Indeed I did not mean to imply otherwise. In my time here I have not seen evidence of such from you, quite the contrary.
There is such a distortion of facts by disingenuous actors representing various political factions, that the true nature of some individuals or organizations is often represented as equal to the opposition, when nothing could be further from the truth. Concurrently, confirmation bias is alive and well in many who align themselves with a particular political party or other organizations, resulting in an acceptance of ideas or policies that would be roundly rejected if proposed by the opposition.
The relentless false equivalence diatribes which are so prevalent now in American politics has me a bit twitchy. Much of this comes from the attempts by many in the media to appear “objective”.
Sometimes good ideas come from questionable sources with ulterior motives. I have become cynical enough to question the motives of everyone. (especially myself)
I enthusiastically agree that the notion of good ideas having a singularly oriented source is, well, absurd…that said, @Tin-Man has come up with a staggeringly high number of brilliant notions…
I assume you discussed it with him prior to the trip…
Edit: categorically speaking
Pejoratives??? ““Woke” nowadays refers to being aware or well-informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalized communities - it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice.”
You mean my opinion? You mean the assholes? That’s my opinion of the people stopping free speech, demanding I use specific pronouns, and insisting on things I disagree with. (Abortion is healthcare for example. Which we have already done … let’s not go there.) It’s simple… We all have a vote and my vote does not count because I am in Korea. So you don’t have to worry about it.
Simple fact of the matter is, the “Liberal Woke” are as fucked up as the “Religious Right.” IMO I tend to see a lot of them in the ‘Humanistic Venues.’ Calling themselves ‘humanists.’ (I am merely stating my observations. )
Now… with that said… Remember, I live in Korea. I have been in Korea for 27 years now. My news sources are the standard media, YouTube, and anything you would like to recommend. I do watch lectures and seminars. I am very unimpressed by a lot of liberal ideology. From women earning less than men to institutional prejudice of any kind. All societies are prejudicial. The reasons, the history, the rational behind it are all nothing more than political agenda and have little to do with what it real. That does not mean I am swayed by the religious right in matters. I like to think I am more pragmatic. I don’t like band wagon’s. Perhaps not being in the culture allows me some oversight? Perhaps I have a rolling pin stuck up my butt? Hmmm… ? I doubt this is a forum where anything will be resolved.
Perhaps we can agree that our definitions of ‘Woke’ are just different,
It’s a proper noun. …
And yet they do the exact opposite.
This is much more accurate,
I did, and encountered no resistance when I pointed out whole male cats are trapped, neutered, chipped and rehomed to strangers by the Local Council/ Cat Haven and the owners (if traced)* are liable for a hefty fine.
- unbelievably a neighbour, despite warnings about their smelly aggressive Tom, allowed him to roam…until he disappeared. After a month or so they went to the pound to enquire about him. The Ranger told them what happened, Karen behavior ensued, so they copped a fine and a ban on cat ownership for 5 years.
Before any Sov Cit/Liberterian/ Andrew Tate/ Dr Peterson followers’ nonsense objections, the regulations were advised two years before implementation and voted on by the Town residents. Feral or wandering cats are a real problem here in Western Australia as they slaughter our native wildlife who have no defence against such an efficient predator. We now have a curfew on all cats.
Another graduate of the YouTube Academy of Personal Liberty…
I rest my case your honour.
I have six cats due to the irresponsibility of a neighbor. They had a female cat which they failed to have spayed, as well as failing to feed it regularly. She became more or less feral and my wife and I fed her scraps and things when she came around. (I live in a rural area) She would never come within a couple of meters of us. Late winter before last she brought a litter of kitties into our yard and proceeded to feed them directly in front of my wife as if to show that she wanted us to take care of them.
She left the kitties under a lumber pile near my shed and disappeared, permanently.
Then, realizing we had six wild kitties to care for, we started feeding them immediately as they were not weaned, and the weather was still cold.
They would not let us near them at first. At my wife’s suggestion we coaxed and coerced them with food, into letting us touch them at first and eventually pet them. As they grew and became much tamer, at least with us, we realized the need to get them adopted,etc… Since it was in the middle of Covid shutdowns and such, we found it impossible to locate any shelters, refuges, or the like, to take them, as there were just no vacancies to be had.
So we decided to go ahead and have them all taken care of by having the five females spayed and the male neutered as soon as they were old enough. It was a problematic expense to say the least. Six months later, the male shattered his femur and had to have a surgery.
