• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Woke is white arrogance

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,879
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom

You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

According to [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];
The NFL consumers support BLM and, one would think, Kaep. The profitable thing to do would be hire him.

But that hasn't happened. Why do think that is?

The general consensus on TFT appears to be that the NFL owners are willing to take a big financial hit to support racism.
I doubt that's true.

But nobody seems able to come up with another possibility. Either Kaep isn't worth hiring or NFL team owners are willing to pay to be racist.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You are most welcome.
No, I did not. I asked you about the basis for your claim of knowledge.
Since the NFL makes most of its revenue from its TV contract, I seriously doubt Mr. Kaepernick's protest affected the profits of the NFL at all. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim about the profitability or for that matter, his alienation of a huge chunk of NFL consumers?

Mr. Kaepernick made a choice. He vastly underestimated the negative reactions to his almost imperceptible act of protest by fans, the human shitpost that was POTUS and the cowardice of the NFL ownership.

Do I care what happened? Not really. But that does not mean I should blindly accept the kneejerk NFL apologia as fact.

Your Woke blinders are remarkable.
This has nothing to do with "Woke". It has to do with observing the actual facts and using reason. Really, you should try it.
If Kaep was a great player and loved by the fans, the NFL would have offered him a bigger, better, contract. They do this for the money.
Yes, and they bowed to perceptions of bigots and Trump supporters. You have yet to produce a scintilla of evidence that NFL revenues were affected by this.
That's the evidence that Kaep wasn't worth much. The NFL wasn't willing to pay him enough to get him to sign a deal.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. He was not made any offer - hence his lawsuit over collusion. This  Colin_Kaepernick gives a nice rendition of the events. Perhaps if you read it with comprehension, you may stop persisting in posting falsehoods.
And frankly, your use of the term "almost imperceptible", is laughable. Even I heard about it. And even now, I'm hearing about it. Kaep managed to punch through my utter disinterest in NFL long enough to give me an even worse impression of BLM.
Of course you heard about it.
Once some bigot or Trumpster started bellowing about it, the rest of them chimed in. I imagine it was a big topic at Klan meetings.
I think you give Mr. Kaepernick too much credit about your impression of BLM.
Sorry, super rich celebrities talking about how much of a victim they are is nauseating, to me. Too much like Trump complaining about how misunderstood he is by the nasty liberals.
Tom
What brought that particular straw man on?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom
I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You could apply a little logic. First off, you're not going to see definitive proof one way or the other as you are basically asking for someone to prove a negative. However, the backlash against Kaepernick was really bad PR for the NFL. Him being blackballed put the sport in a bad light. This could all go away with simply one of the owners saying, "Colin Kaepernick is full of shit and here is the contract to prove it". Seeing as not a single NFL owner can provide any documentation supporting this, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

According to [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];
The NFL consumers support BLM and, one would think, Kaep. The profitable thing to do would be hire him.

But that hasn't happened. Why do think that is?

The general consensus on TFT appears to be that the NFL owners are willing to take a big financial hit to support racism.
I doubt that's true.

But nobody seems able to come up with another possibility. Either Kaep isn't worth hiring or NFL team owners are willing to pay to be racist.
Tom
You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is possible that the NFL owners are simply mistaken about the effect on their revenues from hiring Mr. Kaepernick at the time.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The point is that Mr Kaepernick was not made an offer to play football by anyone in the NFL. There was nothing for him to reject.

You know this, how?
Tom
I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,182
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

It was the NFL team bosses that placed the players in political positions when they had them come out for the anthem. No one should be forced to perform political acts.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom

It was the NFL team bosses that placed the players in political positions when they had them come out for the anthem. No one should be forced to perform political acts.

I agree.
But Kaep agreed to do that when he signed the contract paying him. ($25M, if I remember correctly).
The NFL didn't agree to televise Kaep's performance.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I know this because he sued the NFL for collusion because he received no offers -that is his claim.  Colin_Kaepernick has the relevant information. Of course, his claim is that he received no offers. He may be lying or mistaken. So, do you have any evidence that he did receive any offers whatsoever?

