CdnFox

You literally say ALL conservatives are sub humans and constantly claim ALL conservatives believe this or that, you've made it pretty clear you don't think people are individuals.

If you thought i was referring to you when i said 'little miss propaganda" - you were mistaken LOLOLOL

We know, we know - you've been very clear. "Nazi= not me or people i agree with" - AA You've said as much a thousand times.

It's even more simple when you use the dictionary definition. and yet - despite being that simple, you still can't figure it out. Well - i' m sure we can find SOMETHING that's simple enough even for YOU to discuss if we try hard. How high can you count?

Well that would be an example of that 'intersectionality' i mentioned. And it's pretty hilarious. I think the first one where i heard that term was two people discussing that if you don't date trans people you're a sexist and a nazi. And the one said 'People need to get woke' or the like. that's when it was still a 'good' term for the left But i've heard it applied to other things - like AOC's climate plan change where she was going to ban airplanes and trains, and every home had to be upgraded to a high standard of insulation - like EVERY SINGLE HOME IN THE US - within 10 years, and there was a bunch of other nonsense. People called it her 'woke climate plan'.

This is what i think of when you've realized you've lost a discussion point and compensate with pictures And in fact I proved that it was not taxes that made up pubilc money - and you didn't even reazlie hadrian's wall was in england Sorry kid - but everyone knows when you resort to stoopid pictures and you start lying about what was said that you're running home with your tail between your legs.

Nope - total lie. Sorry. Remember - if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point. It's still entirely sexual and nothing at all like having women come from nasa. Many feel, with good reason, that introducing sexual issues to children too early causes a lot of problems. And there's a reasonable body of work to support that. And i'm not just talking about lgb stuff - i'm taking about hetero or any kind of sexual sensitive discussions. Thats why traditionally adults tell kids babies come from 'mommy's tummy'. Now - perhaps YOU feel that you should expose YOUR children to sexually explicit issues early. And if that's your decision as a parent then you can certainly make arrangements for that. BUt a lot of people feel it's child abuse, and using public resources to promote that is very concerning for them. So - it's a vaild issue to address. Why do we need to be teaching kids that young about sexual issues?

Well anyone who disagrees with the left is nazi. And anything the conservatives disagree with is woke apperently according to little miss propaganda over there, and many conservatives here seem to disagree with r10 from time to time, So does that make him a woke nazi? Can we call him a waxy? or a noke?

Well - sure - there's the 'soft left' or 'llberal left' as we say here who are basically just left of center who also think the seriously left or radical left are bonkers. And fair enough.

Yes, i was aware of that. Now YOU'RE dumb show me an example of right wingers claiming the left is pro slavery or dog burning. The voices in your head are not your friends. Actually that did happen, as you know. But i doubt anyone here is suggesting the left wants to bring back slavery. The left on the other hand has said such things about the right https://www.huffpost.com/entry/okay-gop-presidential-fie_b_8014798 OK, GOP Presidential Field, Who's for Bringing Back Slavery? So the left literally does what you cry the right will do, but doesn't. Sorry - still right. They're not banning books because they're 'woke'. They're banning books because of sexual content that is inappropriate for children FROM SCHOOL LIBRARIES where children can access them. So they're not actually banning any books. The books will be published and available, Just not in schools. They also don't allow mein kampf. Some things are inappropriate for young people at school. Remember what i taught you about if you have to lie to make a point, it's probably not a good point? On the other hand the left DEMANDED that some dr seuss books be cancelled - so again accusing the right of doing what the left is doing the left tried to make the term popular, but now is pissed off because now people recognize those same left wing ideas it ALWAYS stood for are dumb. And they're sick of it. That's why - get woke go broke. People are done with that kind of stupid and while the left was proud of 'woke', now they're trying to pretend it has nothing to do with them. Sorry - woke is being correctly used, people just don't like you.

But i posted the DICTIONARY definition. And that's what i use. See - over your head. Good for them - as i said it includes intersectionality. BUt that's Not ALL it includes. Sorry man. Some time when we have a topic that's more your speed lets try again

But there is a difference. A person has no reason in most cases to believe they know the answers to many of those things you mention. But - if they meet someone who presents as a 'woman' or a 'man' when they see them, there is a pretty reasonable expectation that the person BELIEVES he or she KNOWS the other person's bio sex. So - if you allow them to CONTINUE believing something that you know is untrue and highly relevant to why they asked you on a date, then it's not just a lie by omission, it's just a regular lie, and fraud as well. You are allowing them to proceed knowing they have a false belief that is highly relevant to their decisions because it suits your agenda. It would be extremely dishonest. If a friend came to me and said he was out on a date with a girl and on the second date she reviled that i would say "Dump her right now - you can never trust another thing she says". If you know someone is asking you out on a date for romantic reasons, and it's likely they have resaon to believe your bio sex is different than what it is, then you need to be up front with that right away. Otherwise, you're just dishonest.

