A GOP war on 'woke'? Most Americans view the term as a positive, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

[Tug]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Define woke

I will give my 2 bits .a person who looks at history and accepts what actually happened,inclusive,curious,open minded,wanting to improve things for all peoples ect ect to me what is the definition of an anti woke person?also just because a person is open minded doesent mean they support any one point of view 

[Credo]

I don't understand why people get so worked up over things that don't affect them.  I remember when everyone was sure that gay marriage was going to cause the collapse of western civilization.  It didn't.  It hasn't.  It hasn't affected anyone, except gay people.  

 

I totally can't get my head around trans people, but it is real, they do exist and they have zero affect on my life.  None.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to undergo surgery unless they felt it was necessary.   I've known one translady, but she had transitioned long before I met and worked with her.  She was a fantastic person.  I also knew one young man who I knew as a man who I later met with her boyfriend.  I didn't recognize her, and it was later in the evening when she said, "You don't remember me, do you?"  I didn't.  I was surprised.  He was a nice looking young man and now she was a nice looking lady.  But again, no effect on me or my life.  I am glad they are both happy.

 

Drag Queens are entertainers.  If you enjoy their entertainment.  Go.  If not, don't.  I've never seen a drag queen walking around the grocery store all glammed up -- that's a lot of time to get ready.   Again, nothing to do with me or my life.   

 

Everybody who lives should be treated with respect and be allowed to live their life as they wish.  If they aren't hurting anyone, let them be.   And none of them are hurting you.   

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Saying 'it’s possible for men to become pregnant', and coming up with a new definition of man,  is in my mind deliberately provocative and shows why people regale against what they consider wokeness. Let's not muck around - it is not clear that genetic women, who consider themselves 'cisgender men' are any different to other woman except they have a preference to live their life a certain way and identify as men. Science may show different in the future.

So can we please use terminology that doesn't alienate people. Democrats have enough problem as it is. How about we say that people can live how they like, and should be allowed to dress how they like and should not be harrassed or have to experience prejudice. Other people do not have to feel like they are wrong if they do not necessarily accept that a biological woman is a man and that therefore by definition men can be pregnant and have babies.  

People on both sides of the debate should be sensible and respectful when it comes to particular situations like the use of toilets. 

If you consider I have simplified things too much that's on you for quoting the article as you did. 

I think it a good bet that at least 90% of people agree with you, I know I do. 

[Yellowtail]

I never understood people that do not care about things because it does not affect them directly.

 

I know a lot of people that don't have children, but most all of the seem to care about children. If there is a kid being tormented in a classroom, should I not care as long as it's not my child? 

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never understood people that do not care about things because it does not affect them directly.

 

I know a lot of people that don't have children, but most all of the seem to care about children. If there is a kid being tormented in a classroom, should I not care as long as it's not my child? 

None of the groups discussed are any danger to children.  None.  

[onthedarkside]

Post removed for an unapproved link:  "Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and many failed fact checks."

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

None of the groups discussed are any danger to children.  None.  

I commented that I did not understand that people that did not care about things because they were not affected directly.  I then I provided an example that I thought made my reason clear: I know a lot of people that don't have children, but most all of the seem to care about children. If there is a kid being tormented in a classroom, should I not care as long as it's not my child? 

 

I did not mean to imply that trans kids were tormenting other children, or that any group was a disproportionate threat to any other.

 

I am sorry for the confusion and hope I have made my position clearer. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't understand why people get so worked up over things that don't affect them.  I remember when everyone was sure that gay marriage was going to cause the collapse of western civilization.  It didn't.  It hasn't.  It hasn't affected anyone, except gay people.  

 

I totally can't get my head around trans people, but it is real, they do exist and they have zero affect on my life.  None.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to undergo surgery unless they felt it was necessary.   I've known one translady, but she had transitioned long before I met and worked with her.  She was a fantastic person.  I also knew one young man who I knew as a man who I later met with her boyfriend.  I didn't recognize her, and it was later in the evening when she said, "You don't remember me, do you?"  I didn't.  I was surprised.  He was a nice looking young man and now she was a nice looking lady.  But again, no effect on me or my life.  I am glad they are both happy.

 

Drag Queens are entertainers.  If you enjoy their entertainment.  Go.  If not, don't.  I've never seen a drag queen walking around the grocery store all glammed up -- that's a lot of time to get ready.   Again, nothing to do with me or my life.   

 

Everybody who lives should be treated with respect and be allowed to live their life as they wish.  If they aren't hurting anyone, let them be.   And none of them are hurting you.   