Honestly, I don't think he did.
He's not worth much. You can't bring your personal issues to work, alienating customers, and remain worth millions of dollars per year.
Tom
You have presented no evidence that
1) Mr. Kaepernick's behavior cost the NFL any money,
2) Mr. Kaepernick's behavior alienated a significant portion of the NFL's customer base, and
3) Mr. Kaepernick's reservation wage (i.e. the minimal acceptable salary) was millions of dollars.

As far as I can tell, your position is based solely on your beliefs.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The "woke" never do.
Dr. Zoidberg said:
To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that.

Dr. Zoidberg said:
I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.
For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Have you watched any TV commercials lately?
Nope. I don't think I've seen a TV commercial in about seven years :)

If you didn't know any better you would assume blacks are about 70% of the population. When in reality, its more like 13%. I doubt its an accident that the actors auditioning for and being hired for the spots just happened to be black. I think what's actually happening is advertisers are trying to outwoke each other, and we've gotten to sorta absurd levels of wokeness.

So... this gets to a bit of a derail. But I'll roll the dice anyway.

I actually support temporary over-representation of many groups in fiction and representational entertainment. One of the challenges with society is that our map for how the world works gets set when we're fairly young, and is very strongly influenced by visual stimuli and what we observe of the interactions from adults. Part of shifting subconscious stereotypes lies in exposing young children to scenarios that defy those stereotypes. To do this in a way that can impact existing social stereotypes about black people or hispanic people or women requires that enough black and hispanic and female characters get shown to build a framework that doesn't tie race or sex to specific types of roles. But given the limited number of actual bodies involved in most representational fiction... you end up by necessity over-representing some subsegments.

It should be temporary, if it works. Once that stereotype is removed, once there's no longer that association, I think it would revert back to population norms.

I don't think it's a derail. And it's my thread... so there.

The problem with overrepresentation of minorities in media isn't the fact that they're there. I have no problem with that. I think it's good. The problem is that they're often awesome. They start out awesome. It's not interesting to watch. In the original Ghostbusters the characters had a bunch of obstacles to overcome, and they did it with great difficulty. In the new feminist Ghostbusters they were just awesome right out the gate. Their obstacles were the rest of society not believing in them. That's boring to watch. Wonderwoman was a yawnfest. Nobody wants to see somebody awesome easily crush enemies.

These kinds of films give away the woke mentality. Everybody knows that nobody starts out awesome. We all start out as weak and insecure. That's what's relatable. That's the characters we like seeing on the screen.

These woke movies are dependent on viewers who assume that because the characters are women or black (or transgendered black women) they will be weak. And the film is about proving the viewers preconception wrong. That's going to be a very very short window of opportunity. We only. (sometimes) think like that now because we've, for so many years, been fed the idea that the sluts and the blacks get murdered first. But that stopped in the 90'ies. For thirty years now minority characters have been as complex as the non-minority characters. Until now. Now the minority characters are paper thin again. They're awesome at everything. That's not progress IMHO.

The world of woke movie making are fighting an enemy that died in the 1980'ies. Now they're preaching to a choir. These woke movie goers don't seem to care if the stories are any good. They're like fundamentalist evangelicals just wanting their religious views be validated, and they cheer at that. Movies were fine before woke came along. No, not Disney movies. But that was it. That was the last bastion of mainstream conservative value movie making.

But I can't see how this woke paradigm can last. These woke movies are all boring. Once the novelty has worn off the wokes are going to tire of watching them and then the money will stop funding them.

To continue my ramble, this is what I love about Dan Harmon of Rick and Morty fame. He's woke. But he's smart woke. His stuff is awesome. But that requires genius to pull off. Almost none of the woke stuff out there is made by geniuses. Dan Harmon is pretty alone in his category. Also worth noting is that his stuff is self referential and about woke topics. He rarely touches on topics outside woke topics.

