There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
Got a blinder in reply to.this, but would get into trouble
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
Well in order to de-personalise this (....you are....) may I invite you to read the Guardian article linked above which makes 21 points about the word 'woke' after an initial discursive outline. By reading that article you may realise that I am not the only person who might've assumed the word 'woke' means anti racist. I have commented on the word 'woke' not on the word 'handbags' or any other word or phrase used by Steve Thompson.
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
I always thought it meant what I do at 10 in the morning.
Well this thread is going completely to plan isn't it.
The BBC makes a ridiculous decision (after complaints by, one would imagine, WUMs), knowing that once the culture-war operatives (the Daily Mail) grab a hold of it, angry citizens all across the country will be once more stirred up to lay into 'the woke'. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be claimed that 'we' are at the mercy of an unknowable, unseeable enemy ('the woke') who have all the power over death and life, forever and ever, amen. And so will the old media cackle and rub their hands, for yea, verily, this is what they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, power over death and life belongs to *checks* the establishment, as usual, Brexit is coming wahey, the Tories are in power and ahead in the polls, and 'the woke' are just young people.
All this hysterical whinging about how if you say you're English they throw you in jail bears absolutely no relation to our lives.
Universal instalment of 'wokeness' (ugh) isn't what I want, nor what other progressives want. Nah, what we want is practical stuff, chiefly that people are treated well, not victimised and given the respect they're due. Steve Thompson isn't victimising anyone. He's not offending or ostracising anyone. He's yet another pawn in the culture war now though, and this is yet another example of the bollocks you're all being daily drip-fed to keep you angry at the 'woke'.
But that's not quite true is it?
Thanks to the long march through the institutions, it's not the young, purple haired types that are the problem (although they are certainly irritants who see 1984 not so much as a warning from history, but more of an instruction manual).
The point is that 'woke-ism' is now the preserve of the middle class/managerial class. Hence why it has been adopted by all sections of Government, corporations and is of plague proportions within the public sector (where it is a well paid alternative to work for the most narcissistic and dim, as far as I can work out - a great way to be a success without the need for intelligence, nuance or critical thinking). What is the consequence of this? Compulsory 'training' and 'diversity' initiatives throughout the land based on the racist conspiracy theory that is 'critical race theory' which has unaccountably, once again, been adopted by all levels of Government, the corporations and the public sector. Of course, such courses are provided for a suitable fee by the professional race baiters who have to see racism everywhere to justify their own lucrative existence. Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
The woke have the power nowadays, that is the point.
P.S Chizz, in classic woke fashion, you are ignoring the points made to you about the original 'offender' and instead, I assume as you have provided no evidence of e.g that no complaints were made about the 'handbags' comments, your perception, or fact? If, as you say, this is 'fake news' then please provide the evidence. If you're right, then you're right. That's how debate works.
It is a fact that I have no evidence that complaints were made, or not made, about the "handbags" comment. I haven't seen evidence that anyone was offended by sexism or prejudice. None has been presented, as far as I have been able to ascertain. If there is any such evidence, I would be interested to see it.
I have seen part of a comment by the BBC that says that they have had comments from listeners (which is good of course, because media companies should listen to feedback). The comments were negative and the BBC has therefore taken action (which is good, of course, because media companies should improve when their audience tells them improvement is allowed).
The Sun didn't speak to him, so we don't hear his view on the subject. But the BBC say he acknowledged what he said didn't meet the BBC's standards. The Sun did speak to one man who said "The BBC have lost touch with the public" (presumably, though, not the public who got in touch with them). And the Sun spoke to a convicted, violent football hooligan who said "the BBC should pay more attention to songs on their stations promoting knife crime and drug use" (presumably in the same way that the Sun should pay more attention to convicted, violent football hooligans).
You call Thompson the "offender". This is an interesting term. It presupposes he's caused offence. If you have evidence of that, I would be interested to see it. I don't think he has caused offence. Despite the Lincolnshire Live claim that he said three sexist things, I don't think he did. I think he merely used too many dull, unenlightening cliches. And, for that, I think the decision not to continue using him for a while is a good one.
PS What do you think you mean by "classic woke culture"? Surely the opposite of "classic woke culture" would be someone suggesting that no-one has taken offence at what Thompson said and suggesting that what he said isn't sexist, as has been claimed?
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
I don't think this is the definition of "woke" that most would use...
I am really surprised* at the amount of offence being taken at the BBC making the decision not to continue using a freelancer who isn't very good.
I guess when the Daily Mail and the Sun want their readers to get upset at the BBC, it's now very easy. Especially when they can claim that it's because the corporation is woke and a bit lefty.
A freelancer not being used must be because it's a bit sexist and must be because the woke brigade have had their say. Stands to reason, dunnit?
For me, I think it's better that the BBC decides whom the BBC uses, rather than the Daily Mail and the Sun deciding for them.
(*I'm not surprised at all).
