‘Patriots’, I think they like to be called these days.

Are you denying that racists and fascists exist? Or are you just identifying as a racist and fascist but would rather you were called something else?

My point was about name calling.

I tend to think of those that use the term “woke” as racist, ****, or both.

Equally applies to people who who get upset about not being able to call a spade a spade anymore. We know what they are really upset about – not being able to be racist **** in public.

I don’t see any reasons why Labour should retreat from being Woke …
Just push on the Woke agenda otherwise they are no different.
If Labour party does not adopt Woke identity what else can they be?
What is the point of pretending to be something else like Blair (he is rich, very rich)?

Then let the people decide …

At what point in time ave the people of Hartlepool had a socialist governent? Theyve had some years of centrist (Blair) and the rest of the time increasingly right wing. There’s no capitalist incentive ot improve Hartlepool – it works on a market level, or actually it doesn’t, and it slowly dies.

‘Perhaps, just perhaps, the people of Hartlepool are in fact seeing that believing in Socialism and voting for it since the demise of coal mining and shipbuilding and everything else hasn’t worked.. Perhaps the idea that economic policies are set to minimize government intervention/tax and as such reward individual effort has some appeal?’
Which is all well and good till you need something like healthcare, unemployment benefit, pensions, consumer protection etc. Then you have to pay. Looking from a foreign perspective Britain is becoming a very rightwing country, and reading the Daily Mail a real eye opener, and really not very different to Fox i nthe US. There is a lot of right wing propoganda in the UK .

My point was about name calling.

It’s interesting that people are proud of being liberal or lefty and would not view those terms as ‘name calling’, but embarrassed about being racist or fascist and do view such descriptions as insulting.

It’s interesting that people are proud of being liberal or lefty and would not view those terms as ‘name calling’, but embarrassed about being racist or fascist and do view such descriptions as insulting.

That was my point. People don’t like being called “woke” which gets their back up and generally makes them less receptive to reason. Names that are far more offensive…. Well draw your own conclusions…

At what point in time ave the people of Hartlepool had a socialist governent?

Given that in 2020/21 the government was paying 50pc of UK wages at times (IIRC), I’d say 2020/21.

People don’t like being called “woke”

I’d be happy to be called “woke” if it was defined in any of the ways that have been hinted at in these pages. I’d just like to know what people mean by it to engage with it. If it’s the new name for “politically correct”, I’ll happily take that “insult”.

At what point in time ave the people of Hartlepool had a socialist governent?

Depends how you view government as working, you could vote for Corbyn (if you lived in his constituency), but that in itself doesn’t make the government any more left wing because the right -wing just writes you off and the center-left wing takes you for granted. There’s a strong incentive in any political system to vote for the winning side (or close to it) so at least your voice is heard.

It’s not, and never has been, a melting pot of ideas and consensus building, it’s 50%+1.

To put it more provocatively, Blair has done more for socialism than Corbyn, however much Socialists like to use the term Blairite as an insult. Because he was electable and got stuff done.

Which is all well and good till you need something like healthcare, unemployment benefit, pensions, consumer protection etc. Then you have to pay. Looking from a foreign perspective Britain is becoming a very rightwing country, and reading the Daily Mail a real eye opener, and really not very different to Fox i nthe US. There is a lot of right wing propoganda in the UK .

Yup, but as I said, voting for Labour under the promise of something being done about it hasn’t achieved it. Voting Tory might result in Pork Barrel Politics as someone else said, but hey, that’s a result at least.

People don’t like being called “woke” which gets their back up and generally makes them less receptive to reason

Have you got some evidence for this? I cant say I would be overly offended since it seems to be just the current fit all term of abuse the right used between complaining about people calling them names.
I see there has still be no definition of woke from the people spitting it out as an insult.

kelvin
I’d be happy to be called “woke” if it was defined in any of the ways that have been hinted at in these pages. I’d just like to know what people mean by it to engage with it. If it’s the new name for “politically correct”, I’ll happily take that “insult”.

Wokism is not just political correctness, but political correctness interpreted in a way that’s devoid of nuance, and used as a sort of judgmental elitism. It doesn’t win people over, it pushes them away.

Barack Obama made this point repeatedly about two years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

The reason why ‘woke’ has become an insult is that it is a new (& easier to spell) word for Left-Wing sanctimoniousness.
Thus from wikipedia: Writer and activist Chloé Valdary has stated that the concept of being woke is a “double-edged sword” that can “alert people to systemic injustice” while also being “an aggressive, performative take on progressive politics that only makes things worse

To put it more provocatively, Blair has done more for socialism than Corbyn, however much Socialists like to use the term Blairite as an insult. Because he was electable and got stuff done.

Yep, however Corbyn, Momentum et al have never forgiven him for getting elected – an unforgivable sin in their eyes. Which pretty much means we won’t see another Labour government in my lifetime. Labour has just become a left wing interest group, of very little interest to anyone else.

Barack Obama made this point repeatedly about two years ago.