 

 

 

Your experience is the same as mine. I think most of the concerns are silly.

I think though, that certain definitions or norms, including the definition of man and woman, are deep in our psyches. To play with them, to suit one or other minority, is a reasonable concern for people to have.

Saying a trans person is a higher risk to the public is in my opinion cobblers - but saying a man can get pregnant because of a new dictionary definition is going too far.

I feel people have the right to call that out as woke - I think definitions do matter - but at the same time let people do their thing based on their preferences and feelings.

I am not suggesting being trans is not a real thing, but that if, say, you have a biological female who likes living how men tend to live, that it makes it appropriate and necessary to call them a man. And this is important as, though change is good sometimes, not all social norms are bad and redefining words based on feelings and personal preferences is problematic.  

Some democrats, in attempting to be fair, can be seen to stray into self righteousness superiority, as though the opposing opinion does not get the points made, and smugness. Sometimes such a reaction can seem to be justified, with the extreme right, but politically it doesn't help the cause.  This post involves politics so I feel people have to be smart about what they know and what they don't know and to be careful about changes to definitions on what can seem like a whim or to allow people to feel good about themselves. 

As an aside I think many Republicans are overplaying the woke hand, and are using it to describe situations that clearly don't apply to, and that some on the right might start to tire of the nonsense use of the word. 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Credo]

58 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your experience is the same as mine. I think most of the concerns are silly.

I think though, that certain definitions or norms, including the definition of man and woman, are deep in our psyches. To play with them, to suit one or other minority, is a reasonable concern for people to have.

Saying a trans person is a higher risk to the public is in my opinion cobblers - but saying a man can get pregnant because of a new dictionary definition is going too far.

I feel people have the right to call that out as woke - I think definitions do matter - but at the same time let people do their thing based on their preferences and feelings.

I am not suggesting being trans is not a real thing, but that if, say, you have a biological female who likes living how men tend to live, that it makes it appropriate and necessary to call them a man. And this is important as, though change is good sometimes, not all social norms are bad and redefining words based on feelings and personal preferences is problematic.  

Some democrats, in attempting to be fair, can be seen to stray into self righteousness superiority, as though the opposing opinion does not get the points made, and smugness. Sometimes such a reaction can seem to be justified, with the extreme right, but politically it doesn't help the cause.  This post involves politics so I feel people have to be smart about what they know and what they don't know and to be careful about changes to definitions on what can seem like a whim or to allow people to feel good about themselves. 

As an aside I think many Republicans are overplaying the woke hand, and are using it to describe situations that clearly don't apply to, and that some on the right might start to tire of the nonsense use of the word. 

 

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, but I think the definition of a man/woman becomes legal and political.  People's gender identity is something that is highly personal.  I don't worry about it because I don't think it's a common situation or one that is going to be somehow disruptive.  So a trans person with intact female reproductive organs decides she is a man, then that's up to her.  They shouldn't be mistreated or discriminated against.  Whether you or I decide they will be in our social circle is up to us.   We don't individually have to accept these things that we don't like, but we can't stop people from being and feeling the way they do and wanting to be able to express it.  

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, but I think the definition of a man/woman becomes legal and political.  People's gender identity is something that is highly personal.  I don't worry about it because I don't think it's a common situation or one that is going to be somehow disruptive.  So a trans person with intact female reproductive organs decides she is a man, then that's up to her.  They shouldn't be mistreated or discriminated against.  Whether you or I decide they will be in our social circle is up to us.   We don't individually have to accept these things that we don't like, but we can't stop people from being and feeling the way they do and wanting to be able to express it.  

 

 

I agree it is up to them if they call themselves a man, that they shouldn't be discriminated against, and I'd have no problem having them as a friend. I have a close gay couple as friends who I think take it further and identify as this and that and I let them define away. The difference though is where, say, political parties or governments or other people in positions of authority say that, as a matter of course, we all should, and it is right to, abide by the new definitions established by the minority. I work in a  govt department - no letters can have Mr or Ms or she or he - fair enough - but some of the emails that come from up high on inclusiveness and acceptance and behaviour I think go beyond their authority. Let people be but don't <deleted> with my brain. 

My comments above too were not talking about posters here but some things I see in Australia and the states. 