I do not for a minute regret taking care of these little rascals. The male was temporarily inside recuperating from the hip surgery while I was recovering from prostate surgery and we are friends for life now. They are all outdoor cats. I built them a well insulated apartment complex and they have a small barn as well.
The people that created my situation were irresponsible and cruel, in that they had the wherewithal to take care of mother cat from the beginning and failed to do so. They only got the cat to control mice, and had had no real concern for the cat. At present there is no significant feral cat impact on wildlife in my area, including birds. I feed my cats well and they are death on mice and occasionally a bird, but in general they seem less aggressive towards birds than inside cats are when let out. Clearly, large feral male cats have a much greater impact on wildlife. We already have problems due to the coyote population and their impact.
I am not at all opposed to doing what is necessary to minimize the problems that pets can introduce.
I also think people should be held responsible for the way their behavior affects others, when shown to be optional.
“Islam” is a proper noun because it is the name of a unique thing - the Islamic faith.
“Christianity” is a proper noun for similar reasons.
“Christ” is considered a proper noun as it is treated as the name of one particular individual. As a word it really means “anointed one” (from the Greek language) and corresponds to the word “messiah” that we get from Hebrew. As such it is more of a description than a name. I think we treat it as a name by tradition.
“Christian” was a term coined at Antioch, meaning “little Christ” or “little anointed one” - meant to be a mildly disparaging term, but accepted and adopted by those who followed Jesus. I am not sure that it is really a proper noun. I think we capitalise the first letter due to the reference to Christ.
“Atheist” is a general term (also from Greek) basically meaning someone without any god. It describes a characteristic of an individual but does not name an individual. So it is not a proper noun.
On the other hand, “Atheism” could be considered a proper noun in that it could be considered a faith in the non-existence of God or gods. However, it can also be considered to simply express lack of faith, which would make it not a proper noun.
Why wouldn’t I consider Social Justice Warriors? A group similar to Christian. Proper noun. LOL
Actually, a couple of them make perfect sense, at least when you see the U.S. from the outside (which the rest of the world is doing). “American”, for example, is often – but not always – used synonymously with people from the USA, i.e. U.S. citizens. It complicates things when you e.g. talk about all americans, including Canadians, Mexicans, south americans, etc. Only saying “Americans” when you actually mean U.S. subjects do call for confusion, when the speaker and the listener have different interpretations of what an american is. I have often been involved in discussions where one had to backtrack and specify whether one meant all people in the Americas or just U.S. subjects specifically. So using U.S. citizen or U.S. subjects instead of American is actually a good idea. As illustrated this song from the Arrogant Worms:
Further, it took me quite a while to understand what a “white paper” is, even though I am educated in and work with science and technology professionally. Had it actually been called “position paper”, a lot of confusion would probably have been avoided on my part. Calling a publically accessible document that discusses and takes a stand on a subject a “white paper” is imho quite disingineous, as it does not actually describe the purpose of the paper. Futher, you have “green paper”, “blue paper”, “yellow paper”, “grey literature” and “blue book” which are equally unimpressively named after colours. Confusing as hell if you’re outside the UK+US cultural sphere. I really wish for some alternative and more descriptive names for these. For practical purposes, not for “woke” purposes.
Ahhhh…
I can remember, my first encounter with word changes (here in Canada). Grade 3 and Mrs. B informed us that Eskimo was now Inuit.
Eventually, buffalo was bison.
THERE have been many changes to language that represents more accurately the “subject” (descriptive).
Certain words fall out of favor; slangs get created and adopted…
When I first arrived on this forum, as a Canadian “cunt” was a huge no!no! BUT my Australian friends explained their usage and fit meaning and quite frankly, I accepted their usage as no different than “dick”… BUT inside Canada, in conversation, NO way would I casually drop/accept “cunt” in the convo. Ohhhhh 
BECAUSE, here, it holds a different meaning.
Rhetoric is and always has been a very powerful way to persuade people sadly, unscrupulous and opportunistic people will always use it, whether they are politicians or news outlets. Though fact checking is now perhaps easier for most people than ever before, many people don’t seem to bother, and stick with stories, narratives and claims that best reflect their own broader viewpoints. This inbuilt bias is present in us all of course, it is up to us as individuals to fact check information we receive, and of course doubly so if we know we would usually be biased either for or against a particular claim or idea.