He was making the point that simply being judgemental isn’t the way to effect change. So is being “woke” about being uncompromising judgemental? Or was he making the point that slamming others to feel better about ourselves is fruitless and counter productive? Isn’t that true about all issues, not just about whatever “woke” issues are?

a new (& easier to spell) word for Left-Wing sanctimoniousness

That sounds just as wide ranging a catch all. If you push for you council to collect plastic recycling, because you think it’s in the interest of residents and the environment, is that “wokism”. Or does it only become wokism if you try and shame people into recycling their plastic waste?

Where is the line? If you’re a teenager, and you draw people’s attention to racist abuse going on in your school.. is that “wokism”, or does it only become so if you seek harsh sanctions for those involved in the bullying?

Is it the issues, the attitude, the messaging, the remedies sought or the calls for redress? What makes something “Woke”?

Yep, however Corbyn, Momentum et al have never forgiven him for getting elected – an unforgivable sin in their eyes. Which pretty much means we won’t see another Labour government in my lifetime. Labour has just become a left wing interest group, of very little interest to anyone else.

Depends whether Domonic Cummings was right last night in his Tweet.

Is there a center ground worth fighting over and both parties need to be center enough to steal votes from each other to achieve their 51% in the marginal seats.

Or is Dom correct and there is no center ground. You either have to appeal to the center of the right, or the center of the left in order to get the far left/right to turn up and vote at all.

The problem for Labour and the left is Brexit proved Dom correct on Brexit and the right in general. But that didn’t work when Labour did the same with Corbyn.

Personally (and mostly to avoid becoming a bitter, twisted, angry, jaded keyboard ranter/pub bore) I choose to believe that democracy is mostly the winner and that the wisdom of crowds holds true. The majority want those free market, small government ideals, so that’s what they get. Perhaps that’s a good thing. Maybe it means that for the majority life is no longer as shit as it was a century ago. We still end up with a Labour opposition holding them to account, but the majority have democratically decided that their interests are best served by a right-wing government.

Because he was electable and got stuff done.

He is rich! Very rich! Blair is doing well.

He was making the point that simply being judgemental isn’t the way to effect change. So is being “woke” about being uncompromising judgemental?

A dilemma for Woke.

On the one hand they want to retain their Woke identity, on the other hand they need to sleep with the “devil” which they don’t want.

Maybe if we stopped faction fighting about what names we should or shouldn’t call ourselves or each other, and actually set out what we wanted a fairer society to be in terms of opportunities, employment, social care etc etc, we might make some progress.

But as this thread has gone the same way as all the others that refer to left-wing politics or politicians, that seems unlikely.

That sounds just as wide ranging a catch all. If you push for you council to collect plastic recycling, because you think it’s in the interest of residents and the environment, is that “wokism”. Or does it only become wokism if you try and shame people into recycling their plastic waste?

Perhaps it is the fact that you choose to campaign on the issue of plastic recycling rather than certain other issues, on the grounds it is ‘Woke’ to do. Don’t get me wrong, I see myself as Centre-Left & have voted Green ever since it was the Ecology Party, but I do recognise that an awful lot of bandwagon-jumping goes on.

I don’t honestly think that recycling plastic is a good issue to debate ‘wokeism’ on. I have in mind, for example, the thornier issues around trans rights or debates on whether BLM is a ‘movement’ or a ‘moment’.

He is rich! Very rich! Blair is doing well.

Had nothing to do with him getting elected. He decided he wanted to get elected and along with Alastair Cambell they made the necessary compromises to do so. A very simple method which worked very well. No one since, in the Labour party, has been prepared to make the necessary compromises, so failed miserably at getting elected.

the thornier issues around trans rights

An interesting point, but no idea how much appeal it has to middle england (the ones who actually vote). Probably quite high up the youth agenda (complete guess) but they are notorious for not voting. Personally, as a 50 year old, I’m rather ‘meh’ on the subject, seems complex, highly contraversial and at the end of the day I’ve other things to worry about.

Yep, however Corbyn, Momentum et al have never forgiven him for getting elected – an unforgivable sin in their eyes

Ah yes of course. People dislike him because despite being handed a winning ticket from Smith he then decided to drag the party rightwards and destroy its traditional base.
Unlike the idiots who still worship him and want to dust it off for round 2 though he actually has some brains and knew it was a short term gig. Hence why he walked away as the winner and left the mess to Brown to deal with.

on the grounds it is ‘Woke’ to do

So it’s about motivation? This all feels so vague and circular…

It’s powerful word, for sure. I’m still none the wiser how you can avoid being charged with it though.

Hence why he walked away as the winner and left the mess to Brown to deal with.

Every inside account I’ve read says that he didn’t “walk away”, he was pushed. Brown didn’t suddenly find himself accidentally in the hot seat because Blair did a runner, did he?

An interesting point, but no idea how much appeal it has to middle england (the ones who actually vote). Probably quite high up the youth agenda (complete guess) but they are notorious for not voting. Personally, as a 50 year old, I’m rather ‘meh’ on the subject, seems complex, highly contraversial and at the end of the day I’ve other things to worry about.

My point exactly! (not well expressed by me earlier in the thread, sorry if it came across as trollish).

I – perhaps mistakenly, it seems – consider ‘wokeism’ to be intellectual navel gazing over semantics or issues that are important only to vanishingly small parts of the populace, at the expense of focussing on things that are of much broader concern.