On what basis are you saying that Thomo isn’t a very good commentator? He’s hugely popular in Lincolnshire and is something of a local celebrity......as well as being a football pundit/commentator.
Being able to comment on this as you are with local knowledge.
I am really surprised* at the amount of offence being taken at the BBC making the decision not to continue using a freelancer who isn't very good.
I guess when the Daily Mail and the Sun want their readers to get upset at the BBC, it's now very easy. Especially when they can claim that it's because the corporation is woke and a bit lefty.
A freelancer not being used must be because it's a bit sexist and must be because the woke brigade have had their say. Stands to reason, dunnit?
For me, I think it's better that the BBC decides whom the BBC uses, rather than the Daily Mail and the Sun deciding for them.
(*I'm not surprised at all).
On what basis are you saying that Thomo isn’t a very good commentator? He’s hugely popular in Lincolnshire and is something of a local celebrity......as well as being a football pundit/commentator.
It's a fair question. It's on the basis that there has been complaints made following his commentary. (At least, I assume they're complaints and not, instead, heaps of praise).
The BBC should arrange. organise and well publicise a poll .. for or against Thommo .. I guarantee the 'fors' would win and he should be reinstated (dream on Lincs) .. after all unlike the (say) hideous Jo Brand, he wasn't (e.g.) advocating throwing acid at Brexiteers .. there's one law for ugly women, another it seems for ugly, old men ((:>)
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
Well in order to de-personalise this (....you are....) may I invite you to read the Guardian article linked above which makes 21 points about the word 'woke' after an initial discursive outline. By reading that article you may realise that I am not the only person who might've assumed the word 'woke' means anti racist. I have commented on the word 'woke' not on the word 'handbags' or any other word or phrase used by Steve Thompson.
That's a fair enough reply Seth. We obviously see the word Woke in a different way. I still don't see it as being anti racist as I'm sure most people on here are anti racist. I see it as something else.
The BBC should arrange. organise and well publicise a poll .. for or against Thommo .. I guarantee the 'fors' would win and he should be reinstated (dream on Lincs) .. after all unlike the (say) hideous Jo Brand, he wasn't (e.g.) advocating throwing acid at Brexiteers .. there's one law for ugly women, another it seems for ugly, old men ((:>)
I agree, Katie Hopkins tweeted about a “final solution” for Muslims, except many daily Mail readers replied to her tweet saying “she’s got a point”.
The BBC should arrange. organise and well publicise a poll .. for or against Thommo .. I guarantee the 'fors' would win and he should be reinstated (dream on Lincs) .. after all unlike the (say) hideous Jo Brand, he wasn't (e.g.) advocating throwing acid at Brexiteers .. there's one law for ugly women, another it seems for ugly, old men ((:>)
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
You can just google the actual meaning, summarises it pretty well. Still puzzled as to how it’s now supposedly an insult.
Well this thread is going completely to plan isn't it.
The BBC makes a ridiculous decision (after complaints by, one would imagine, WUMs), knowing that once the culture-war operatives (the Daily Mail) grab a hold of it, angry citizens all across the country will be once more stirred up to lay into 'the woke'. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be claimed that 'we' are at the mercy of an unknowable, unseeable enemy ('the woke') who have all the power over death and life, forever and ever, amen. And so will the old media cackle and rub their hands, for yea, verily, this is what they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, power over death and life belongs to *checks* the establishment, as usual, Brexit is coming wahey, the Tories are in power and ahead in the polls, and 'the woke' are just young people.
All this hysterical whinging about how if you say you're English they throw you in jail bears absolutely no relation to our lives.
Universal instalment of 'wokeness' (ugh) isn't what I want, nor what other progressives want. Nah, what we want is practical stuff, chiefly that people are treated well, not victimised and given the respect they're due. Steve Thompson isn't victimising anyone. He's not offending or ostracising anyone. He's yet another pawn in the culture war now though, and this is yet another example of the bollocks you're all being daily drip-fed to keep you angry at the 'woke'.
But that's not quite true is it?
Thanks to the long march through the institutions, it's not the young, purple haired types that are the problem (although they are certainly irritants who see 1984 not so much as a warning from history, but more of an instruction manual).
The point is that 'woke-ism' is now the preserve of the middle class/managerial class. Hence why it has been adopted by all sections of Government, corporations and is of plague proportions within the public sector (where it is a well paid alternative to work for the most narcissistic and dim, as far as I can work out - a great way to be a success without the need for intelligence, nuance or critical thinking). What is the consequence of this? Compulsory 'training' and 'diversity' initiatives throughout the land based on the racist conspiracy theory that is 'critical race theory' which has unaccountably, once again, been adopted by all levels of Government, the corporations and the public sector. Of course, such courses are provided for a suitable fee by the professional race baiters who have to see racism everywhere to justify their own lucrative existence. Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
The woke have the power nowadays, that is the point.
