[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You have to feel bad for Al Gore - he was trying to get people to listen long before Greta was born. The term "woke" didn't exist but more or less everyone treated him like a joke for it . Sorry Al.

I agree.

The thing that irritates me with Greta is how she intimates that everyone who came before her has stolen something from her and her generation and that simply isn't true. Some people have worked hard to reduce their carbon footprint, Prince Philip, for instance, was talking about global warming decades ago' but it feels like anyone older than Greta is blind to the problems and guilty of exacerbating them. I also am wary of kids pushed into the faces of the public by two parents who know exactly how engage and manipulate the media.

[Niamh.]

Yeah I've really only heard it in an insulting manner, I've not heard anyone refer to themselves as woke (maybe people do but I've not come across that yet) I take it to mean people who follow every social justice issue to the letter without question and if you question anything you're automatically on the far right. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground allowed anymore or open conversations on emotive social issues.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah I've really only heard it in an insulting manner, I've not heard anyone refer to themselves as woke (maybe people do but I've not come across that yet) I take it to mean people who follow every social justice issue to the letter without question and if you question anything you're automatically on the far right. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground allowed anymore or open conversations on emotive social issues.

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

I actually know exactly what you mean. I suppose (and I hate to bring this topic up again, I don't want to talk about it, it just fits my example of what I think you're trying to say) So the trans debate, I know my opinion comes from worrying about women's rights and how they will be/have been effected but I know that some people who agree with me on some of these topics agree with me for different reasons and sometimes it makes me uncomfortable too

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I actually know exactly what you mean. I suppose (and I hate to bring this topic up again, I don't want to talk about it, it just fits my example of what I think you're trying to say) So the trans debate, I know my opinion comes from worrying about women's rights and how they will be/have been effected but I know that some people who agree with me on some of these topics agree with me for different reasons and sometimes it makes me uncomfortable too

…(..there are some things, I feel…)….where support is apparently shown toward females in regard to sexist issues….and then sexist threads/comments etc are displayed without any thought at all from those same directions…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…(..there are some things, I feel…)….where support is apparently shown toward females in regard to sexist issues….and then sexist threads/comments etc are displayed without any thought at all from those same directions…

Yeah exactly

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

…I often have long chats with the Mister that have stemmed from a forum thread…well, I have to say…it’s less now that I do because so many ‘discussions’ sadly aren’t discussions at all…they’re like backward and forward tennis matches or ball batting of media links and articles and statistics and etc…those best long chats for me that go on in depth and endlessly into the early hours with friends etc…?..we’ve never once so far as I can recall said….hang on, look here’s an article and it says…!!!!!!!….so there…!!!….it’s all about thoughts and the communication of and listening to opinions that sometimes can rearrange your own thinking with a different focus….

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah I've really only heard it in an insulting manner, I've not heard anyone refer to themselves as woke (maybe people do but I've not come across that yet) I take it to mean people who follow every social justice issue to the letter without question and if you question anything you're automatically on the far right. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground allowed anymore or open conversations on emotive social issues.

I agree with you 100% that having a middle ground approach to certain Political issues is nigh impossible nowadays, people in the UK in particular feel like they're becoming more and more far right or far left rather than be moderate.

Being woke nowadays does tend to be associated with the far left, but in it's original definition I personally think that it's a good thing, obviously idiots have taken the term and made it a bit more psychotic like that Curry thread on here with the American woman.

[user104658]

One thing that's really bugging me is that moral absolutism and post-truth are concepts that are essentially completely incompatible and yet they are definitely merging and interacting within left-rhetoric. How, and why? There's an inherent incompatibility and I think on some level people know that - because if you push at that incompatibility people get very, very angry which is surely borne of frustration at trying to combine incongruent philosophies?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

One thing that's really bugging me is that moral absolutism and post-truth are concepts that are essentially completely incompatible and yet they are definitely merging and interacting within left-rhetoric. How, and why? There's an inherent incompatibility and I think on some level people know that - because if you push at that incompatibility people get very, very angry which is surely borne of frustration at trying to combine incongruent philosophies?

Can you explain a bit more about that

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Can you explain a bit more about that

In short, post-structuralism (loosely, post-truth) is the concept that we all have "our own truth" and there is no absolute; any description of the absolute is a social construction and ambiguous/up for debate. It's an essential concept in gender theory. Moral absolutism on the other hand is the idea that certain aspects of morality are absolute and beyond reasonable discussion; that discussing the "how and why" of a supposedly-moral statement "that anyone should be able to see is moral" is inherently immoral (making them off the table for discussion, if you don't want to be deemed a wrong'un).

But no form of absolutism fits with post-structuralism... the nuances of morality would ALWAYS be up for debate and an element of subjectivity.

But I see a lot of left-rhetoric strongly advocating for both. Individual truth is real. Objective morality is also real. It doesn't blend, it requires a level of cognitive dissonance to even hold both views similtaneously and I honestly think that's where a lot of the frustration and aggression is rooted. Maybe. It's a work in progress

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In short, post-structuralism (loosely, post-truth) is the concept that we all have "our own truth" and there is no absolute; any description of the absolute is a social construction and ambiguous/up for debate. It's an essential concept in gender theory. Moral absolutism on the other hand is the idea that certain aspects of morality are absolute and beyond reasonable discussion; that discussing the "how and why" of a supposedly-moral statement "that anyone should be able to see is moral" is inherently immoral (making them off the table for discussion, if you don't want to be deemed a wrong'un).

But no form of absolutism fits with post-structuralism... the nuances of morality would ALWAYS be up for debate and an element of subjectivity.