The sad and bizarre thing is it was the left who only a few short decades ago were the ones championing free speech on campuses in the US. Now they're actively campaigning against it.

Man... it's really looking like this concept may be over your head. I don't understand, it seems pretty simple to me but you really are struggling with it. I'm sorry - we may have to wait for a conversation that's more your speed, where you can get your head around the basics. I can't explain it more simply than i did and you still can't figure it out, i'm not sure what i can do to help you.

Nope. Not a recognized source for definitions. The dictionary definition i gave is factual. Sorry big guy - you're wrong. Oh - and yeah i absolutely get to define it any way i like if i'm using the word. Words evolve constantly. But more importantly - websters gets to define it. It's kind of their thing swing and a miss The left started it, the left used it frequently to refer to any of their ideas, the rest of the world realized those ideas are largely bad thinking not based in fact and now 'woke' is a pejorative term because left wing thinking has become so poor it's insulting to be said to be thinking that way. Sucks to be you

Well - there's a SLIGHT difference between ideology and ideas, but i suppose that's not ENTIRELY wrong. Lets say yes with caveates. No, that would be dumb. Conservatives are strongly against slavery. Being pro slavery would not be 'woke'. Conservatives are against burning dogs for fun. That would not mean burning dogs was woke. There are even some ideas that both the left and the right agree on more or less, so they span political lines and couldn't be said to be left wing. Left wing ideology is specifically that ideology which is accepted by the left exclusively by the left. just as right wing ideology is ideology accepted by the right and not accepted by the left. This is pretty straight forward. No as noted, and it's generally better to let people address your first example of being retarded before proceeding to another example. -Said no one ever. I doubt that i would be considered to represent an ideology that is exclusive to and accepted by the left LOL Now smarten up and try harder. That was even worse than your last attempt. You can do better than that,

Nope. Sorry - tonnes of examples out there of the left wing using it differently than that - that's just a little revisionist history on your part. Of course it ALSO meant that - that would be an example of left wing ideology. Certainly the intersectional culure wars the left started would encompass that. But it wasn't relegated to that. Nope. They use it to refer to left wing ideology or far left ideology which does include the culture wars, sure. But includes ohter things as well. Such as AOC's suggesting that we ban airplanes. etc. In fact - here's AOC and newsweek agreeing on that very fact from back in 2021 https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-why-democrats-woke-problem-election-1646842 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has fired back at political commentators who suggest Democrats face a "woke problem," following last week's poor election results. Webster's Dictionary defines "woke" as: "Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." However the term has also been used as an insult. Which is how everyone has been using it since day one. Aware of the issues and 'facts'. Especially about social justice issues - but not exclusive, and especaily about racial issues, but not exclusive. Sorry, You were wrong. Since day one 'woke has referred to issues that the left and far left subscribe to and that definitely includes intersectionality, but not JUST intersectionality.

No, you'd have to be 7 levels of dumb to think that. Oh... sorry. It specifically refers to ideology that is left wing or far left including specifically the intersectional culture war stuff. It's not hard kiddo. Try again - maybe get your mommy to explain. That's twice you've shown up now and claimed i've said something i didn't. here's a hint for you in life - if you have to constantly lie to prove your point, you don' t have a very good point.

nonsense. thats the kind of trivial mental diarrhea some on the left push but it's a dumb thing to say or think. I don't like sad movies. Woke isn't sad movies. Woke is specifically ideology that is recognized as left wing or far left. Often something that is more about 'muh feels' than facts. It's not just anything someone doesn't like.

ohhh PLEASE!!!! That's what they said after they took Crimea, and that's what they said for a month before THIS invasion!!! They absolutely do have and if it takes them a few years to save up for it they don't mind. Sure - they have for some time and have been building their military to make that happen. Introducing aircraft carriers, modernizing their weapons, etc. It's been going on for a decade. Nobody 'pushed' russia into invading. Everyone begged them not to and there was no reason to other than blind ambition. Now that they have - the US is correctly using the opportunity to smash their military without having to go to war. Sure komrade. That's why he only reinforced the donbas and didn't try to take over the whole country, right? Ohhh.... wait.... You might know a brain damaged 5 year old kid who believes that crap.... nobody else is going to. He invaded because he wanted to own the ukraine as part of his empire again. There is NOTHING straight about your story. And it's PAINFULLY obvious. Putin's comments since then prove you wrong as well. He believes the ukraine is part of russia and he wants it back. He doesn't care who was in charge of it - he was going to attack as soon as he thought he would win. He doesn't give a flying fart about the donbas people, other than they're part of teh Ukraine and he wants the ukraine. This was a war of aggression and conquest plain and simple, and was predicted when he took crimea. BUt it turns out he punched the tarbaby - and with two hands and a foot stuck we'll just keep handing ukraine the tools to beat the crap out of him till his economy and his military might is crippled. Then he's no threat for quite a while.