P.S Chizz, in classic woke fashion, you are ignoring the points made to you about the original 'offender' and instead, I assume as you have provided no evidence of e.g that no complaints were made about the 'handbags' comments, your perception, or fact? If, as you say, this is 'fake news' then please provide the evidence. If you're right, then you're right. That's how debate works.
A worthy adversary!
'Woke' is, as I've said, a term originating in Black, American and largely LGBT Twitter. What you're referring to is good old-fashioned political correctness, which is a distinct phenomenon, referring specifically to language use rather than an awareness of structural inequality.
I'm sure we're in agreement that policing language for corporate purposes is frequently gratuitous and unhelpful.
HOWEVER.
Actual, practical initiatives such as the Rooney rule and diversity targets etc are DISTINCT from superficial political correctness bollocks. They have actual, measurable impact on people's livelihoods, and they exist for good reasons, i.e. actual, measurable difficulties for those within certain demographics to find employment in certain sectors.
As for racism being everywhere...well, it's hardly nowhere, is it? Come now.
Let's talk about language use, though, as this appears to be your predominant axe to grind.
People are hardly ever destroyed for marginal, ambiguous, merely 'politically incorrect' language. Shall we take the recent example of Greg Clarke? Here's what a certain Charlton legend and real-life black person had to say:
Darren Bent, former England striker: "Slip of the tongue was it? Awful, just awful."
You wouldn't call Darren Bent a member of the woke army, would you? Just a man who's suffered more racist abuse in his life than you or I will ever know, snapping at the head of his profession uttering something that isn't just 'politically incorrect' but hideously unacceptable for any public figurehead to utter.
Clarke hasn't had his life ended, nor his well-being, just his role as the figurehead of English football.
Then take poor old JK Rowling, who's said some decidedly unsavoury things about transgendered people, and received pushback for it from a small section of the internet.
Do you think she's suffered materially as the result of this? Shall we check her net worth? Her ongoing readership?
Do you think that for her, to escape the consequences of her arguably irresponsible speech is not merely a matter of logging out of Twitter?
Then take Suzanne Moore, who's waged a much more ongoing and serious campaign against transgendered people, to the extent where her words have resulted in her leaving The Guardian.
And how silenced she was, silenced to the extent where the Murdoch press, the Mail and the Spectator all ran their own week-long Festival Of Suzanne! You'd rather think she'll land on her feet, wouldn't you?
Let's examine the crux of your argument once again:
Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
A nice fantasy. I'd like examples, though. Examples of people whose lives were ruined simply 'by their existence', or by 'Twitter snowflakes', as opposed to by them being massive bastards.
I'd also like to know which policies of public institutions and government (no comment on corporations, lol) have material, damaging impacts on those who are, according to you, deemed to be impure.
Actual lives ruined for no good reason. Examples. My desk.
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
Well in order to de-personalise this (....you are....) may I invite you to read the Guardian article linked above which makes 21 points about the word 'woke' after an initial discursive outline. By reading that article you may realise that I am not the only person who might've assumed the word 'woke' means anti racist. I have commented on the word 'woke' not on the word 'handbags' or any other word or phrase used by Steve Thompson.
In its original context, it did mean that.
However, as is always the case, language, phrases, and words evolve.
My perspective is that 'woke' is now closer to meaning a curtailment of freedom of speech. It's another step on the road of 'safe spaces', 'online shaming' and 'cancel culture'.
There we seem to have a problem. 'Woke' appears to mean different things to different people. To me it means if you're described as woke, you are being described as an anti racist. Therefore to me the term 'war on woke' means a war against those who oppose racism, possibly those who oppose racism in a strident way. It is a word that might be defined by it's usage, as the word 'chav' seems to be defined that way.
Woke means different things to different people. You are the only person who I have heard describe Woke as meaning anti racist. How can using the expression handbags be considered racist for example.
Well in order to de-personalise this (....you are....) may I invite you to read the Guardian article linked above which makes 21 points about the word 'woke' after an initial discursive outline. By reading that article you may realise that I am not the only person who might've assumed the word 'woke' means anti racist. I have commented on the word 'woke' not on the word 'handbags' or any other word or phrase used by Steve Thompson.
In its original context, it did mean that.
However, as is always the case, language, phrases, and words evolve.
My perspective is that 'woke' is now closer to meaning a curtailment of freedom of speech. It's another step on the road of 'safe spaces', 'online shaming' and 'cancel culture'.
I agree that language evolves. One of the reasons that a dictionary definition is more of a (very useful) marker or a point in time rather than any proof of meaning, or current meaning. I wonder if Victorian dictionary compilers would've anticipated the evolved meaning of the word 'camp'. From what I read in that article the origin of the word 'woke' as an adjective wasn't that long ago, if it has so quickly evolved it means a challenge as to it's use and meaning. Possibly engaging in the debate about what the word means is in itself a useful and enlightening process. One problem regarding the debate around 'what do we mean by what we say?' is the debate can be shut down by a negative shout of 'mere semantics'. Semantics and linguistic analysis is in fact a respected branch of Philosophy.