But I see a lot of left-rhetoric strongly advocating for both. Individual truth is real. Objective morality is also real. It doesn't blend, it requires a level of cognitive dissonance to even hold both views similtaneously and I honestly think that's where a lot of the frustration and aggression is rooted. Maybe. It's a work in progress

That's very interesting, very 1984 actually, George Orwell was a head of his time.

[thesheriff443]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink

The world will never think as one because it has more than one religion
The world will never think as one because men and women are not the same
The world will never think as one because we don’t all look the same
The world will never think as one because we don’t earn the same

Above are some of the fundamental reasons we will never see the world as one

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink

The world will never think as one because it has more than one religion
The world will never think as one because men and women are not the same
The world will never think as one because we don’t all look the same
The world will never think as one because we don’t earn the same

You can't fit quicker than a KwikFit fitter.

[thesheriff443]

Would a kind member up load a YouTube video in this thread as it sums up part of life’s issues christy Moore ordinary man

[Ammi]

Youtube video

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Ammi

Youtube video

Thank you ammi xx

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

Youtube video

legend

[Livia]

Wokeness to me means getting all twisted out of shape because someone mis-gendered someone and going on a crusade over it, while ignoring the girls undergoing FGM every year in the Middle East and Africa. Hundreds of thousands of girls every year... I hardly ever see any outrage over it. In fact when I've brought it up in the past the replies have included "Yeah, but... doesn't your religion circumcise boys". Like it's the same thing.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Livia

Wokeness to me means getting all twisted out of shape because someone mis-gendered someone and going on a crusade over it, while ignoring the girls undergoing FGM every year in the Middle East and Africa. Hundreds of thousands of girls every year... I hardly ever see any outrage over it. In fact when I've brought it up in the past the replies have included "Yeah, but... doesn't your religion circumcise boys". Like it's the same thing.

No actually I think you'll find 'woke' is over used as an insult for anyone ...who's usually a far left/ democrat supporter who call out various injustices and have different opinions on politics . You could literally call out Boris' shambles and be called "woke" or "snowflake", that's how ridiculous it's become .

And I haven't seen anyone excusing the horrific FGM issue that's happening around the world, nobody can defend that. People probably bring up the whole 'Male circumcision' because they they themselves don't agree with it or they think it's unnecessary . And of course it's not the same.

But there's been terrible instances where circumcised babies have had infections passed onto them through the process. Hopefully those are a rare occurrence though.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Livia

Wokeness to me means getting all twisted out of shape because someone mis-gendered someone and going on a crusade over it, while ignoring the girls undergoing FGM every year in the Middle East and Africa. Hundreds of thousands of girls every year... I hardly ever see any outrage over it. In fact when I've brought it up in the past the replies have included "Yeah, but... doesn't your religion circumcise boys". Like it's the same thing.

But by the same token, when you complain about fgm with your history of referring to the same brown middle eastern people as trash, and regularly slut shaming, it's difficult to treat your opinions as sincere on this subject

[Swan]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

But by the same token, when you complain about fgm with your history of referring to the same brown middle eastern people as trash, and regularly slut shaming, it's difficult to treat your opinions as sincere on this subject

Well all that aside as it's nothing to do with me, and im not too familiar with Livia's posts, don't you thing she makes a point? We do, in the western world, seem to put a lot of effort and time into finding problems that don't really exist. Should we really be worrying more about misgenedring children, or referring to them as 'learners' more than those going through horrific ordeals in the middle east and Africa? This is not to mention the forced marriages at the age of 11/12 to much older men. Or homosexuality punishable by death.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Swan

Well all that aside as it's nothing to do with me, and im not too familiar with Livia's posts, don't you thing she makes a point? We do, in the western world, seem to put a lot of effort and time into finding problems that don't really exist. Should we really be worrying more about misgenedring children, or referring to them as 'learners' more than those going through horrific ordeals in the middle east and Africa? This is not to mention the forced marriages at the age of 11/12 to much older men. Or homosexuality punishable by death.

I don't necessarily disagree entirely but there's a lot of study in this area and some very good arguments for why the "there's starving kids in Africa" argument isn't usually very helpful. Essentially it's generally the case that "there are others worse off" is used as an excuse to do nothing at all about any of it rather than as a refocus on other issues.

If anything I'm inclined to say it works better COMPLETELY the other way; people's energy is generally best spent as close to home as possible. Not even "in the west" or "in our own country" but literally within our own towns and communities.

That's not to say we should ignore the wider issues facing people across the world entirely, but there are very sound psychological explanations for why it's harder to have true empathy for people whose worlds are very different to our own, and that being overly determined to "heal the world" usually results in little more than compassion fatigue, becoming jaded, and failing to actually help anyone near or far. Just a lot of talk.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Swan

Well all that aside as it's nothing to do with me, and im not too familiar with Livia's posts, don't you thing she makes a point? We do, in the western world, seem to put a lot of effort and time into finding problems that don't really exist. Should we really be worrying more about misgenedring children, or referring to them as 'learners' more than those going through horrific ordeals in the middle east and Africa? This is not to mention the forced marriages at the age of 11/12 to much older men. Or homosexuality punishable by death.

or the fact that "wokeness" caused Rotherham

and the fact that white working class kids have been totally forgotten in the UK

White working-class pupils ‘neglected’ by education system for decades

(all media today)

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

or the fact that "wokeness" caused Rotherham

and the fact that white working class kids have been totally forgotten in the UK

White working-class pupils ‘neglected’ by education system for decades

(all media today)

Oh really
I'm pretty sure the government are a big part of these problems,but no no continue to blame "wokeness" why don't you .

And there's working class people from all backgrounds that need help & support .