Is Woke finally dying
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Badger11  Beckenham 03 Jun 23 7.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
When Jo Brand said on a BBC show, in reference to milk being thrown at Nigel Farage, “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”, she was supported by the BBC and continued broadcasting for them. Whereas Carol Thatcher was cancelled and they never had her work for them again merely for referencing a jam label in connection with a blackman's hair cut. People have been sacked for wearing a cross but they are expected to respect somebody's ridiculous pronoun or somebody's else's Woke = bullying
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 03 Jun 23 8.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
When Jo Brand said on a BBC show, in reference to milk being thrown at Nigel Farage, “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”, she was supported by the BBC . 'the way to a man's heart is through his stomach - with a breadknife'' jo Brand Edited by PalazioVecchio (03 Jun 2023 8.18pm)
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Jun 23 9.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Where does this slippery slope end up though? In a bit of rhetoric on social media and not much else? No one is harmed by it or even directly affected unless you choose to be. You can ignore it all if you want to. No one is punished for "non-approval"! Compared to the slippery slope that a drift to the right presents this is a pussy of a threat. It's just offensive to those who dislike the kind of social progress it represents and nothing real at all. Except if you happen to be a pitcher for the Toronto Blue Jays
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Jun 23 9.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Made me chuckle if no one else!
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Stirlingsays Online 03 Jun 23 9.58pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
Made me chuckle if no one else!
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 10.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Hang on, you can't say it's a myth and then in the same paragraph say that if terms and conditions stop people from expressing opposition to political agendas then it's fine to sack them. The people who created those terms and conditions are exactly the people I'm referring to. When the direction of travel only goes one way it's not an accident. Like I said, the right did not do this to the left.....the right care about merit, not your politics.....All the left do is pull the ladder up once in position. One such case has literally just been in the news....perhaps your ignorance indicative of your lack of touch with reality. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jun 2023 6.39pm) The myth is not that they get sacked, but the idea that it's for holding an opinion. It's not and your "example" conclusively proves it. That guy lost his job for failing to do his job. As a teacher your job is not to teach what you believe but to teach what your employer instructs you to teach. You must either leave your personal convictions at home, or refuse the contract. That's your choice. If you accept the contract, you accept the terms. They can express as much opposition to political agendas when in their own time and to whoever they want, but in their employer's time they cannot. By all means, have a pop at the curriculum in a school, or the standards expected by an employer, but not at the right of any employer to insist they are followed once set. Everybody cares about merit being the only measurement when determining suitability. Merit includes understanding and following what is required to do the job and the necessity to set aside personal beliefs when doing so. You can no more have a fervent believer in any one faith who is unable or unwilling to set that aside when teaching religious studies than you could have a holocaust denier teaching modern history.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 10.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Fiscal conservativism is not social conservativism. However, I guess if you stopped talking about things you're ignorant about you'd barely post. Don't tell me what I believe old bean. You define it whichever way you want. So will I! So far as I know there's not an official regulation. Nor any word Police yet. It means different things to different people. People like you see it as the rejection of liberal values and the preservation of the old established ones. Or as I said, as it was, not as it is or as it will be. In the UK section of Wiki on this issue, 3 political parties are listed as adherents. The Heritage Party (?). UKIP and the SDP. You choose yours and I will mine.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 10.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
When Jo Brand said on a BBC show, in reference to milk being thrown at Nigel Farage, “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”, she was supported by the BBC and continued broadcasting for them. Whereas Carol Thatcher was cancelled and they never had her work for them again merely for referencing a jam label in connection with a blackman's hair cut. The difference being that one was trying to be funny whilst making a spicey comment, and the other wasn't. Not that there's a hope in hell of you seeing that. As I said yesterday you don't possess a sense of humour.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 10.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Except if you happen to be a pitcher for the Toronto Blue Jays Depends what was in his contract. Does anyone actually know?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 10.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
People have been sacked for wearing a cross but they are expected to respect somebody's ridiculous pronoun or somebody's else's Woke = bullying If your contract prohibits the wearing of religious symbols then you cannot wear them. Most times sensible compromises and accommodations are reached but if someone deliberately flouts the rules then they are inviting being sacked. Some do it to attract attention and become a martyr. Likewise, if company policy is to respect a person's choice of personal pronoun then that's the policy. You are an employee not the owner. It's not your decision. There will be grievance routes to raise any implications but rules are rules. You can consider them daft and if they upset you so much you cannot accept then you must find work elsewhere.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Jun 23 10.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You define it whichever way you want. So will I! So far as I know there's not an official regulation. Nor any word Police yet. It means different things to different people. People like you see it as the rejection of liberal values and the preservation of the old established ones. Or as I said, as it was, not as it is or as it will be. In the UK section of Wiki on this issue, 3 political parties are listed as adherents. The Heritage Party (?). UKIP and the SDP. You choose yours and I will mine. You had to look up definitions for social conservative? Are you really 78 or are you 18?....You literally spent most of your early years - adult and youth - living within it. Your seemingly weird desire to make perfectly normal words mean something different is just more...to be fair unasked for insight into your world....but yeah, you're are right that I reject a good chunk of liberalism for the better traditions you supposedly grew up in. But your contention that I think the past is something we can go back to is just a leftist meme.....It's not about 'going back', it's about preserving what works within the modern context and rejecting what worsens social metrics: technology changes but human beings don't. You can keep the gay nudist beaches all to yourself old bean. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jun 2023 10.53pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PalazioVecchio south pole 03 Jun 23 11.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Woke hates Straight white men ( non-Lefty).
In 1946 Moscow, there was a premium on straight white men....hence they probably got a lot of respect from society generally ( & women in particular). Today, the West is awash with tens of thousands of surplus men.....hence society can effortless diss all men, with wanton abandon. Imagine a tent-village, full of homeless men.....welcome to the Woke West.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.