This now makes sense of why he has come off Twitter.
I’m genuinely gutted by this. I really like conversing with him. For an ex player he really is/was very approachable.
How the hell can anyone be offended by the terminology ‘handbags’ to describe a scuffle?
Men have handbags too remember? My sister bought one for my Dad back in the 70’s (she lived in Paris & every man had one there apparently). It got thrown in the wardrobe & was still there when I cleared it out 30 years later 🤣🤣
Maybe it wasn't solely the handbags comment, but also the fact he was saying things like "the referee's wife's in", or "he'd have been better off wearing a skirt".
I'm not going to judge whether that is or is not appropriate language (I'm sure many of you will presume my views for me, as I am one of the resident Liberal Wokeism Lefty Critical Race Theorists, aren't I), but this seems to add further context rather than just "handbags".
The BBC acted how they see fit. I don't agree with them, but the classic tactic of "make a fuss out of nothing then make the headlines even more sensationalist by omitting the more reasonable bits" has weaved its divisive magic yet again.
As I said, I’m just gutted this has forced him off Twitter. In all the years I’ve followed him I’ve never found anything he said offensive. Which is amazing when you think about some of the drivel that gets posted on there 🙄
Well this thread is going completely to plan isn't it.
The BBC makes a ridiculous decision (after complaints by, one would imagine, WUMs), knowing that once the culture-war operatives (the Daily Mail) grab a hold of it, angry citizens all across the country will be once more stirred up to lay into 'the woke'. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be claimed that 'we' are at the mercy of an unknowable, unseeable enemy ('the woke') who have all the power over death and life, forever and ever, amen. And so will the old media cackle and rub their hands, for yea, verily, this is what they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, power over death and life belongs to *checks* the establishment, as usual, Brexit is coming wahey, the Tories are in power and ahead in the polls, and 'the woke' are just young people.
All this hysterical whinging about how if you say you're English they throw you in jail bears absolutely no relation to our lives.
Universal instalment of 'wokeness' (ugh) isn't what I want, nor what other progressives want. Nah, what we want is practical stuff, chiefly that people are treated well, not victimised and given the respect they're due. Steve Thompson isn't victimising anyone. He's not offending or ostracising anyone. He's yet another pawn in the culture war now though, and this is yet another example of the bollocks you're all being daily drip-fed to keep you angry at the 'woke'.
But that's not quite true is it?
Thanks to the long march through the institutions, it's not the young, purple haired types that are the problem (although they are certainly irritants who see 1984 not so much as a warning from history, but more of an instruction manual).
The point is that 'woke-ism' is now the preserve of the middle class/managerial class. Hence why it has been adopted by all sections of Government, corporations and is of plague proportions within the public sector (where it is a well paid alternative to work for the most narcissistic and dim, as far as I can work out - a great way to be a success without the need for intelligence, nuance or critical thinking). What is the consequence of this? Compulsory 'training' and 'diversity' initiatives throughout the land based on the racist conspiracy theory that is 'critical race theory' which has unaccountably, once again, been adopted by all levels of Government, the corporations and the public sector. Of course, such courses are provided for a suitable fee by the professional race baiters who have to see racism everywhere to justify their own lucrative existence. Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
The woke have the power nowadays, that is the point.
P.S Chizz, in classic woke fashion, you are ignoring the points made to you about the original 'offender' and instead, I assume as you have provided no evidence of e.g that no complaints were made about the 'handbags' comments, your perception, or fact? If, as you say, this is 'fake news' then please provide the evidence. If you're right, then you're right. That's how debate works.
A worthy adversary!
'Woke' is, as I've said, a term originating in Black, American and largely LGBT Twitter. What you're referring to is good old-fashioned political correctness, which is a distinct phenomenon, referring specifically to language use rather than an awareness of structural inequality.
I'm sure we're in agreement that policing language for corporate purposes is frequently gratuitous and unhelpful.
HOWEVER.
Actual, practical initiatives such as the Rooney rule and diversity targets etc are DISTINCT from superficial political correctness bollocks. They have actual, measurable impact on people's livelihoods, and they exist for good reasons, i.e. actual, measurable difficulties for those within certain demographics to find employment in certain sectors.
As for racism being everywhere...well, it's hardly nowhere, is it? Come now.
Let's talk about language use, though, as this appears to be your predominant axe to grind.
People are hardly ever destroyed for marginal, ambiguous, merely 'politically incorrect' language. Shall we take the recent example of Greg Clarke? Here's what a certain Charlton legend and real-life black person had to say:
Darren Bent, former England striker: "Slip of the tongue was it? Awful, just awful."