So it's not like I think woke films can't be good. It's more like demanding that every film is woke will inevitably lead to a multitude of bland boring movies that are essentially all the same. But like I said. I think it's transitory, and I think the woke movie trend is already dying. I think Black Panther was peak woke.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.
So we should call out racist strutures and policies? What the hell is your problem then? More importantly, what the hell is your plan? You unleash angry bile on anyone who does the actual work of treying to untangle systemic racism and accuse them of complicity in the rise of Nazism, but you advance no plan or strategy of your own.

I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.
My god, logic is actually dead.

No, thinking that your arguments against a largely imaginary foe are stupid as hell do not mean I'm arguing for your largely imaginary foe.

I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Who are you talking about? :confused:

I don't vitriolically attack people for not confronting racism and sexism and so forth. If they're actively promoting it, then sure, they're fair game. They sure as hell won't hold back on their opinions of my position, why should I grant them any more of a favor?

I am also baffled by what a "narrowly defined postmodernist position" could possibly be other than a contradiction in terms.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.

"No I'm not" is the only reasonable response to such an absurd claim. Why would you know what groups or identities I belong to better than I would? You are really not making much of a case here for being the antidote to arrogance, going around telling people who they are and treating their disagreement liek its a legal case they have to win rather than a simple correction of the dumb damn thing you just said. If that's what you think humility looks like, that really reframes the semantic weight of your argument concerning these "Wokes".
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm cool with calling out racist structures and policies. But I'm also cool with people not doing it. Woke is about demanding that everybody get on the programme of following a very narrowly defined post modernist interpretation of oppression (not that I think most wokes understand they are) and then vitriolically attacking anybody who disagrees.

Who are you talking about? :confused:

I don't vitriolically attack people for not confronting racism and sexism and so forth. If they're actively promoting it, then sure, they're fair game. They sure as hell won't hold back on their opinions of my position, why should I grant them any more of a favor?

That's stacking the deck. If your definition of actively promoting racism and sexism is not using the current politically correct terminology then you're one of the people I am talking about.

I am also baffled by what a "narrowly defined postmodernist position" could possibly be other than a contradiction in terms.

I agree. It should be. That's not stopping the wokes. I've never seen anybody use the word "intersectionalism" while also understanding how incredibly weak that position is. It's more common in the mouth of somebody on a righteous crusade convinced how correct they are.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.

"No I'm not" is the only reasonable response to such an absurd claim. Why would you know what groups or identities I belong to better than I would? You are really not making much of a case here for being the antidote to arrogance, going around telling people who they are and treating their disagreement liek its a legal case they have to win rather than a simple correction of the dumb damn thing you just said. If that's what you think humility looks like, that really reframes the semantic weight of your argument concerning these "Wokes".

To sum up. I post a video with a claim. You argue against that claim. I assume you disagree with the claim. You think I'm illogical.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I see you are using the "no, I didn't" defence. Well done. That sure showed me.

"No I'm not" is the only reasonable response to such an absurd claim. Why would you know what groups or identities I belong to better than I would? You are really not making much of a case here for being the antidote to arrogance, going around telling people who they are and treating their disagreement liek its a legal case they have to win rather than a simple correction of the dumb damn thing you just said. If that's what you think humility looks like, that really reframes the semantic weight of your argument concerning these "Wokes".

To sum up. I post a video with a claim. You argue against that claim. I assume you disagree with the claim. You think I'm illogical.

I think ninjas have secretly taken over the White House. You say you aren't one of the ninjas, but since you disagree with my conspiracy theory about the ninjas, this proves you must be a ninja in disguise. You're either are a ninja, or you're against ninjas. It's impossible to have a neutral, reasonable perspective on social groupings and aesthetics other than your own.

