By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Will watch this with interest, as I think like Reform they will get a disproportionate amount of media attention.
However, I do wonder if MPs who defect should be made to hold an election immediately. If you are voted in as an MP for one party, then seems undemocratic to me to pivot to another party without a mandate.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 17:55 - Nov 14 by lowhouseblue
but when the heritage foundation wrote "How USAID Went Woke and Destroyed Itself" what did it mean? how did it think usaid went 'woke'? i suspect their argument was not unconnected with the definition i offered.
"It is used by people in power to control discourses and enact political change" is a pretty lazy cliche. all debate and challenge is an attempt to shape discourse and language is used to belittle some views and champion others. both sides do it. grouping a set of fairly dominant themes together and attaching a label however pejorative is a perfectly normal rhetorical technique - it's a normal part of debate. i'm sure you use 'right wing extremism' as a short hand to cover a wide range of vaguely related ideas and people that you disagree with. you're not 'controlling' any discourse anymore than those who use 'woke' pejoratively. it's just a label used when people disagree, it's got nothing to do with power or control.
The reframing of "woke" is a systematic thing from think-tanks into the political class. It is not a lazy cliche. People like Trump use it all the time. People like Kirk would use it all the time.
I don't use "extremism" when refering to the right. If I did, I'd want to be challenged on it, because I don't think it is useful. With that said, it is less about the terms and who is pushing the terms, and for what reasons. How those terms that are pushed are used by the political classes matters. Such as dismantling USAID and US soft power.
You suspecting "their argument was not unconnected with the definition i offered" offers no validality to your defination. Suspecting something and continuing as if it is truth is lazy. It also sidesteps the middle ground of reforming the institution. It was used to dismantle it entirely, not reform it.
I also consistently push back about miss-use of the term fascist. But note, the labelling of fascism is not a systematic thing pushed by left-wing think tanks into the political classes. I don't see it happening - Eg, Bernie Sanders consistently uses "authoritarianism", which is an apt label and used with specific context, not "fascism". The issue here seem to be at the voting classes and is not about left-wing or centralist political classes pushing through policies.
[Post edited 14 Nov 18:44]
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 18:41 - Nov 14 by Kropotkin123
The reframing of "woke" is a systematic thing from think-tanks into the political class. It is not a lazy cliche. People like Trump use it all the time. People like Kirk would use it all the time.
I don't use "extremism" when refering to the right. If I did, I'd want to be challenged on it, because I don't think it is useful. With that said, it is less about the terms and who is pushing the terms, and for what reasons. How those terms that are pushed are used by the political classes matters. Such as dismantling USAID and US soft power.
You suspecting "their argument was not unconnected with the definition i offered" offers no validality to your defination. Suspecting something and continuing as if it is truth is lazy. It also sidesteps the middle ground of reforming the institution. It was used to dismantle it entirely, not reform it.
I also consistently push back about miss-use of the term fascist. But note, the labelling of fascism is not a systematic thing pushed by left-wing think tanks into the political classes. I don't see it happening - Eg, Bernie Sanders consistently uses "authoritarianism", which is an apt label and used with specific context, not "fascism". The issue here seem to be at the voting classes and is not about left-wing or centralist political classes pushing through policies.
[Post edited 14 Nov 18:44]
that's how politics works - people who share a common view on certain subjects end up using common language - especially to establish a short hand description of those they disagree with and why they disagree with them. underneath the labels is genuine political disagreement. yes trump and kirk are from the broad political group who see 'woke' as an effective label for a world view they oppose. it has no more significance than that and its use doesn't mark the user as wielding power or control or having the ability to limit debate. it is part of a very broad political debate and doesn't in any way limit that debate.
i don't particularly like the use of 'woke' and generally try to avoid it. i agree with you about the label fascism. 'extreme right extremism' may not be used by you but it is used by many who share a common political perspective and a common political enemy - it has the same function as 'woke' just to a different group.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-5
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:51 - Nov 14 with 952 views
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 18:52 - Nov 14 by lowhouseblue
that's how politics works - people who share a common view on certain subjects end up using common language - especially to establish a short hand description of those they disagree with and why they disagree with them. underneath the labels is genuine political disagreement. yes trump and kirk are from the broad political group who see 'woke' as an effective label for a world view they oppose. it has no more significance than that and its use doesn't mark the user as wielding power or control or having the ability to limit debate. it is part of a very broad political debate and doesn't in any way limit that debate.
i don't particularly like the use of 'woke' and generally try to avoid it. i agree with you about the label fascism. 'extreme right extremism' may not be used by you but it is used by many who share a common political perspective and a common political enemy - it has the same function as 'woke' just to a different group.