You wouldn't call Darren Bent a member of the woke army, would you? Just a man who's suffered more racist abuse in his life than you or I will ever know, snapping at the head of his profession uttering something that isn't just 'politically incorrect' but hideously unacceptable for any public figurehead to utter.
Clarke hasn't had his life ended, nor his well-being, just his role as the figurehead of English football.
Then take poor old JK Rowling, who's said some decidedly unsavoury things about transgendered people, and received pushback for it from a small section of the internet.
Do you think she's suffered materially as the result of this? Shall we check her net worth? Her ongoing readership?
Do you think that for her, to escape the consequences of her arguably irresponsible speech is not merely a matter of logging out of Twitter?
Then take Suzanne Moore, who's waged a much more ongoing and serious campaign against transgendered people, to the extent where her words have resulted in her leaving The Guardian.
And how silenced she was, silenced to the extent where the Murdoch press, the Mail and the Spectator all ran their own week-long Festival Of Suzanne! You'd rather think she'll land on her feet, wouldn't you?
Let's examine the crux of your argument once again:
Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
A nice fantasy. I'd like examples, though. Examples of people whose lives were ruined simply 'by their existence', or by 'Twitter snowflakes', as opposed to by them being massive bastards.
I'd also like to know which policies of public institutions and government (no comment on corporations, lol) have material, damaging impacts on those who are, according to you, deemed to be impure.
Actual lives ruined for no good reason. Examples. My desk.
I take your points about PC/wokeness, but the two have become messily intertwined.
Why can't Darren Bent be woke? The FA chief used clumsy language, maybe, but if you are that offended by it, then you are simply not a rational actor. He may well have been shit at his job and deserving of the sack, but why make it all about him not using the current PC word, but an older version which is still used by many elsewhere without causing offence? Do you think that his words were motivated by malice and racism, really?
As for the example of Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling, that is simply one of perception. What you see as rampant anti-transgenderism, I see as standing up for empirical, biological fact and also for an argument for womens' rights. Yet both were hounded and abused incessantly; Moore was bullied out of her job and I'll be surprised if her failing paper doesn't end up on the wrong end of a damages ruling as a result. It is easy for you to play down the impact on their lives but how would you feel if you were bombarded with messages threatening to rape your children, amongst other things?
If you think they're aren't any examples then let me introduce you to my two friends, Google and The News. Here's one that was the first example I thought of:
The woke are the new McCarthy-ites, constantly looking for non-existent racists (and transphobes) under the bed. How far the left have fallen. Once the defenders of liberty, they are now the loudest voices calling for an an authoritarian society, which used to be the preserve of the nutters on the far-right!
Nick Buckley was reinstated after reaching a pre-lawsuit agreement with the existing trustees, which saw them step down en masse to be replaced by a new set of trustees.[17]
Sounds like he won in the end!
The Moore/Rowling argument is one for a different thread. I personally think the 'transgender issue' won't truly be resolved until we have more trans people in the public eye, and then it'll be much like the 'gay issue' over the last 30 years - people will be out and proud, there'll be some tension, and then it'll be normalised when everyone realises that they're not monsters but fellow members of society, with plenty to offer, just like anyone else. I'll also add that HRT really does change your biological gender in all aspects barring genitalia, which, frankly, is only relevant if you're in bed with them.
Well this thread is going completely to plan isn't it.
The BBC makes a ridiculous decision (after complaints by, one would imagine, WUMs), knowing that once the culture-war operatives (the Daily Mail) grab a hold of it, angry citizens all across the country will be once more stirred up to lay into 'the woke'. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be claimed that 'we' are at the mercy of an unknowable, unseeable enemy ('the woke') who have all the power over death and life, forever and ever, amen. And so will the old media cackle and rub their hands, for yea, verily, this is what they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, power over death and life belongs to *checks* the establishment, as usual, Brexit is coming wahey, the Tories are in power and ahead in the polls, and 'the woke' are just young people.
All this hysterical whinging about how if you say you're English they throw you in jail bears absolutely no relation to our lives.
Universal instalment of 'wokeness' (ugh) isn't what I want, nor what other progressives want. Nah, what we want is practical stuff, chiefly that people are treated well, not victimised and given the respect they're due. Steve Thompson isn't victimising anyone. He's not offending or ostracising anyone. He's yet another pawn in the culture war now though, and this is yet another example of the bollocks you're all being daily drip-fed to keep you angry at the 'woke'.
But that's not quite true is it?
Thanks to the long march through the institutions, it's not the young, purple haired types that are the problem (although they are certainly irritants who see 1984 not so much as a warning from history, but more of an instruction manual).
The point is that 'woke-ism' is now the preserve of the middle class/managerial class. Hence why it has been adopted by all sections of Government, corporations and is of plague proportions within the public sector (where it is a well paid alternative to work for the most narcissistic and dim, as far as I can work out - a great way to be a success without the need for intelligence, nuance or critical thinking). What is the consequence of this? Compulsory 'training' and 'diversity' initiatives throughout the land based on the racist conspiracy theory that is 'critical race theory' which has unaccountably, once again, been adopted by all levels of Government, the corporations and the public sector. Of course, such courses are provided for a suitable fee by the professional race baiters who have to see racism everywhere to justify their own lucrative existence. Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
The woke have the power nowadays, that is the point.
