On 23/04/2023 08:11 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kag1k2F8g4pU3@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2023 05:41 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kafr58F7h9mU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2023 02:55 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kafgc1F5svpU2@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2023 11:34 am, Pancho wrote:
On 21/04/2023 07:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1p4kj$232b$1@dont-email.me>, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes
Isn't the problem really about what we call a 'race', and what we >>>>>>>>> call
You can push the food around the plate, but race exists. The real >>>>>>>>>> debate should be about how to deal with the concept.
a
'species'?
No. We have a concept, a word, race. It has a number of dictionary >>>>>>>> definitions. In general, we can reliably categorize many people in >>>>>>>> to
a
racial category.
The idea that race is not scientific is just muddying the water, >>>>>>>> trying
to obscure this type of categorization with nitpicking. It appears >>>>>>>> that
people think that if they take the word race away, they can stop >>>>>>>> discussion of differences between people we categorize differently. >>>>>>>> If
they were serious, they would replace the word race with a better >>>>>>>> word,
a
better concept, but they aren't, it is just intellectual
censorship.
+1 to that.
But why would anyone "want" or "need" such a word or category in the >>>>>> first
place ?
Why do we need words or conceptual categories for anything at all?
So as to organise our ideas.
Good answer!
So what's the problem?
Exactly the same as before
I'm asking you what sort of ideas *you* need to form, about large groups
of people who you apparently want to categorise as a "race"; which you
can't already discern from imply looking at them or talking to them as
individuals.
Moi? None at all.
It's all been done by others.
What *extra information* is knowing their "race", going to provide you
with
?
Ah... you haven't caught up yet, obviously.
A few hours ago, Mr Hayter *conceded* that races do exist after all.
After all, if they didn't, there could be no such thing as racism or white privilege
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Genuinely "woke" people are the normal decent ones. They repect
others and their differing opinions. They understand we are not
all identical, but are all worthy of that respect.
The wokery that is objected to is that displayed by people who
have zero respect for anyone who doesn't agree with whatever they
decide is "right" today (and probably wrong next week).
That *is* the definition of "wokery" as expressed ad nauseam in
The Guardian (among other places).
But it's the prior definition that describes the people who are
derisively called "woke" by the radical right.
The previous paragraph is something else, "normal decent people"
for want of a better term.
Those who use "woke" as an insult may act like "normal decent
people" to people they know, or people who are like them, but they
often don't act decently to people who don't fit in certain
categories.
It's the old "PC is just being polite" nonsense. People wanting to
impose their views on others by restricting what they say in the
hope that they will be prevented from "oldthink".
There are people on the fringes of every category of people. But the
vast majority of "woke" people aren't the ones who are trying to
restrict what others do or say.
On 24/04/2023 02:03 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Genuinely "woke" people are the normal decent ones. They repect
others and their differing opinions. They understand we are not
all identical, but are all worthy of that respect.
The wokery that is objected to is that displayed by people who
have zero respect for anyone who doesn't agree with whatever
they decide is "right" today (and probably wrong next week).
That *is* the definition of "wokery" as expressed ad nauseam in
The Guardian (among other places).
But it's the prior definition that describes the people who are
derisively called "woke" by the radical right.
The previous paragraph is something else, "normal decent people"
for want of a better term.
Those who use "woke" as an insult may act like "normal decent
people" to people they know, or people who are like them, but
they often don't act decently to people who don't fit in certain
categories.
It's the old "PC is just being polite" nonsense. People wanting
to impose their views on others by restricting what they say in
the hope that they will be prevented from "oldthink".
There are people on the fringes of every category of people. But
the vast majority of "woke" people aren't the ones who are trying
to restrict what others do or say.
That statement runs counter to everything we have seen, heard and
read over the last few years, ever since the ridiculous term was
fabricated, in fact.
Wokeness / political correctness is *precisely* all about trying
to subvert and control language.
On 23 Apr 2023 at 17:16:50 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 13:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 at 11:32:11 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 11:05, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/04/2023 20:35, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2023 16:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2023 at 13:03:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFED83A4FFC9991F3A2@135.181.20.170...
On 11:34 21 Apr 2023, Pancho said:
To be fair, I think some of them really believe they are "fighting wokism" toI disagree with Pamela with respect to positive discrimination, both >>>>>>>>>> in terms of its extent and desirability, but that is no excuse to >>>>>>>>>> make up nonsense about race not existing. We should have scientific >>>>>>>>>> freedom to discuss topics rationally.
