Woke... What does it mean?

[GChief]

Originally Posted by enophile

thank you for being here.

Other than conservatives using the word as a pejorative, i am yet to see any reasonable explanation of what "woke" and "anti-woke" mean to them.

Anti-woke seems to include anti-choice, anti-lgbt, anti-diversity, addressing the death by gun epidemic, etc...so, they are basically saying they oppose civil rights for anything other than stereotypical white christian hetero-normative positions.

The anti-woke seem fine supporting felons, adjudicated rapists who make flamingly wrong statements about haitians eating cats, insane mexican convicts taking our jobs, "stolen" elections, pedophilic pizza parlors, etc.

They seem "woke" to batshit crazy and criminal issues, but not choice or diversity?

this right here

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Woke is a slang word and means different things to different people, kinda like the N word. That being said, in my circles it is mostly used as a sarcastic put down of opinions, usually from the left, backed by gross ignorance.

A somewhat antiquated example: A "woke" person may hate cops because they are so quick to shoot black men. That is an opinion based on gross ignorance and denial of the actual stats on police shootings as they relate to race.

A more recent example: A woke person believes that George Floyd was killed by a cop putting his knee on his neck. But he died of a fentanyl overdose. But to be clear. A person that "casually" believes a cop killed him is not woke. Rather, the person who vehemently believes it and may even join protests or riots about it is the one that is woke.

Next you will claim that rural states are better educated than blue states.

Why are the cities of Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio Blue while the state is deep red forcing the Repugnants to carve out districts looking like a jigsaw puzzle?

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by GChief

Just because a bunch of gullible morons culturally appropriated a word does not change the actual meaning.

Never such a case of appropriation since Seneca Village.

[Oerets]

But for the..... add physical action by another here ...... would this person had died from a drug overdose? If the answer would be no, then a crime was commented. (IMHO)

As to Woke my take is when coming from followers of the cult as a derogatory term. I see it as yet another in a long line of code words to be used in dehumanizing any who are not with them.


To be aware and care of others plight and wish to do something about it. Sure seems like a trait any true Christian would strive to achieve.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Next you will claim that rural states are better educated than blue states.

Nope. Not my experience.

Why are the cities of Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio Blue while the state is deep red forcing the Repugnants to carve out districts looking like a jigsaw puzzle?

Cities tend to be blue because they also tend to be socialist. That is, the people tend to depend on the state for more services than people that live in more rural (or even suburban) areas.

i.e. they value security more, while rural populations value freedom more. It's why I moved from Seattle to rural Kentucky. I've not seen a cop anywhere near my home in the 13 years I've lived here except for the one time my neighbor's cattle broke the fence and got in my yard. We don't need them. We are all pretty heavily armed and can take care of our own problems. We also grow a lot of our own food. Big gardens, cattle, chickens, etc.

i.e. we're self sufficient.

It's just a different mindset. Freedom vs security. But the funny part is that I feel a LOT more secure (and safe) than I did when I lived in suburban Seattle. And being responsible for your own security is both empowering and satisfying.

But I get why people like living in a collective, which is what large cities tend to be - and propagate. And to be honest, Fred nailed the conundrum in the 2000's in his article, "The suicide of Marlboro man". It's a very interesting and insightful read. And it's not all too kind to us "hardy yeoman" types.

Here: https://www.isegoria.net/2008/04/the...-marlboro-man/

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

But for the..... add physical action by another here ...... would this person had died from a drug overdose? If the answer would be no, then a crime was commented. (IMHO)

I'll not digress into an argument regarding the specifics of the case, other than to state an opinion. And my opinion is that even without his action, he still would have died. In fact, he was trying to keep George subdued while waiting for an ambulance. And "three times a fatal dose" in your system is, well, a lot."

Coupled with that is the idea that the question is begged, what would have been the correct thing to do under the circumstances, and would it have mattered, and would it have been a practical action under the circumstances?

It's the ol' "hindsight is 20/20" conundrum.

But even saying that, I'm touching on arguing the specifics, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Enophile]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Nope. Not my experience.

Cities tend to be blue because they also tend to be socialist. That is, the people tend to depend on the state for more services than people that live in more rural (or even suburban) areas.

i.e. they value security more, while rural populations value freedom more. It's why I moved from Seattle to rural Kentucky. I've not seen a cop anywhere near my home in the 13 years I've lived here except for the one time my neighbor's cattle broke the fence and got in my yard. We don't need them. We are all pretty heavily armed and can take care of our own problems. We also grow a lot of our own food. Big gardens, cattle, chickens, etc.

i.e. we're self sufficient.

It's just a different mindset. Freedom vs security. But the funny part is that I feel a LOT more secure (and safe) than I did when I lived in suburban Seattle. And being responsible for your own security is both empowering and satisfying.

But I get why people like living in a collective, which is what large cities tend to be - and propagate. And to be honest, Fred nailed the conundrum in the 2000's in his article, "The suicide of Marlboro man". It's a very interesting and insightful read. And it's not all too kind to us "hardy yeoman" types.

Here: https://www.isegoria.net/2008/04/the...-marlboro-man/

Kentucky is far from 'self sufficient.'

They rank 7th in federal dependency, receiving 1.68 in federal money for each dollar they send.

The very definition of socialism.

Washington has a dependency score of 0.2, vs. Kentucky at a whopping 84.2.

Kentucky is a "taker" state. Not self sufficient at all.

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/sta...al-government/

There is a perfectly great old saying: Conservatives are socialists when it comes to their special interests.

If Kentucky were to forsake the socialist gravy train and actually become conservative, I would be nothing short of amazed!

Thank you in advance for refusing to take blue state money while taking potshots at your sugar daddies!

[Enophile]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I'll not digress into an argument regarding the specifics of the case, other than to state an opinion. And my opinion is that even without his action, he still would have died. In fact, he was trying to keep George subdued while waiting for an ambulance. And "three times a fatal dose" in your system is, well, a lot."

Coupled with that is the idea that the question is begged, what would have been the correct thing to do under the circumstances, and would it have mattered, and would it have been a practical action under the circumstances?

It's the ol' "hindsight is 20/20" conundrum.

But even saying that, I'm touching on arguing the specifics, so I'll just leave it at that.

Yes, the best way to save a life is to kneel on his neck and suffocate him.

Was the jury wrong?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I'll not digress into an argument regarding the specifics of the case, other than to state an opinion. And my opinion is that even without his action, he still would have died. In fact, he was trying to keep George subdued while waiting for an ambulance. And "three times a fatal dose" in your system is, well, a lot."

Coupled with that is the idea that the question is begged, what would have been the correct thing to do under the circumstances, and would it have mattered, and would it have been a practical action under the circumstances?

It's the ol' "hindsight is 20/20" conundrum.

But even saying that, I'm touching on arguing the specifics, so I'll just leave it at that.

He was convicted by a jury of his peers. End of story.

[Pio1980]

Dealing with these alternative narrative nonsense purveyers is ultimately exhausting.