P.S Chizz, in classic woke fashion, you are ignoring the points made to you about the original 'offender' and instead, I assume as you have provided no evidence of e.g that no complaints were made about the 'handbags' comments, your perception, or fact? If, as you say, this is 'fake news' then please provide the evidence. If you're right, then you're right. That's how debate works.
A worthy adversary!
'Woke' is, as I've said, a term originating in Black, American and largely LGBT Twitter. What you're referring to is good old-fashioned political correctness, which is a distinct phenomenon, referring specifically to language use rather than an awareness of structural inequality.
I'm sure we're in agreement that policing language for corporate purposes is frequently gratuitous and unhelpful.
HOWEVER.
Actual, practical initiatives such as the Rooney rule and diversity targets etc are DISTINCT from superficial political correctness bollocks. They have actual, measurable impact on people's livelihoods, and they exist for good reasons, i.e. actual, measurable difficulties for those within certain demographics to find employment in certain sectors.
As for racism being everywhere...well, it's hardly nowhere, is it? Come now.
Let's talk about language use, though, as this appears to be your predominant axe to grind.
People are hardly ever destroyed for marginal, ambiguous, merely 'politically incorrect' language. Shall we take the recent example of Greg Clarke? Here's what a certain Charlton legend and real-life black person had to say:
Darren Bent, former England striker: "Slip of the tongue was it? Awful, just awful."
You wouldn't call Darren Bent a member of the woke army, would you? Just a man who's suffered more racist abuse in his life than you or I will ever know, snapping at the head of his profession uttering something that isn't just 'politically incorrect' but hideously unacceptable for any public figurehead to utter.
Clarke hasn't had his life ended, nor his well-being, just his role as the figurehead of English football.
Then take poor old JK Rowling, who's said some decidedly unsavoury things about transgendered people, and received pushback for it from a small section of the internet.
Do you think she's suffered materially as the result of this? Shall we check her net worth? Her ongoing readership?
Do you think that for her, to escape the consequences of her arguably irresponsible speech is not merely a matter of logging out of Twitter?
Then take Suzanne Moore, who's waged a much more ongoing and serious campaign against transgendered people, to the extent where her words have resulted in her leaving The Guardian.
And how silenced she was, silenced to the extent where the Murdoch press, the Mail and the Spectator all ran their own week-long Festival Of Suzanne! You'd rather think she'll land on her feet, wouldn't you?
Let's examine the crux of your argument once again:
Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
A nice fantasy. I'd like examples, though. Examples of people whose lives were ruined simply 'by their existence', or by 'Twitter snowflakes', as opposed to by them being massive bastards.
I'd also like to know which policies of public institutions and government (no comment on corporations, lol) have material, damaging impacts on those who are, according to you, deemed to be impure.
Actual lives ruined for no good reason. Examples. My desk.
I take your points about PC/wokeness, but the two have become messily intertwined.
Why can't Darren Bent be woke? The FA chief used clumsy language, maybe, but if you are that offended by it, then you are simply not a rational actor. He may well have been shit at his job and deserving of the sack, but why make it all about him not using the current PC word, but an older version which is still used by many elsewhere without causing offence? Do you think that his words were motivated by malice and racism, really?
As for the example of Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling, that is simply one of perception. What you see as rampant anti-transgenderism, I see as standing up for empirical, biological fact and also for an argument for womens' rights. Yet both were hounded and abused incessantly; Moore was bullied out of her job and I'll be surprised if her failing paper doesn't end up on the wrong end of a damages ruling as a result. It is easy for you to play down the impact on their lives but how would you feel if you were bombarded with messages threatening to rape your children, amongst other things?
If you think they're aren't any examples then let me introduce you to my two friends, Google and The News. Here's one that was the first example I thought of:
The woke are the new McCarthy-ites, constantly looking for non-existent racists (and transphobes) under the bed. How far the left have fallen. Once the defenders of liberty, they are now the loudest voices calling for an an authoritarian society, which used to be the preserve of the nutters on the far-right!
