UK Politics - Asset stripping on a national scale

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

On mass, they absolutely do. In fact it’s the only way words ever get definitions at all, we collectively decide upon them. The dictionary doesn’t come up with definitions, they just document them as and when they change.

I don’t ever use the word for precisely this reason; there is no agreed upon definition. So in as much as words are intended to communicate effectively, it’s a bad one to use. But there absolutely is a significant amount of people (though I wouldn’t say a majority) who would agree with HoI’s definition, so it can’t be wrong per se. If it reads like gobbledegook to anyone, I would encourage them to evaluate their social media diet because outside of left-leaning circles, that’s exactly how it’s used in its negative connotation. 

This isn't 'decimate' that evolved over thousands of years. This is reactionary dickheads not understanding what a word means and misusing it as an insult.  Because they are too stupid to think for themselves and get their soundbites from the daily mail, Farage, Hopkins et al. 

I really would rather not spend time in the sort of circles where being against social injustice is considered a character failing if its all the same with you, I'd rather French kiss the dalai lama.

Imagine being openly for social injustice, and being proud of it. What an absolute shitshow the right is. 

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

If you think that the only way to treat people equally is the view everyone through the lens of race or gender then.. hate to tell you.. you’re woke.

So you are claiming that treating people equally means that you are "viewing everyone through the lens of race or gender". What sort of argument is that?

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Exactly, words are constantly changing and being added, language is always in flux. 

And the classic example is "refute". It used to mean "disprove", until a selection of dishonest politicians started to use it to mean "deny". Because "I refute that I took the money" sounded more convincing than "I deny I took the money".

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, A wilding said:

So you are claiming that treating people equally means that you are "viewing everyone through the lens of race or gender". What sort of argument is that?

No, not sure what is hard to understand here. I’m saying you don’t need to view people primarily through the lens of race and gender to treat people equally, in fact it might prevent you doing so. 
 

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Imagine being openly for social injustice, and being proud of it. What an absolute shitshow the right is. 

The point here is for some reason you cannot understand what people are referring to when people criticise wokeness. If you still don’t understand it, go back to what I wrote, think about a few people here you’d say are pretty ‘woke’ and see how much it applies.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the people who use my definition of wokeness, it’s the definition a lot of people use, you don’t get to gatekeep a word. 

[Raja]

Edit: NVM,

BFC upthread has said it better than I can.

'Gatekeeping woke'

This thread has been worth it for this alone. Such a load of rubbish.

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

On mass, they absolutely do.

The irony is, you mean 'en masse'.

But I agree, while individuals can't just dictate a word's meaning for others, meanings do shift over time as people use words. The problem is, that hasn't happened in this case. 'Woke' is now used for such a vague, inchoate number of things that it effectively has no intelligible definition. See my earlier post: the very thing the right find attractive about the word is that it has no agreed definition, so they can use it to mean whatever they like, and then refuse to be pinned down as to what they meant. It's not an example of linguistic descriptivism: it's the very opposite of that.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

The irony is, you mean 'en masse'.

But I agree, while individuals can't just dictate a word's meaning for others, meanings do shift over time as people use words. The problem is, that hasn't happened in this case. 'Woke' is now used for such a vague, inchoate number of things that it effectively has no intelligible definition. See my earlier post: the very thing the right find attractive about the word is that it has no agreed definition, so they can use it to mean whatever they like, and then refuse to be pinned down as to what they meant. It's not an example of linguistic descriptivism: it's the very opposite of that.

Except when they do give definitions of course. It’s a real strawman myth that they can’t define it.

i just did it and the reaction was ‘meh that’s not what it says in the dictionary’. Just have to roll my eyes at some of the comments in this thread really

[Cas Stark]

A bunch of people post about how conservatives are so dumb/evil/liars they can't even define 'woke'', hardy har har. 

Then, someone posts a definition of woke ,and it it's all no wait, that's not the right definition.

You can't make it up. 

[A wilding]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

A bunch of people post about how conservatives are so dumb/evil/liars they can't even define 'woke'', hardy har har. 

Then, someone posts a definition of woke ,and it it's all no wait, that's not the right definition.

You can't make it up. 

So you also think that wokeness means believing that people should be primarily defined by their differential characteristics such as race or gender?

Because from where I am sitting, that feels very much like projection by the sort of people who use the term "woke". Or is that the point?

[A wilding]

50 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No, not sure what is hard to understand here. I’m saying you don’t need to view people primarily through the lens of race and gender to treat people equally, in fact it might prevent you doing so. 

So woke people treat people differently depending on their race or gender?

[Cas Stark]

Just now, A wilding said:

So woke people treat people differently depending on their race or gender?

Yes.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, A wilding said:

So woke people treat people differently depending on their race or gender?

Yes.

[A wilding]

So the definition really is projection then.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, A wilding said:

So the definition really is projection then.

How so? If you view the world through an intersectional lens where race and gender is the primary characteristic of someone to pay attention to, and everything is a series of privilege and oppressions, how can you not treat people differently?

[Zorral]

And yet again churning the discussion with shyte to shut down the discussion that a TORY politico thinks enslavement of Black People is something to which all WHITE (men) are entitled because blahblahblahblah.

Why yes, as someone just last night informed me, on this very board, that British colonialism wasn't that bad at all and those who show even mildly the awful things that Brit Colonialism did -- along with all the other colonialisms -- is revenge porn, bad writing, and boo hoo so unfair!

How many times do we read in the record, that slavery wasn't 'that bad,' i.e. the record of those who benefited massively from it, and made a pretense that the vast, massive, endless horror that is slavery not only didn't happen but doesn't matter.

[Raja]

21 minutes ago, A wilding said:

So the definition really is projection then.

Correct.

There's no point giving oxygen to these completely incorrect and bad faith points that stand up to zero scrutiny and ignore any of the context around these words.

[A wilding]

21 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How so? If you view the world through an intersectional lens where race and gender is the primary characteristic of someone to pay attention to, and everything is a series of privilege and oppressions, how can you not treat people differently?

Because my experience of people complaining about "wokeness" is that what they really mean is that they feel that they can no longer causally be rule about or harass women, blacks, gays, etc as they used to.

Edit: as for Liz Truss, she is a fool desperately trying to justify herself.

[Heartofice]

Just now, A wilding said:

Because my experience of people complaining about "wokeness" is that what they really mean is that they feel that they can no longer causally be rule about or harass women, blacks, gays, etc as they used to.

Wait? What does that have to do with what you were saying? Where were you going with your comment?

[Raja]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Imagine being openly for social injustice, and being proud of it. What an absolute shitshow the right is. 

Correct.

[A wilding]

@Heartofice Basically that it is the people who complain about wokeness who "view people primarily through the lens of race and gender"..

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, A wilding said:

@Heartofice Basically that it is the people who complain about wokeness who "view people primarily through the lens of race and gender"..

So woke people don’t view people through the lens of race and gender? Is that your position?