I respectfully differ. I believe there is every danger of restorative >>>>>>>>> overshoot and that it has already started.
Very interesting, I'm sure. But what has any of that to do with all >>>>>>>> racists self evident, indeed self-proclaimed, hatred of black people ? >>>>>
preserve traditional values and fairness. A thin veneer of civilisation over
their atavistic feelings, but it does protect their self-esteem. They are
really just racists, but they think they are deep thinkers. They also may
sincerely believe there is such a thing as "woke", distinct from common >>>>>>> decency.
Genuinely "woke" people are the normal decent ones. They repect others and
their differing opinions. They understand we are not all identical, but are
all worthy of that respect.
The wokery that is objected to is that displayed by people who have zero >>>>>> respect for anyone who doesn't agree with whatever they decide is "right"
today (and probably wrong next week).
That *is* the definition of "wokery" as expressed ad nauseam in The Guardian
(among other places).
The previous paragraph is something else, "normal decent people" for want of a
better term.
It's the old "PC is just being polite" nonsense. People wanting to impose their
views on others by restricting what they say in the hope that they will be
prevented from "oldthink".
The amusing thing is, those who insist they are woke are not in the least woke!
Can you name the people whom you have heard or read to say (unironically!) >>> that they were woke?s As far as I know the word "woke" in this country at >>> least is only ever used an insult by those who oppose liberal ideas. I could
be wrong, so what are their names? I have never read or heard an English >>> person calling themselves woke. Names presented by the Mail and Telegraph do
not count unless you have independent documentary evidence of them calling >>> themselves woke. The newspapers lie.
29% of those who said they understood what it means, said they were woke. >>
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/18/what-does-woke-mean-britons
Regrettably I do not know their names.
Being told woke means so-and-so, asked whether that applies to you, and saying
yes that meaning of woke applies to me is a million miles from spontaneously and by choice calling oneself woke. All it means is that whatever particular meaning the pollsters gave to 'woke' was something that 29% of those polled thought applied to themselves.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Wokeness / political correctness is *precisely* all about trying
to subvert and control language.
As defined by the people who want to criticize those they claim to be
woke. It's never been the definition by those supportive of those
who are "woke."
On 24/04/2023 16:21, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Wokeness / political correctness is *precisely* all about trying
to subvert and control language.
As defined by the people who want to criticize those they claim to be
woke. It's never been the definition by those supportive of those
who are "woke."
Well, it wouldn't be, would it? It's a criticism.
Wokery and political correctness are indeed largely to do with
coercively controlling others through the use of language and views they
are allowed to express. And the method used to do that is emotional blackmail - I will get upset if you do not say and do what I want,
however ridiculous, and I will make life very difficult for you if you don't. Moreover, I will change the rules whenever *I* choose, without telling you, and you must observe them whatever they are.
You will therefore henceforth refer to me as 'they', 'of colour',
'LBGTQI?' and 'differently abled', until I change the rules. You will
not refer to my sex, my gender, my appearance, my height, my shape, my
age, my intelligence or my competence, under any circumstances, and you certainly will not touch me. You will not say or do anything *I*
consider derogatory to anyone, as I am offended on behalf of all
humanity. And cats. Meat is murder. OK?
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 02:03 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Genuinely "woke" people are the normal decent ones. They repect
others and their differing opinions. They understand we are not
all identical, but are all worthy of that respect.
The wokery that is objected to is that displayed by people who
have zero respect for anyone who doesn't agree with whatever
they decide is "right" today (and probably wrong next week).
That *is* the definition of "wokery" as expressed ad nauseam in
The Guardian (among other places).
But it's the prior definition that describes the people who are
derisively called "woke" by the radical right.
The previous paragraph is something else, "normal decent people"
for want of a better term.
Those who use "woke" as an insult may act like "normal decent
people" to people they know, or people who are like them, but
they often don't act decently to people who don't fit in certain
categories.
It's the old "PC is just being polite" nonsense. People wanting
to impose their views on others by restricting what they say in
the hope that they will be prevented from "oldthink".
There are people on the fringes of every category of people. But
the vast majority of "woke" people aren't the ones who are trying
to restrict what others do or say.
That statement runs counter to everything we have seen, heard and
read over the last few years, ever since the ridiculous term was
fabricated, in fact.
Wokeness / political correctness is *precisely* all about trying
to subvert and control language.
As defined by the people who want to criticize those they claim to be
woke. It's never been the definition by those supportive of those
who are "woke."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:41:58 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,575 |