Maybe if we stopped faction fighting about what names we should or shouldn’t call ourselves

Aside from its not fraction fighting in this case. Its trying to get people to define what they mean by “woke”. Its clearly meant as an insult but what do people think it stands for.

Every inside account I’ve read says that he didn’t “walk away”, he was pushed.

He was pushed earlier than he wanted to go but he was clear he wasnt going to go for a fourth term way before that. Indeed thats part of why he was pushed since people wanted to give Brown time to bed in.
Blair wasnt an idiot and could see the constant drop in numbers.

at the expense of focussing on things that are of much broader concern

That’s more like it. Before this thread, my understanding of it was “overly focused on the needs, and support for minorities, rather than the majority”, which I think fits in with that description. And why it’s such powerful a political tool… “they’re only interested in the concerns of _____, not you and people like you”. Of course the “only” bit is rarely true, but it is an accusation that can be thrown at anyone interested in having a society that works for everyone.

Their support of BLM, an inherently rac1st organisation

really? wow, dude, you need to do some reading

I have done plenty. To quote Black Lives Matter.com on the about page

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

Now I am all for stopping violence against any community that is being inflicted by any other community. All violence is wrong full stop and rarely achieves the intended ambition. I don’t see why violence by white people against blacks people is any worse than violence within communities, between any other ethnic groups. Why target one specific section of the community?

If you rewrote the quote above and swapped the word black for white would it be acceptable?

I have done plenty. To quote Black Lives Matter.com on the about page

That doesn’t read as racist to me, am I missing something?

I don’t see why violence by white people against blacks people is any worse than violence within communities, between any other ethnic groups.

Who said it was? Violence occurs for many reasons. If you have a way of trying to address ALL violence with one campaign… feel free to share it. Domestic abuse campaigns don’t preclude that stranger on stranger violence also needs addressing. Etc.

This is why the “Woke” charge is so dangerous… if you set up a support group or campaign about any issue, it can be charged as not being “broad” enough, and the pretence/accusation can be that anyone involved it cares about no one else.

This it the “all lives matter” approach thrown at BLM.

Or “no kid should go hungry here” approach thrown at charities working abroad.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the people of Hartlepool are in fact seeing that believing in Socialism and voting for it since the demise of coal mining and shipbuilding and everything else hasn’t worked.. Perhaps the idea that economic policies are set to minimize government intervention/tax and as such reward individual effort has some appeal?

I think the hopes of the folk of Hartlepool are precisely the opposite – that good old Boris will bung them some cash to build factories and suchlike, as he promised, and not just **** off once he’s shagged them. Good luck to ’em.

I don’t see why violence by white people against blacks people is any worse than violence within communities,

So it would have been morally equivalent for Hitler to kill 6 million random people and for him to kill 6 million Jews?

That doesn’t read as racist to me, am I missing something?

It’s the usual “all lives matter” bullshine. I wouldn’t feed it.

So it would have been morally equivalent for Hitler to kill 6 million random people and for him to kill 6 million Jews?

I fear I’m walking into a bear trap, but AFAIK, yes. We don’t let Stalin off the hook because the people he murdered were of varying backgrounds.

It’s not the end of Socialism quite the opposite.

It’s Socialism with a different label. The pandemic was predominantly about socialism and it hasn’t finished. Super baffoon announced we weren’t a party of Socialists in October then had to carry on supporting the economy.

Socialism is the only future you’ve actually got – it’s just the label that has been hammered over and over.

Look to Biden…

The UK Goverment generates wealth every time it spends into the economy. With a pandemic still in flight – the country is afloat for that reason.

I would flip this question around and recognise that the market economy is busted without the Government spending into the economy in the first place.

Big changes ahead – look for the bullshit labels as the Tories spend into the economy – probably on all the wrong things!

I fear I’m walking into a bear trap, but AFAIK, yes.

Luckily for us, the law disagrees with you and punishes hate crime.

All seems rather nasty but in my experience this is often the way of those pushing social niceness. Of couse not all but so often religious/socialist/inclusive/lets be nice to everyone types are actually the least tolerant. The ” you must respect my views but stuff yours” idea springs to mind. Equally the idea that equality for all but “only if you are equal to what I want and the average must go up not down” can be prevelant. Its a little bit like the freedom fighters wanting Scottish Independence. It was voted against so they want another chance. I bet you if it had been voted for the same people would have been denying a re-vote.
Look at the Hartlepool figures. More than half voted Conservative. Why can’t the loosers accept that in good grace? Because they are sore losers.

Had nothing to do with him getting elected.

I think I voted for him (well the party but his grinning from ear to ear got me voting) which makes me feel dirty now by just thinking about it.

Well he hit the jackpot and becomes very rich after his PM years, rich beyond ordinary voters’ comprehension. Rich!

Luckily for us, the law disagrees with you a

So, if someone were an advisor to Hitler and he presented a plan to kill 6 million people according to criteria but offered the alternative of killing 7 million people completely at random, the morally correct thing to do would be to take the latter? (Feel free to adjust the numbers to an appropriate level in your answer.)