Handy tip, though more extreme views may be anathema to us, don’t simply dismiss claims because you view the source as unreliable, rather be dubious but check the facts behind each claim.
Well there you go, that is exactly what I meant there, if we want believe or accept only things that are true, then we set a higher standard for belief, and withhold belief until that is satisfied. The hardest part is avoiding inbuilt bias we all have against certain types of ideas. It’s not always easy, so I try always to be willing to revisit things and evaluate them again if any evidence makes this necessary. We can’t avoid innate bias, but we can try and guard against it unduly influencing our conclusions.
I see no evidence that most people who are woke favour those ideas, how large a group is this, and how large is your sampled test group? If the majority of woke people hold such views then fine, but I have to remain dubious about such a sweeping generalisations if it’s a bare opinion.
So we have a test group of what a few dozen at most? Do you see a problem here yet? This might involve tens of millions or more globally, so you having met a few people, or seen a few individual videos online, is not a sound basis to claim most of them hold those views, or that they have their heads up their arse, since those views you’ve assigned most of them are not demonstrated to be correct, nor are you offering any context? For one example we already limit the idea of free speech, think defamation laws as one example, or try phoning in false reports of a bomb and see what happens. One assumes you think it is a good idea to limit free speech in at least those two instances, does this mean you have your head up your arse?
I don’t have one, I just Googled it and went to Wikipedia. Of course it’s just a descriptor, as is liberal, I have been labelled a bleeding heart liberal and a fascist in the same thread online before now, I tend to disregard such ad hominem, especially if the person has failed to address the points I’ve made.
I’m not saying such viewpoints don’t exist or are not expressed by people ostensibly being described either by themselves or others as woke or liberal, I’m just dubious of your claim that most people that fall under those descriptions have their heads up their arse.
That video seemed to be someone lining up snide and unevidenced pejoratives against a broad group of viewpoints and political viewpoints that he didn’t like, I couldn’t assess the accuracy as all he offered were the sweeping unevidenced pejoratives? He was simply coming up with a list of dubious claims and assigning them to everyone who might be considered woke. It was more snide stand-up comedy than accurate political commentary. Again I get it, and have no doubt within that broad spectrum you’d find people who express such facile ideas, and fit the snide stereotype he was peddling, this doesn’t justify labelling everyone within that broad group as holding those same views, he seems to be assuming that the descriptor woke a) fits his own prejudiced views of them, and b) that everyone who falls within that descriptor must hold all the views he has assigned them, and c) that those views can be dismissed or derided simply because he doesn’t like them or is prejudiced against them.
As for finding solutions, well that’s might be extremely difficult or even not practical for many people, does this mean they should let viewpoints that they find pernicious just slide by without comment?
For example, I have no ready panacea for racism or prejudice, so I shouldn’t comment when people make racist comments or tell others racism doesn’t really exist or that nothing can be done about it anyway? Note how those last two directly contradict each other by the way, so be on the lookout for people who use both. Spotting someone violating the law of non contradiction might not eradicate racism, but it certainly exposes a claim as irrational, and people who peddle irrational claims are not using a sound basis to reason from, politically or otherwise. FYI I don’t care which part of the political spectrum such people’s views fall, why would I?
Cognostic
And yet they do the exact opposite.
Do they? All of them? Wouldn’t this simply suggest the term is being applied inaccurately and or dishonestly? Or perhaps the views held within a large group is broader than one persons biased view of it? This sounds like claiming every on the right is a fascist, I have little time for such facile stereotyping as it tells me nothing about what most people think.
So maybe I’d have to hear an individual express a viewpoint before I can assess that viewpoint, and thus making a priori sweeping generalisations isn’t helpful, but then isn’t that what I have been saying all along about preconceived prejudice against certain points on the political spectrum? If this isn’t clear I’ll spell it out, telling me someone is woke and the reeling off claims based solely on that, both the positive and the negative, are pretty meaningless when it comes to assessing their ideas.
Because you are an idiot?
Huh?.. 
… I did? When?.. Where?.. HOW?.. (anxiously wringing hands together)… My bad. I’m sorry. I swear it wasn’t my intention to be brilliant! Please don’t be mad at me. What can I do to correct this horrible misunderstanding?.. (nervously biting fingernails)…
(Edit for psyche eval.)