Today’s “cancel culture” is nothing more than McCarthyism in a woke costume. It stems from a noble goal — ending racial discrimination. Like its discredited cousin, however, it has transmogrified into something sinister and inimical to freedom. Battling racism is good and necessary; trying to suppress voices that one disagrees with is not. Woke McCarthyism goes wrong when it seeks to do the one thing that America has always sworn not to do: enforce uniformity of thought. Indeed, this principle, enshrined in the First Amendment, is so central to American national identity that it is one of the five quotes inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Looks as if to some people the term 'woke' hoovers up all and sundry meanings anybody wishes to attach to it. So woke is anti racist yeah? Which is good yeah? However it looks as if 'woke' is McCarthyism which is bad yeah? So if 'Woke' means McCarthyism and also anti racism it becomes both good and bad? Then the scales can be tipped this way and that like a poker game when each player tries to up the ante, I raise you anti discrimination, then the other guy comes back with I'll see your anti discrimination and raise you authoritarianism! Speaking purely personally woke seems to be a word I originally thought was about anti racism, but now it is defined on the hoof, and thrown around quite often as an insult, or something disparaging. If woke means anti racist, sure then I am 'woke'. The way the word has been subverted to add other meanings seems to be a problem, and it seems that now, to use the word at all is to use a word stripped of all useful meaning.
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
I have found a dictionary not written exclusively by white imperialist scum who bend words to suit what they want, (and those bastards at Collins have been doing it for generations).
Instead I have found an "urban" dictionary shall we say. And they give the definition thus:
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
By that rationale, the Charlie Hebdo staff got what they deserved.
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
By that rationale, the Charlie Hebdo staff got what they deserved.
I have found a dictionary not written exclusively by white imperialist scum who bend words to suit what they want, (and those bastards at Collins have been doing it for generations).
Instead I have found an "urban" dictionary shall we say. And they give the definition thus:
Comments
By reading that article you may realise that I am not the only person who might've assumed the word 'woke' means anti racist.
I have commented on the word 'woke' not on the word 'handbags' or any other word or phrase used by Steve Thompson.
I have seen part of a comment by the BBC that says that they have had comments from listeners (which is good of course, because media companies should listen to feedback). The comments were negative and the BBC has therefore taken action (which is good, of course, because media companies should improve when their audience tells them improvement is allowed).
The Sun didn't speak to him, so we don't hear his view on the subject. But the BBC say he acknowledged what he said didn't meet the BBC's standards. The Sun did speak to one man who said "The BBC have lost touch with the public" (presumably, though, not the public who got in touch with them). And the Sun spoke to a convicted, violent football hooligan who said "the BBC should pay more attention to songs on their stations promoting knife crime and drug use" (presumably in the same way that the Sun should pay more attention to convicted, violent football hooligans).
You call Thompson the "offender". This is an interesting term. It presupposes he's caused offence. If you have evidence of that, I would be interested to see it. I don't think he has caused offence. Despite the Lincolnshire Live claim that he said three sexist things, I don't think he did. I think he merely used too many dull, unenlightening cliches. And, for that, I think the decision not to continue using him for a while is a good one.
PS What do you think you mean by "classic woke culture"? Surely the opposite of "classic woke culture" would be someone suggesting that no-one has taken offence at what Thompson said and suggesting that what he said isn't sexist, as has been claimed?
We obviously see the word Woke in a different way.
I still don't see it as being anti racist as I'm sure most people on here are anti racist.
I see it as something else.
'Woke' is, as I've said, a term originating in Black, American and largely LGBT Twitter. What you're referring to is good old-fashioned political correctness, which is a distinct phenomenon, referring specifically to language use rather than an awareness of structural inequality.
I'm sure we're in agreement that policing language for corporate purposes is frequently gratuitous and unhelpful.
HOWEVER.
Actual, practical initiatives such as the Rooney rule and diversity targets etc are DISTINCT from superficial political correctness bollocks. They have actual, measurable impact on people's livelihoods, and they exist for good reasons, i.e. actual, measurable difficulties for those within certain demographics to find employment in certain sectors.
As for racism being everywhere...well, it's hardly nowhere, is it? Come now.
Let's talk about language use, though, as this appears to be your predominant axe to grind.
People are hardly ever destroyed for marginal, ambiguous, merely 'politically incorrect' language. Shall we take the recent example of Greg Clarke? Here's what a certain Charlton legend and real-life black person had to say:
You wouldn't call Darren Bent a member of the woke army, would you? Just a man who's suffered more racist abuse in his life than you or I will ever know, snapping at the head of his profession uttering something that isn't just 'politically incorrect' but hideously unacceptable for any public figurehead to utter.
Clarke hasn't had his life ended, nor his well-being, just his role as the figurehead of English football.
Then take poor old JK Rowling, who's said some decidedly unsavoury things about transgendered people, and received pushback for it from a small section of the internet.
Do you think she's suffered materially as the result of this? Shall we check her net worth? Her ongoing readership?
Do you think that for her, to escape the consequences of her arguably irresponsible speech is not merely a matter of logging out of Twitter?
Then take Suzanne Moore, who's waged a much more ongoing and serious campaign against transgendered people, to the extent where her words have resulted in her leaving The Guardian.
And how silenced she was, silenced to the extent where the Murdoch press, the Mail and the Spectator all ran their own week-long Festival Of Suzanne! You'd rather think she'll land on her feet, wouldn't you?