Irrelevant unless you compare them with income as well. The relevant number is income increase vs inflation. No - they're actually exactly what i said. They were high in the first part of the 80's, down around 10 percent in the latter part, averaged around 13. An they reduced going into the 90's, which was a much lower average than the 80s. This is precisely what i said That is ALSO PRECISELY what i said Glad you agree. And you're right, when you look at the actual cost of ownership after financing there's not much daylight between then and now. Yeah - but they are right to do so. Sudden increases in those two things are very hard on people. Believe me - people were panicking plenty in the beginning of the 80's And part of it this time was the bank and the gov'ts fault - they said for years there's NO chance of increased interest rates in the forseeable future. I had a big argument on line with a guy about that in 2021, and he pulled out all kinds of BoC and gov't reports and interviews stating that - no WAY interest rates were going up. I told him that he was wrong and precisely why it had to - but a lot of people believed as he did - there's NO chance, So when interest rates shoot up like a rocket then next year... of course people who believed the BoC and gov't are like "WOT HOPPEN!!!!! (Derp!)" For sure. And we haven't even touched on the stagflation of the 80's. Sigh - letsl look at what i said: But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle. The problems the kid is talking about are things like housing affordability. The reason it's so hard to afford a home now compared for example to 1995 or 2005 or even 2010 did not start in the last few years. Yes, the 80s were very bad. The 90's were better by far and wages began to outstrip inflation and homes were pretty affordable with a little work and sacrifice. So it got better for a time, then it got worse. And the reason it got worse again predates the current inflation and interest spiral. So the stuff from the 70's 80's and 90's aren't relevant to the cause of TODAY"S issues - those began just after the 2000's for the most part. It's like how the recession that happened in the 80's doesn't tell us anything about the recession that happened in 09.

Hogwash. It's actually the same usage. The left used it to mean someone who has, or the act of having, become accepting of a wide variety of left wing ideology, and the right means it to mean the same thing. but the right (and now society in general) identifies those traits as being less positive and the word has become a pejorative. But it still means the same thing. 'This is left wing ideology, you accept this ideology as being legitimate, you are woke". The farther left, the more woke. Leftist mean it in a good way, everyone else means it in a less good way. That is just plain childish. First off - as i said and apparently as you agreed it's not an explination for everything, it's an explanation of a variety of left wing and intersectional ideology. it's like saying "Math could mean anything". No - math refers to numeric and alphanumeric calculations in general ecompassing trig, quadratics, etc etc. It means something very real and solid even tho it's a term that encompass a lot. I mean - the term 'universe' means everything that is within space-time, you don't get more 'everything' than that - but nobody would argue it means nothing. It's a nonsense phrase that one might hear in a childrens movie.

they aren't socalistic per se - it depends on the implementation. The left was unable to pursue them further and they're nerfed at acceptable levels for the public. RIght of center people don't really want to see NO social safety net. They recognize it's value. They just want to see it minimized and a focus on recovery back to a taxpaying citizen.

Woke isn't all that hard. It just refers to the body of topics theories and actions that fall under the perceived left wing socialist intersectional ideology prevalent today. It is the follow on from social justice warrior for which the precursor was socialist or communist. It's the left wing version of the 'far right' for many. Because it includes a body of ideology and practices it's not really appropriate to define it outside of that, as the specifics of those ideologies and practices may change from time to time. The left hates it because it's becoming a pejorative and being recognized more and more as a 'bad thing' in one way or another and so they'd rather disparage the term. But it works well.

This is pretty much what i said. Interest rates averaged about 13 during the 80's, higher early on and lower later but other than that how is this different than what i mentioned? I feel like you're just making my point stronger - the point being it wasn't radically easier to become a home buyer then than now. That wasn't common or normal across the country. But - there WERE a number of unusual schemes during those times that would pop up here and there. Lease to own was popular for a while. But lots of people bought homes the same way eveyrone does - get a mortgage, by the house. That was still the most common. Well not for that entire time, no. Inflation was bad for a while (that's what triggered higher interest same as now) but the 18 percent (peaking at 20 i believe) only happened for 2 or so years. We panicked then - who are you kidding And once again we see the weird little schemes to buy houses pop up, etc. But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.