This has to do with the Canadian election for Prime Minister, right? I agree with the first part of his definition --- to divide. Then he goes on to the 2nd part --- to control? Sounds like he agrees with everything about the concept, just doesn't like the word. This is a bit contradictory and confusing. Maybe on purpose?
The original definition of “woke” was to be aware of one’s surroundings in reference to inequality, social injustice and stuff like that. But, as good intentions will, the word was picked up and expanded upon by far left liberal groupings to encompass gender affirmation, the destruction of the patriachial family, white privilege, the rewriting of American early history, open borders, climate change and a host of other topics that make little sense.
Like most Politian’s, they never answer a question, or give a straight answer. They just talk around it with a bunch of gibberish that had nothing to do with the original question.
I like his answer. A straight talker for sure. Sometimes, and more and more lately, I wish I was Canadian cuz U.S. politicians suck.
Good afternoon to all- "Woke" as used in the original poster's question is a meaningless term applied by certain verbally limited conservative politicians to anything/anyone they do not approve of. It is a meaningless term used by certain vote-grabbers to avoid having to use normal adult language- which they don't possess.. To cut to the chase- "woke" doesn't mean anything. You all be safe and keep well- Ed
Incorrect, as usual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.
Good afternoon to all- With all due respect to Ms. Gallagher's response- regardless of the origin of the term "woke" it has come to be assumed for use by conservative politicians to describe something they do not approve of. While the term MAY have been originally used in AAVE language, to be honest, I have never heard a black person of any age or education level- and I know a great many black folks- who ever used "woke" in their conversation. I stand by my contention- "woke" is a meaningless term used by language deficient politicians And again to be honest, I am not usually incorrect. I may say and believe things that certain folks with differing political/social views don't agree with, but I am not usually incorrect. And let me please caution you about using wikipedia as a source of information- it is very unreliable and often inaccurate. you all be safe and keep well- Ed
I see it as a word that was originally used by "karens" to describe themselves as better than the others not living nearer the top of society's heap along with them. It was pretty broad, even covering things like the segment of Toyota Prius owners often parodied for enjoying the smell of their own farts. But as the "karening" was revealed to be entirely superficial, the woke could be seen violating their own "high principals" whenever their own oxen were gored. So "woke" has changed in connotation and describes the people and their intentions and actions designed to socially engineer the world to extract the wealth and power from the lower parts of the heap and make the heap more "pointy" with those on top even higher than before. Social division is one of the ways they subvert and defuse any political power among the masses. Nearshoring and offshoring production does much the same for wealth.
A couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns. In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Mary and Jeremy Cox are appealing to the Supreme Court after they were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex. https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/us-ne...oved-from-home-over-gender-identity-squabble/
From what I have read in some other articles, the “child” has turned 18 since this all transpired so that would put him about 13 (2019) when he first made his declaration that he was a girl. So we’re talking about 6 years that the authorities have been tossing this kid around which has apparently made his eating disorder even worse than it was. Seems to me that the teen was being treated worse by the authorities than his parents did. I mean, all they did was refuse to call him by his chosen pronoun. Now what the Supreme Court is going to do I do not know. The kid is an adult now so I can’t see what the parents hope to gain except maybe to have the law changed and maybe rake in a few bucks to boot.
I think there is an experiment going on at the moment, to see how much the public can be persuaded to accept. We all know perfectly well that a man cannot physically change into a woman, and we must stand firm against those who are trying to convince us that it is possible. This whole 'woke' thing has shown up the big differences between people. Those who have the courage to refuse to accept these new concepts and those who meekly knuckle under. Sadly, the latter seem to be in the majority. People we may have admired in the past have proved themselves to be weak pathetic nobodies.
Good point and yes, very much so. Which leads me to another thought. The parents have declared that they celebrate Catholicism as their course of faith. The courts might also insist that since the teen has a choice of pronouns, his path of faith is also his to decide in which case they might deem the home to be unfit for a second reason. The concept I’m trying to produce is if say, the parents of a child declare themselves to be Christian but a youngster decides to be an Atheist, could a socially woke board of law makers conceivably take the child from the parents?