Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Why are woke people so horrible and intolerant?

They certainly are on this board.

Truly vicious, unthinking and unexplained nastiness is I think invariably from woke posters.

Is this another manifestation of the phenomenon that left-wing people (all else being equal) give less to charity? "I have virtuous opinions, so I can behave like a barbarian and still feel good about myself." Is that it? 

Whereas conservatives are frequently obsessive about not using bad language. 
It doesn’t matter how wicked the things you say are or the ideas you hold and act on, as long as one doesn’t use foul language. 
 

Examples please

also

why are conservatives such constant fucking victims

in power for 10 years, got their brexit, got all the black grannies deported, stop and search is the highest it's ever been and they're still constantly whining about why nobody likes them

On the "would you rather be woke or a gammon" thread I think the only person who seriously self-identified as "woke" was Guy, but he meant in the original sense of being aware of racial and social inequality issues, and he is certainly not horrible or intolerant, especially by RoF standards.

How many threads do you think you can start on this subject, or variations thereof?  And, do you know, maybe, if you keep getting the same responses, the problem may just be  you, not "them".

Anyway, if you feel so awfully hard done by on here, it baffles me why you seem determined to spend so much time here, and start so many (relatively speaking) threads on the same chuffing subjects!

Cheesetoastie24 Jun 20 13:18

Firstly, the UK tory party is not particularly conservative.

Secondly, the "conservatives" may have political power, but most of the cultural power is with the shitty bits of the left now. 

________________________________________________________________________

I mean, you could have just written "yes Sumo" although I appreciate the essay showing the insecurity of the conservative mind

I'm broadly in the middle, slightly centre-left, in the old-fashioned sense, but that seems to be less important nowadays. The real division seems to be between cultural conservatives and cultural radicals.

"plus the Grauniad and the Mirror"

So the second biggest circulating serious 'paper, and the second biggest circulating tabloid? Heh. And I don't think any thinking person could call The Times remotely gammonish.

The political leanings of those platforms are based on user content. All it means is that those demographics (younger etc) are more likely to be woke. Or, perhaps more to the point, that the most vocal people on there are woke. That's not Facebook's fault.

What this thread is essentially saying is that racism and sexism is no longer tolerated in general society, including most of the media, and that pisses some people off.

 

Tough.

Whereas conservatives are frequently obsessive about not using bad language. 
It doesn’t matter how wicked the things you say are or the ideas you hold and act on, as long as one doesn’t use foul language. 

And they hide behind the bible with their prejudices

The problem is the moderation of these sites and the fact that the terms of service are politically biased.  For example "dead naming" someone will get you banned from Twitter.

Seriously, have you seen the amount of vile hate speech (from both the left and the right) that is tolerated by Twitter?

I'm not even sure what you have to do to get banned from there. It's a moral vacuum.

I'm not even sure what you have to do to get banned from there. It's a moral vacuum.

taking the piss about how many planes Harrison Ford has can do it

You get intolerance from all political persuasions, including “woke” people.

But KG if you think you can claim the moral high ground, when what you are really upset about is a few people people calling you a cunt every time you try to push an agenda of racial difference, then I offer the counter-view that, although a tad unhelpful, it’s within the range of responses one might reasonably expect in an online discussion board.

They are a bit like religious zealots and think there is only one true right way (voting Labour). They probablyw ant to live in a UK where everyone has the same views too.

 

Luckily the British people never vote them into power so we are probably okay. Labour has not won an election since something like 2005 and even the working class now support the more sensible policies - Tory party policies. There is much for which to be hopeful.

They are a bit like religious zealots and think there is only one true right way (voting Labour). 

As opposed to people who think there is only one true right way (voting Conservative)?

For example, people who post on anonymous discussion boards using a name which begins "Lyd" and ends in "ia"?

Communism is fine in principle, the only problem is (and its a massive one) is that it is fundamentally incompatible with human nature.  If we could live like that it would be great, but we can't. 

Crikey. Get this man a Ted Talk. 

"I think conservatism is a pragmatic worldview.  I don't think I am right about everything or that the other side don't have good ideas.  I just think that conservatism is the most likely approach to succeed in practice"

Can you explain what you mean by conservatism?  I take it to mean, broadly, protection of the status quo (clue is in the name).  What do you mean by it?

+1 for jelly quoting arbiter

and what Tom said.  I've recently come to the view that the best way to look at politics is not a half-circle with completely opposite left and right wings, rather its a circle that meets at the back under the heading "totalitarianism"

Do you not find it a weird coincidence that everything evolved to bring us closer and closer to equality and fairness and you just happened to be born at the perfect time when everything was right and should now stop changing?