See how dumb that line of argumentation looks to someone who knows they aren't a ninja, let alone part of a secret ninja conspiracy?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
The "woke" never do.



For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom

I don't follow?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,611
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom

I don't follow?

Tom didn't understand that history repeats itself, opened his mouth, and made us aware of what it was he didn't understand.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom
I find your straw man to incredibly ironic. Try viewing my response in the context of the actual discussion.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,879
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom

That's what you got from Laughing Dog's statement? I interpreted it to mean so long as one doesn't mean to offend, it's okay to screw up and then try to do better. Certainly not your contention as to who is the more oppressed group, transgenders or blacks.

Ironically, that's a pitfall most people accuse the "woke" (whoever the fuck they are) of doing.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,611
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom

That's what you got from Laughing Dog's statement? I interpreted it to mean so long as one doesn't mean to offend, it's okay to screw up and then try to do better. Certainly not your contention as to who is the more oppressed group, transgenders or blacks.

Ironically, that's a pitfall most people accuse the "woke" (whoever the fuck they are) of doing.

And I'd like to AGAIN point out that it is insulting and ignorant as all hell to actually use the term "woke" that way.

It's tacky enough just bringing up a time when someone did use the term in the generally accepted usage.

I don't say who is or is not. I merely point to the people Tom slurs with someone else's compliment, as if using someone else's compliment as a slur is anything but an insult to the very people that use it as a compliment, and note that he slurs them and insults a culture by so slurring.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Given that I am becoming more and more sleepy by nature, being called "Woke" cracks me up.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I get that using the non-offensive terminology requires some effort on the part of some people. I am one of those people. Unintentionally getting it wrong doesn't make one evil. Deliberately and persistently being offensive makes one an asshole. Fortunately for me, playing the "man with white hair is trying but failing" apology card suffices.

I recall how difficult it was for some people to stop referring to black people as "niggers" or "coons" or "spooks". They grew up in an era when that was considered normal and even appropriate in their region.

You really consider the distinction between transsexual and transgender comparable to nigger and Afro-American?

Boy, is that ever Woke.
Tom

That's what you got from Laughing Dog's statement? I interpreted it to mean so long as one doesn't mean to offend, it's okay to screw up and then try to do better. Certainly not your contention as to who is the more oppressed group, transgenders or blacks.

Ironically, that's a pitfall most people accuse the "woke" (whoever the fuck they are) of doing.

Who is more oppressed isn't my point at all.

It was about LD justifying some Wokester who called Zoid bad and ignorant for using one of two nearly synonymous words. Not utterly synonymous, of course. But sometimes, often, transsexual is the accurate term. A person might be transgender, but if they haven't any body mods they aren't transsexual. If they do, they are both transgender and transsexual. Gender is internal, it's your identity. Sex is external, it's your physique.

Calling someone names for that is pretty stupid. But it happens quite frequently. I see it as Very Woke. Behavior of that sort is why I consider the term a bit derogatory. LD just illustrated it.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
It was about LD justifying some Wokester who called Zoid bad and ignorant for using one of two nearly synonymous words.
That did not happen. Your straw man is really stupid.

If I mistook Politesse or someone for you, I apologize.
Tom
The irony of your justification for calling me a name because of your blatantly stupid belief I justified someone calling someone else a name is truly fascinating.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
That's what you got from Laughing Dog's statement? I interpreted it to mean so long as one doesn't mean to offend, it's okay to screw up and then try to do better. Certainly not your contention as to who is the more oppressed group, transgenders or blacks.

Ironically, that's a pitfall most people accuse the "woke" (whoever the fuck they are) of doing.

And I'd like to AGAIN point out that it is insulting and ignorant as all hell to actually use the term "woke" that way.

It's tacky enough just bringing up a time when someone did use the term in the generally accepted usage.

I don't say who is or is not. I merely point to the people Tom slurs with someone else's compliment, as if using someone else's compliment as a slur is anything but an insult to the very people that use it as a compliment, and note that he slurs them and insults a culture by so slurring.