It isn't the same function, as I've previously highlighted and you've ignored. It does have more significance. Significance such as the US losing out on soft power. That isn't about common shared language. It is about using something someone agrees with to push through unrelated things.
If you had bothered to look up the article, the "woke" actions that were referenced were: - 21 aids victims having abortions paid for via USAID aids program in Mozambique. - 1,000 USAID officials issuing an open letter objecting to Biden’s Israel policy by requesting “an immediate ceasefire between the Israel and Hamas”. - In the days after the George Floyd riots, 1,000 USAID staff requesting the agency “affirm Black lives matter”.
For context, that was less than 10% of the USAID workforce signing a two letters. One calling for peace and other asking for the value of people's lives to be declared equal. Ending 11,000 people's employment seems extreme, even if you did just want to purge 1,000 people that disagree with your policitical perspective.
Aborting 21 babies within one program is something that can be banned without closing down the whole of USAID. But let's be clear, this is outside of your definition of woke. As is asking for the end of the war between Israel and Hamas. You may wish to argue valuing black lives equally is woke in your definition.
As a self-declared proponent of free speech though, I assume you don't think this is how politics should work, that this is a huge abuse of power that has been pushed through on the false pretext of being woke.
Edit: Also, what I find baffling is you insist on not using fascism, like me, to label Trump et al. You have passionately called out people for doing so, and received many downvotes for it. But now it is the term woke, you are okay with labeling because the otherside do it. It is just the way common language works. It strikes me as highly inconsistent. Suspiciously so.
[Post edited 14 Nov 19:55]
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:51 - Nov 14 by Kropotkin123
It isn't the same function, as I've previously highlighted and you've ignored. It does have more significance. Significance such as the US losing out on soft power. That isn't about common shared language. It is about using something someone agrees with to push through unrelated things.
If you had bothered to look up the article, the "woke" actions that were referenced were: - 21 aids victims having abortions paid for via USAID aids program in Mozambique. - 1,000 USAID officials issuing an open letter objecting to Biden’s Israel policy by requesting “an immediate ceasefire between the Israel and Hamas”. - In the days after the George Floyd riots, 1,000 USAID staff requesting the agency “affirm Black lives matter”.
For context, that was less than 10% of the USAID workforce signing a two letters. One calling for peace and other asking for the value of people's lives to be declared equal. Ending 11,000 people's employment seems extreme, even if you did just want to purge 1,000 people that disagree with your policitical perspective.
Aborting 21 babies within one program is something that can be banned without closing down the whole of USAID. But let's be clear, this is outside of your definition of woke. As is asking for the end of the war between Israel and Hamas. You may wish to argue valuing black lives equally is woke in your definition.
As a self-declared proponent of free speech though, I assume you don't think this is how politics should work, that this is a huge abuse of power that has been pushed through on the false pretext of being woke.
Edit: Also, what I find baffling is you insist on not using fascism, like me, to label Trump et al. You have passionately called out people for doing so, and received many downvotes for it. But now it is the term woke, you are okay with labeling because the otherside do it. It is just the way common language works. It strikes me as highly inconsistent. Suspiciously so.
[Post edited 14 Nov 19:55]
Lowhouse gonna lowhouse
5
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 22:30 - Nov 14 with 846 views
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:51 - Nov 14 by Kropotkin123
It isn't the same function, as I've previously highlighted and you've ignored. It does have more significance. Significance such as the US losing out on soft power. That isn't about common shared language. It is about using something someone agrees with to push through unrelated things.
If you had bothered to look up the article, the "woke" actions that were referenced were: - 21 aids victims having abortions paid for via USAID aids program in Mozambique. - 1,000 USAID officials issuing an open letter objecting to Biden’s Israel policy by requesting “an immediate ceasefire between the Israel and Hamas”. - In the days after the George Floyd riots, 1,000 USAID staff requesting the agency “affirm Black lives matter”.
For context, that was less than 10% of the USAID workforce signing a two letters. One calling for peace and other asking for the value of people's lives to be declared equal. Ending 11,000 people's employment seems extreme, even if you did just want to purge 1,000 people that disagree with your policitical perspective.
Aborting 21 babies within one program is something that can be banned without closing down the whole of USAID. But let's be clear, this is outside of your definition of woke. As is asking for the end of the war between Israel and Hamas. You may wish to argue valuing black lives equally is woke in your definition.
As a self-declared proponent of free speech though, I assume you don't think this is how politics should work, that this is a huge abuse of power that has been pushed through on the false pretext of being woke.
Edit: Also, what I find baffling is you insist on not using fascism, like me, to label Trump et al. You have passionately called out people for doing so, and received many downvotes for it. But now it is the term woke, you are okay with labeling because the otherside do it. It is just the way common language works. It strikes me as highly inconsistent. Suspiciously so.