The logic of your “accumulated wisdom of thousands if not millions of people over those centuries almost always contains more knowledge and nuance than anything we can come up with ourselves at any given time” is why the Amish are still driving around in horse drawn buggies. 

The only purpose of pc speak is to shut down reasoned debate by allowing the woke to apply labels to their opponent (bigot, racist etc.) rather than having to come up with a rational argument of their own.  It's therefore a suppressant of free speech, and gives rude to an evil more subtle and snide set of nomenclature which has to be employed.

From that point of view it's entirely equivalent to the purpose of Newspeak in 1984, the purpose of which is to make Thoughtcrime literally incapable of formulation.  So have a care.

From that point of view it's entirely equivalent to the purpose of Newspeak in 1984, the purpose of which is to make Thoughtcrime literally incapable of formulation.

YES! THIS! PEOPLE CALLING MY REASONED ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE BLACKS RACIST IS JUST LIKE GEORGE ORWELL’S 1984!

NOW I DEMAND A SAFE SPACE IN WHICH TO DISCUSS BLACK ON BLACK CRIME AND BLACK ON WHITE CRIME AND BLACK CRIME AND RESTORING EDWARD COLSTON TO HIS RIGHTFUL POSITION AND BLACK CRIME!!

Still doesn’t really address the point above - you say that people want to buy the Spectator because they’ve had enough of ‘wokeness’ and yet you want the big bad state to intervene because you believe Twitter has some sort of unfair advantage over, say,  Parler (where you can say what you like by all accounts).

if people are sick of the ‘woke’ environment they will vote with their feet.

No but Brexit doesn’t come close to the sort of change you were talking about conservatives recognising are necessary and is the opposite of the, to quote you, “look before you leap” philosophy 

‘FB claims to be a platform and not a publisher except when it is convenient to claim the opposite.‘
 

ok, but what advantage does that give it over a rival social media site?

You simply haven't properly read what I wrote and I get the feeling you are not prepared to do so in good faith. 

I read it very careful and its an amazing stream of non sequiters.

You recognise that where we are is the result of a period of evolution.  But you're claiming the wisdom of millions over centuries - that would be the millions of people and centuries during which the keeping of slaves and absence of rights for women was fine.

You say we shouldn't change because everything is built on the changes more people than us have made - then you talk about starting from scratch as if that is relevant / something being proposed by anybody.

Then you say we can change, but it needs to be massive change, done really quickly but "we need to look before we leap".

You like how things are, think you've done well for yourself (crediting yourself more than the society around you) and don't want things to change.  That is fine and understandable, but the cod-philosophy around it is a bit half baked.

What's wrong with just carrying on the evolution of the past 150 years towards a fairer society where everyone gets a decent opportunity?

I had hoped for a perfect tun but this seems to have stalled. Shame.

I love the idea that if someone does not post they have "run away". Are you six year old?

This is what happens:

70's & 80's Political opposites create instability as power switches sides.

90's & 00's Politics moves to the centre, removing debate, but creating power vacuums on the extremes.

10's & 20's Vacuums draw politics back out towards the extremes, causing even more instability.

The lesson. Socialism and Conservatism are evil. Be a centrist. :-)

Advocacy of institutional continuity, respect for tradition, upholding common decency and the rule of law, respect for freedom under the law and for authority exercised within its proper limits, opposition to radical change, and the belief that change should should come about gradually and organically.

I know King George was a racist bellend and not the best person to be conveying the message but there definitely are woke bullies on here and they're almost invariably the nastiest ones 

 

It's a shame chill was the one to get banned cos was actually seemingly more pleasant than many despite the apparent odiousness of some of the views expressed 

responding to a story about people drowning in the channel by expressing concern that they weren’t taken to a foreign country instead, an irrelevant and illegitimate question that is literally incapable of being prompted by anything other than prejudice, absolutely is loathsome and ought be grounds for having your broadband disconnected never mind your ROF account revoked. Prison in fact would be suitable punishment. This is not “intolerance” it is truth 

What a load of nonsense. I commented on one aspect of a story and a post or two Later mentioned  it was a tragedy. Prefacing remarks with virtual signaling isn’t compulsory is it?

 

If everybody else seems excessively woke it’s maybe worth pondering if you’re just a bit of a bigot. 

Outstanding. Concise expression of my own thoughts.  

Join the discussion

Login Register