The Peoples Party

[EFLImpudence]

See I am confused here.

It's not difficult.

Why are you using the current or new meaning of the term "woke"? You have made it clear that society has changed the meaning of words and we should as often as possible use the correct meaning.

That is true but it has happened.

It happened because other people (so called social justice warriors) unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged and take matters too far into the realms of the nonsensical.

It is the same with the term 'politically correct'; it has now also become a term of disparagement.

 

[JohnD]

unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged

what a strange smear.

 

[JP_]

what a strange smear.

Sounds like it is the usual attack on "woke whites".

Seeing that woke has been weaponised by the far right, it really is safer not to use the word yourself, otherwise you might well be considered (obviously incorrectly) to be in league with those that have weaponised it. It is no different today than shouting "race card" or "PC gone mad!!!"

In short - if you don't want to be judged, don't use the word to criticise people speaking out against oppression.

Dana Brownlee explains it better than I can:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danabr...ing-the-term-wokeimmediately/?sh=6bac4f037779

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It happened because other people (so called social justice warriors) unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged and take matters too far into the realms of the nonsensical.

One doesn't need to be the target of offensive actions to be offended by them.

It is the same with the term 'politically correct'; it has now also become a term of disparagement.

Only to those using it as a disparaging comment.

 

[ellal]

It wasn't a definition, it was an observation. And it wasn't what you might call a serious one

You've got that right...

 

[noseall]

unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged

Trés odd.

You mean like people who work in women's shelters, volunteers for the disabled, food bank operatives, spokespeople for those without a voice?

If not the above, who are you referring to?

 

[JP_]

You've got that right...

Um, yeah. Did you honestly think what I said was serious? It is hard to tell, but you seem to have taken it seriously, which is odd considering it was a deliberately absurd comment.

 

[noseall]

Could you tell us when a single political party last got 50% of the vote in a general election in the UK?

In fairness to DJBJ he did attribute other influencing factors like cheese etc. My guess is his post was in jest. The fact that you are a humourless dolt always willing to see the negative in everything, means you missed the humour completely.

Lighten up ellal for your own sanity.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I disagree with DJBJ's percentages as well. He's discounted the 10% who, in the opinion of the other 90% are stupid all the time.
Depending on whether the sun is shining, whether there's a full moon, cheese, or whether they'll eat breakfast tomorrow morning.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You mean like people who work in women's shelters, volunteers for the disabled, food bank operatives, spokespeople for those without a voice?

If not the above, who are you referring to?

I mean people who unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged when the so-called disadvantaged are not themselves offended.

 

[noseall]

I mean people who unwantedly purport to being offended on behalf of the disadvantaged when the so-called disadvantaged are not themselves offended.

You have experience of these people? You mean like protestors? How do you know which protestors are genuinely affected and which are there because their mate is affected?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Like protesters who say Disney's Sleeping Beauty did not give consent to Prince Charming.

Take your pick:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=woke+rubbish

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Like protesters who say Disney's Sleeping Beauty did not give consent to Prince Charming.

Take your pick:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=woke+rubbish

It sounds like you've given yourself the overriding authority to decide who is offended and who isn't, who should be offended and who shouldn't be.
Will you be giving yourself the overriding authority to decide what is offensive and what isn't, next?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yep.

It's called common sense.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yep.

It's called common sense.

Nope.
If it can't be supported by substantial argument, distinguished or expert opinion, fact or data, it's called conjecture.