[Post edited 14 Nov 19:55]
Yes, it's interesting that they forever cry "but both sides do it" while only ever condemning one side for doing so. One might wonder whether there's some agenda at play.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:51 - Nov 14 by Kropotkin123
It isn't the same function, as I've previously highlighted and you've ignored. It does have more significance. Significance such as the US losing out on soft power. That isn't about common shared language. It is about using something someone agrees with to push through unrelated things.
If you had bothered to look up the article, the "woke" actions that were referenced were: - 21 aids victims having abortions paid for via USAID aids program in Mozambique. - 1,000 USAID officials issuing an open letter objecting to Biden’s Israel policy by requesting “an immediate ceasefire between the Israel and Hamas”. - In the days after the George Floyd riots, 1,000 USAID staff requesting the agency “affirm Black lives matter”.
For context, that was less than 10% of the USAID workforce signing a two letters. One calling for peace and other asking for the value of people's lives to be declared equal. Ending 11,000 people's employment seems extreme, even if you did just want to purge 1,000 people that disagree with your policitical perspective.
Aborting 21 babies within one program is something that can be banned without closing down the whole of USAID. But let's be clear, this is outside of your definition of woke. As is asking for the end of the war between Israel and Hamas. You may wish to argue valuing black lives equally is woke in your definition.
As a self-declared proponent of free speech though, I assume you don't think this is how politics should work, that this is a huge abuse of power that has been pushed through on the false pretext of being woke.
Edit: Also, what I find baffling is you insist on not using fascism, like me, to label Trump et al. You have passionately called out people for doing so, and received many downvotes for it. But now it is the term woke, you are okay with labeling because the otherside do it. It is just the way common language works. It strikes me as highly inconsistent. Suspiciously so.
[Post edited 14 Nov 19:55]
re your last para, i have previously said: "i don't particularly like the use of 'woke' and generally try to avoid it."
i was responding to your posts to explain why some people use the term and what they intend to imply by it. they use it as a label to summarise a world view they reject - they are not constraining discourse, exercising power, or engaging in "discourse manipulation". the fact that trump and critics of usaid use the same label doesn't alter that.
focusing on the words people choose to reject something rather than trying to understand what views they are expressing and why seems an error to me.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-2
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 23:04 - Nov 14 with 809 views
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 22:30 - Nov 14 by Herbivore
Yes, it's interesting that they forever cry "but both sides do it" while only ever condemning one side for doing so. One might wonder whether there's some agenda at play.
that you are only ever prepared to see one side of any issue really isn't my problem. but it absolutely is yours.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 22:37 - Nov 14 by lowhouseblue
re your last para, i have previously said: "i don't particularly like the use of 'woke' and generally try to avoid it."
i was responding to your posts to explain why some people use the term and what they intend to imply by it. they use it as a label to summarise a world view they reject - they are not constraining discourse, exercising power, or engaging in "discourse manipulation". the fact that trump and critics of usaid use the same label doesn't alter that.
focusing on the words people choose to reject something rather than trying to understand what views they are expressing and why seems an error to me.
Just to clarify something here: 'woke' is a meaningful piece of rhetorical nuance we should all look to understand but terms like 'gammon' are counter-productive, insulting and essentially meaningless?
0
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 11:50 - Nov 15 with 504 views
Your Party. That we are going to fight each other for control over.
Fruit battling Nut for the leadership position and 'power'. It's like wanting to be chancellor while fighting over control of the petty cash tin at a car boot sale.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 11:23 - Nov 15 by LutherBlissett
Just to clarify something here: 'woke' is a meaningful piece of rhetorical nuance we should all look to understand but terms like 'gammon' are counter-productive, insulting and essentially meaningless?
And that is the sensible, seeing both sides stance to take.
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 11:23 - Nov 15 by LutherBlissett
Just to clarify something here: 'woke' is a meaningful piece of rhetorical nuance we should all look to understand but terms like 'gammon' are counter-productive, insulting and essentially meaningless?
i think you miss-typed 'clarify' when you meant 'make up'.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-1
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:45 - Nov 15 with 285 views
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 15:48 - Nov 15 by lowhouseblue
i think you miss-typed 'clarify' when you meant 'make up'.
I see. Well, what you seem to have done is heavily caveat the use of a pejorative term against the left. Indeed, you seem to go on and insist we should understand the term and why others use it. It could be your poor English.
[Post edited 15 Nov 19:46]
0
“Your party” by Corbyn x Sultana anyone going to vote for them? on 19:56 - Nov 15 with 261 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