Let's examine the crux of your argument once again:
A nice fantasy. I'd like examples, though. Examples of people whose lives were ruined simply 'by their existence', or by 'Twitter snowflakes', as opposed to by them being massive bastards.
I'd also like to know which policies of public institutions and government (no comment on corporations, lol) have material, damaging impacts on those who are, according to you, deemed to be impure.
Actual lives ruined for no good reason. Examples. My desk.
However, as is always the case, language, phrases, and words evolve.
My perspective is that 'woke' is now closer to meaning a curtailment of freedom of speech. It's another step on the road of 'safe spaces', 'online shaming' and 'cancel culture'.
One of the reasons that a dictionary definition is more of a (very useful) marker or a point in time rather than any proof of meaning, or current meaning.
I wonder if Victorian dictionary compilers would've anticipated the evolved meaning of the word 'camp'.
From what I read in that article the origin of the word 'woke' as an adjective wasn't that long ago, if it has so quickly evolved it means a challenge as to it's use and meaning. Possibly engaging in the debate about what the word means is in itself a useful and enlightening process.
One problem regarding the debate around 'what do we mean by what we say?' is the debate can be shut down by a negative shout of 'mere semantics'.
Semantics and linguistic analysis is in fact a respected branch of Philosophy.
This now makes sense of why he has come off Twitter.
I’m genuinely gutted by this. I really like conversing with him. For an ex player he really is/was very approachable.
How the hell can anyone be offended by the terminology ‘handbags’ to describe a scuffle?
Men have handbags too remember? My sister bought one for my Dad back in the 70’s (she lived in Paris & every man had one there apparently). It got thrown in the wardrobe & was still there when I cleared it out 30 years later 🤣🤣
I'm not going to judge whether that is or is not appropriate language (I'm sure many of you will presume my views for me, as I am one of the resident Liberal Wokeism Lefty Critical Race Theorists, aren't I), but this seems to add further context rather than just "handbags".
The BBC acted how they see fit. I don't agree with them, but the classic tactic of "make a fuss out of nothing then make the headlines even more sensationalist by omitting the more reasonable bits" has weaved its divisive magic yet again.
In all the years I’ve followed him I’ve never found anything he said offensive.
Which is amazing when you think about some of the drivel that gets posted on there 🙄
Why can't Darren Bent be woke? The FA chief used clumsy language, maybe, but if you are that offended by it, then you are simply not a rational actor. He may well have been shit at his job and deserving of the sack, but why make it all about him not using the current PC word, but an older version which is still used by many elsewhere without causing offence? Do you think that his words were motivated by malice and racism, really?
As for the example of Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling, that is simply one of perception. What you see as rampant anti-transgenderism, I see as standing up for empirical, biological fact and also for an argument for womens' rights. Yet both were hounded and abused incessantly; Moore was bullied out of her job and I'll be surprised if her failing paper doesn't end up on the wrong end of a damages ruling as a result. It is easy for you to play down the impact on their lives but how would you feel if you were bombarded with messages threatening to rape your children, amongst other things?
If you think they're aren't any examples then let me introduce you to my two friends, Google and The News. Here's one that was the first example I thought of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Buckley
The woke are the new McCarthy-ites, constantly looking for non-existent racists (and transphobes) under the bed. How far the left have fallen. Once the defenders of liberty, they are now the loudest voices calling for an an authoritarian society, which used to be the preserve of the nutters on the far-right!
Sounds like he won in the end!
The Moore/Rowling argument is one for a different thread. I personally think the 'transgender issue' won't truly be resolved until we have more trans people in the public eye, and then it'll be much like the 'gay issue' over the last 30 years - people will be out and proud, there'll be some tension, and then it'll be normalised when everyone realises that they're not monsters but fellow members of society, with plenty to offer, just like anyone else. I'll also add that HRT really does change your biological gender in all aspects barring genitalia, which, frankly, is only relevant if you're in bed with them.
So woke is anti racist yeah? Which is good yeah?
However it looks as if 'woke' is McCarthyism which is bad yeah?
So if 'Woke' means McCarthyism and also anti racism it becomes both good and bad?
Then the scales can be tipped this way and that like a poker game when each player tries to up the ante, I raise you anti discrimination, then the other guy comes back with I'll see your anti discrimination and raise you authoritarianism!
Speaking purely personally woke seems to be a word I originally thought was about anti racism, but now it is defined on the hoof, and thrown around quite often as an insult, or something disparaging.
If woke means anti racist, sure then I am 'woke'. The way the word has been subverted to add other meanings seems to be a problem, and it seems that now, to use the word at all is to use a word stripped of all useful meaning.
That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now.
Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
I have found a dictionary not written exclusively by white imperialist scum who bend words to suit what they want, (and those bastards at Collins have been doing it for generations).
Instead I have found an "urban" dictionary shall we say. And they give the definition thus:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke
If you don't like the definition I apologise but it's the only progressive dictionary I could find.