Sorry your feelings are hurt.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,611
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That's what you got from Laughing Dog's statement? I interpreted it to mean so long as one doesn't mean to offend, it's okay to screw up and then try to do better. Certainly not your contention as to who is the more oppressed group, transgenders or blacks.

Ironically, that's a pitfall most people accuse the "woke" (whoever the fuck they are) of doing.

And I'd like to AGAIN point out that it is insulting and ignorant as all hell to actually use the term "woke" that way.

It's tacky enough just bringing up a time when someone did use the term in the generally accepted usage.

I don't say who is or is not. I merely point to the people Tom slurs with someone else's compliment, as if using someone else's compliment as a slur is anything but an insult to the very people that use it as a compliment, and note that he slurs them and insults a culture by so slurring.

Sorry your feelings are hurt.
Tom

No, you aren't, or you wouldn't use someone else's compliment as a slur.

It is not good behavior to comport with. It does not foster discussion or understanding.

It is merely disruptive. It does not hurt my feelings, it shits on our collective floor of debate
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
The "woke" never do.



For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Dr. Z, I did not mean to imply an insult by the above. I don't know if you are an asshole, or not, and I actually do not think you are an asshole. It was my intent to say that a person who deliberately and repeatedly offends someone in that manner, they are acting like an asshole. Please allow me to apologize if you took it as an insult. Unfortunately, by the time that was brought to my attention, I was unable to edit my post to make my intent more clear.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
If I mistook Politesse or someone for you, I apologize.
Tom

I'm getting tired of getting vaguely name-dropped as a "baddie". If you have a specific complaint to lodge, lodge it.

I believe I used the term "smugly self righteous".

Which does seem strange to me. I've known you for a very long time. I was already well familiar with you when Secular Cafe started, I'm sure you were on Seebs board, we might go back to IIDB. You never struck me like that before TFT.
Tom


ETA ~For most of those years, I really liked you. I still do, somewhat. But you've come to resemble some of my conservative Christian relatives and acquaintances.~
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
If I mistook Politesse or someone for you, I apologize.
Tom

I'm getting tired of getting vaguely name-dropped as a "baddie". If you have a specific complaint to lodge, lodge it.
If I were you, I'd be insulted to be confused with me. On the other hand, I was honored to be confused with you.

I think one thing I have learned from this thread is that there is quite a bit of white arrogance floating around that has nothing to do with being "Woke".
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,556
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
If I mistook Politesse or someone for you, I apologize.
Tom

I'm getting tired of getting vaguely name-dropped as a "baddie". If you have a specific complaint to lodge, lodge it.
If I were you, I'd be insulted to be confused with me. On the other hand, I was honored to be confused with you.

I think one thing I have learned from this thread is that there is quite a bit of white arrogance floating around that has nothing to do with being "Woke".

It appears I mistook both of you for KeepTalking.
You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If I mistook Politesse or someone for you, I apologize.
Tom

I'm getting tired of getting vaguely name-dropped as a "baddie". If you have a specific complaint to lodge, lodge it.

I'm sorry I used you as an example. But I needed one and you're pretty much king/queen of woke in this forum. Imho. That's why I used you as an example. You make a lot of posts. There's a theme in what you say.

Its not slander. It's simply a question of different values. I respect you for sticking to your guns. But I rarely agree with you.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
The lab escape theory of Whiteness.

E-RHN2dXIAMVwDB
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Just as stupid as thinking there is a difference in inherent intelligence between races.

And only talking about tests created by white people.
 

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
963
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem.
Yes, you totally are the problem.

aa

LOL. And you can't see how this isn't pure poison? You are never going to make the world a better place spewing that much hate

I have no hate. I just think your name is farty mcfartface because I can't figure out the correct terminology for your actual name. I'm not the problem. Quit hating on me.

aa
 
Top Bottom