[Credo]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I agree it is up to them if they call themselves a man, that they shouldn't be discriminated against, and I'd have no problem having them as a friend. I have a close gay couple as friends who I think take it further and identify as this and that and I let them define away. The difference though is where, say, political parties or governments or other people in positions of authority say that, as a matter of course, we all should, and it is right to, abide by the new definitions established by the minority. I work in a  govt department - no letters can have Mr or Ms or she or he - fair enough - but some of the emails that come from up high on inclusiveness and acceptance and behaviour I think go beyond their authority. Let people be but don't <deleted> with my brain. 

My comments above too were not talking about posters here but some things I see in Australia and the states. 

Working in something like a government office (and a lot of large companies) makes it a little more relevant and scary to navigate.  Those further up the line tend to err on the side of caution.  But we've always had something that needed to be dealt with.

 

[heybruce]

Some people get extremely obsessed with semantics.  There is biological sex, which is essential to reproduction.  There is also sexual identity, which apparently covers a spectrum.  So long as displays of either kind of sexuality is between consenting adults and performed with appropriate discretion, I don't care which definition people choose to apply to themselves.

 

Regarding rules regarding restrooms and sports, respect for others and common sense should prevail.  Unfortunately both respect and common sense seem to be in short supply.

[Bluetongue]

I don't think its necessarily right to ignore something just because it doesn't affect you directly. It seems that gender fluidity is becoming more popular, but most of the heat in the debate seems to be concerning the males wanting to be females not the other way around. I have concerns about the long term viability of such behaviours given that there has always been a very small element involved but now growing. My own opinion is that is not healthy for a species. That doesn't mean I want to argue about it though, as that would be pointless, you can see that here. Society has a way of working these things out.

[BritManToo]

24 minutes ago, Bluetongue said:

I don't think its necessarily right to ignore something just because it doesn't affect you directly. It seems that gender fluidity is becoming more popular, but most of the heat in the debate seems to be concerning the males wanting to be females not the other way around. I have concerns about the long term viability of such behaviours given that there has always been a very small element involved but now growing. My own opinion is that is not healthy for a species. That doesn't mean I want to argue about it though, as that would be pointless, you can see that here. Society has a way of working these things out.

I too would like to be a female.

But a small cute one, not one that looks like 'Big Daddy' wearing his moms frock.

I would also like the same asset stripping, pension stripping, house stripping rights to go with my new hot female body.

Edited March 18, 2023 by BritManToo

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Bluetongue said:

I have concerns about the long term viability of such behaviours given..... is that is not healthy for a species. 

Definitely solve the over population problem.

[Jingthing]

Some very funny comic relief.

 

Cure for the woke mind virus.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/17/2023 at 11:26 PM, AndyFoxy said:

What? They can explain? I'd love to hear it. I'd be especially interested to know that when a man gives birth, how does it come out?

I explained that a while back- I guess you missed that post.

The baby, if it survived being in a male abdomen not designed to stretch to allow space, would be delivered by C section.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Credo said:

So a trans person with intact female reproductive organs decides she is a man, then that's up to her. 

LOL. She can't change her chromosomes, so she is a female that wants to live LIKE a man, not that she is one.

It's stuff like that that makes some of us despair when other people come out with such ( IMO ) nonsense.

Someone wants to be like the opposite sex, fine, just do it, but don't pretend that they ARE the opposite sex.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

17 hours ago, Bluetongue said:

I have concerns about the long term viability of such behaviours given..... is that is not healthy for a species. 

 

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Definitely solve the over population problem.

I don't think the human race is going to be around for too much longer if we keep destroying our environment and overpopulating the planet, so it's probably not going to make much difference as to how healthy it is or not.

[Bluetongue]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

I don't think the human race is going to be around for too much longer if we keep destroying our environment and overpopulating the planet, so it's probably not going to make much difference as to how healthy it is or not.

I think I was reading that the world has just about reached peak population, it hit 8 billion, but not expected to ever get to 9, in fact the fruits of the China one child policy are expected to ripen into a massive population drop for them. So we have a shrinking gene pool and population, whatever we get we deserve.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Bluetongue said:

I think I was reading that the world has just about reached peak population, it hit 8 billion, but not expected to ever get to 9, in fact the fruits of the China one child policy are expected to ripen into a massive population drop for them. So we have a shrinking gene pool and population, whatever we get we deserve.

IMO the ideal population was about 3 billion, so it's going to be a while getting back to that.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the ideal population was about 3 billion, so it's going to be a while getting back to that.

Nuke China and India ......... job done!

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nuke China and India ......... job done!

Can't nuke China as they refine all the rare earth needed to make electric cars for the believers. Who cares if they illegally invaded Tibet?