when referring to the communicator itself
4. already from the immediately preceding point, for a guide about the use of language, the producers could really have been a lot more careful about how they express it
5. various technical points on the words they choose but really if their theme is “call it as it is, not by some catch-all coined term” there’s not much to argue against
6. then again “NON-DISABLED” well what’s the reference, this is getting a bit contorted, if they wanted to be consistent and better-understood would not “typically abled” be better
7. there are “news” articles out there complaining about the recommendation against “the elderly, seniors, youth” but seems the recommended terms are a little more specific so again what’s the argument
8. pages 19 to 21 seem a bit hairsplitting but whatever no big deal
9. we think something like “Do not use the term ‘child marriage’ as it is never legitimate for a child to marry.” actually undermines the message but sure
10. they actually define GENDER and agree with Bubblecar but ‘e’s run away so oh well
11. they also talk about how “‘Mankind’ has an inherent association with maleness.” but forget that everything else like “huMAN”, “woMAN”, “perSON”, “LADy” and so forth are fundamentally male with adjustment so uh yeah
12. oh now some of the shit that the bullshit articles complain about, example: PARTNER/SPOUSE/HUSBAND AND WIFE oh wait they actually say that “Unless it is necessary to specify a gendered term that implies marriage in a traditional sense, it may be preferrable to use a more neutral term” imagine that
13. some WTF ones though, WE AVOID attitudes, behaviours
14. biology doesn’t exist, otherwise “No one, whether cisgender or transgender, gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth. This term is preferred to ‘biological male/female’, ‘male/female bodied’, ‘natal male/female’, and ‘born male/female’, which are inaccurate and do not respect the identity of transgender people.” they failed to adequately clearly scope this
15. disagree, the reference to conformity is part of the conformity: GENDER NON-CONFORMING PEOPLE (GNC) WE AVOID gender minorities
16. the whole “parent” shitfight thing is founded on … nothing, since in itself the document says “To describe the role in raising children without directly ascribing gendered roles. If trans parents have a preferred specified gender role, such as ‘mother’ or ‘father’, this should be respected. If unsure, it is more inclusive to use ‘parent’.” as in use whatever is appropriate
17. PRONOUN they, as almost all others, fail: the correct pronouns in this context are ‘e and h’ as have been used on Forum for over a decade
18. LOL @ all terms are good PEOPLE WHO MENSTRUATE, WOMEN, GIRLS, TRANS MEN AND NON-BINARY PEOPLE WHO MENSTRUATE
19. not sure that there will be much controversy here over the migration refugee bits but please let us know if you do like to start some
20. a bit beyond us on these we think WE AVOID empowerment WE AVOID capacity building
21. oh look they say avoid Aboriginal but then it turns out the explanatory text says it’s not appropriate in Canadialand, oops, imagine taking that out of context
22. again not sure WE AVOID ethnic minority this will make any difference
23. is it of value WE AVOID natural disasters
24. probably this will deter conversation WOMEN/MEN WHO ARE IN A VULNERABLE POSITION BECAUSE OF
25. some honesty, again beat up by the external articles “In Oxfam’s context, the phrase ‘field trip’ was previously used to describe visits to lower-income countries, whereas a trip to New York, for example, would not be considered a ‘field visit’. By using this kind of language we reinforce colonial attitudes that are contrary to the values and aims of our organization.”

all right bring it but we’re not going to bother with yousr arguments in general, only the worthy ones

there shalt be no unnatural person
more’s a dissolving plurality the world
no nations or gender impositioning
you will be neutral of’t extreme wealth
yeah a friend of worldist capitalism
I’n’ happily visited by Darwinian health
the philanthropists not government
offers fairness through hoodoo spells
ya see no hell or heaven just sellin’
‘n’ buyin’ so believe are not controlled
you’re in control it’s sold told telling

SCIENCE said:

“We further recognize that this guide has its origin in English, the language of a colonizing nation. We acknowledge the Anglo-supremacy of the sector as part of its coloniality. This guide aims to support people who have to work and communicate in the English language as part of this colonial legacy. However, we recognize that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/harmony-week-struggle-to-retain-first-language-after-migration/102123238

nice defence, that should carry it

One of the men charged with encouraging an attack on members of an LGBT group outside a Sydney church this week has apologised, saying a video in which he urged people to “drag protesters by their head” was not supposed to be taken literally.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/nsw-christian-sukkar-charged-over-protest/102130742

it’s just Freedom Of Speech®, you don’t even need an excuse

you go there tomorrow and you f***ing shake them up, and you drag them by the f***ing head, and you remove them from St Michael’s Belfied, time to rise, time to let them know where we stand

but if you think one is needed, then sure, “we was just joking”, “we was being ironic”, “it’s figurative” is plenty good

thank fk for ethanol

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-24/nsw-teenager-accused-of-raping-fellow-high-school-student-has-co/102141226

Sunshine, it is not good for your brain to keep looking for negative shit.

19 shillings said:

Sunshine, it is not good for your brain to keep looking for negative shit.

ai don’t have any brains

SCIENCE said:

19 shillings said:

Sunshine, it is not good for your brain to keep looking for negative shit.

ai don’t have any brains

Okay. So your responses can now be considered as bot response

19 shillings said:

SCIENCE said:

19 shillings said:

Sunshine, it is not good for your brain to keep looking for negative shit.

ai don’t have any brains

Okay. So your responses can now be considered as bot response

You can call him AI…

JudgeMental said:

19 shillings said:

SCIENCE said:

ai don’t have any brains

Okay. So your responses can now be considered as bot response

You can call him AI…

Maybe it’s his first time around
Doesn’t speak the language
He holds no 19 shillings
He is a foreign man

SCIENCE said:

Sounds like the stuff a cloaked pedophile would say.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Sounds like the stuff a cloaked pedophile would say.

ah Republicans well yes

JudgeMental said:

As pretty as a picture.

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

You ain’t the lone stranger.

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

wight. All has been wevealed.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

Get your facts right!

It was life of brian.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

Get your facts right!

It was life of brian.

Bwian.. Get yaw facts cowwect. ;)

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

That’s not a wokerwee. It’s a Shwubberwee.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

two peanuts walking down the road. one was assaulted.

Woodie said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

That’s not a wokerwee. It’s a Shwubberwee.

they are mowe like fowbs.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

Get your facts right!

It was life of brian.

Bwian.. Get yaw facts cowwect. ;)

Fair point.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

two peanuts walking down the road. one was assaulted.

I’m assuming the other was unassaulted.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

two peanuts walking down the road. one was assaulted.

What happened to the other one?

Woodie said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

two peanuts walking down the road. one was assaulted.

What happened to the other one?

unassaulted.

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I don’t get it.

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

^ but yeah we’ren’t popular cultists either

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

two peanuts walking down the road. one was assaulted.

I’m assuming the other was unassaulted.

What happened to the other one?

buttery

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

wok as in the cooking utensil. so wokery becomes rockery spoken like the roman senator on the holy grail. welease woger.

I see. A bit convoluted for me to figure out.

Ta.

^ but yeah we’ren’t popular cultists either

We’re even worse than that.

We’re unpopular cultists. ‘Secret social rejects’, if you will.

Overly-Woke Support Group

https://vimeo.com/284986055