CdnFox
-
Posts
23,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
237
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
11 minutes ago, robosmith said:
Things are always "simple" when you make up your own word definitions or pretend that the mangled definitions are definitive.
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?
-
9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
The first example I can think of for "wokeness" was when Oprah declared that men who noticed that their wife got fat were evil.
Men needed be excoriated and shamed for anything they did wrong, or even anything that their ancestors did wrong, but God forbid you notice an extra 30 lbs on your wife's ass.
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'.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
This is what I think of when I see you overcompensate with smiley faces.
Anyway, I already proved that Rome used taxes to build infrastructure, whereas you didn't even know that the empire extended into the British Isles. So I think you've been sufficiently schooled on this topic.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
First of all, the books they read are suitable for children. They're only about sexuality in that they explain that some kids have a mother and a father, while other kids may have two fathers or two mothers.
Nope - total lie. Sorry. Remember - if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point.
6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:Secondly, the point of have drag queens there is to show kids that they don't need to follow gender roles. Boys can wear dresses if they want, the same way girls can get jobs in fields that were traditionally for men. It's like have women come to talk about their work in NASA.
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?
-
8 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Anyone who doesn't agree with R10 is a Nazi. That seems to be the only argument he has.
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?
-
9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
Truthfully, woke is just code for 1diotic and it's not just conservatives that think that way.
My mother in law is a vax-cultist who voted for the liberals, she will likely vote for Trudeau again even if she won't admit to it, and even she laughs at wokeists.
Not all leftists are in favour of drag queen story hour, protests at SCJ's homes, rioting/arson/looting, climatards, expensive gas, forgiving student debt, castrating kids without parental approval, banning the word "mom", etc.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
You’re right it is dumb.
Yes, i was aware of that.
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Conservatives are not above pretending burning dogs and slavery are left wing and therefore woke.
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.
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:In fact many on this forum still try to falsely equate slavery and segregation with the “left wing” simply because the Democrat party tolerated those ideas from its southern constituents despite the fact that by all definitions the political beliefs of those southerners were conservative.
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.
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Wrong. Republicans are banning “woke” books across the USA. Florida and Texas are among the worst offenders.
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
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Republicans throw around the word woke whenever they want to try and get away with something that people wouldn’t otherwise tolerate
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Rebound said:
No, honestly it’s because you invented your own definition for the term.
But i posted the DICTIONARY definition. And that's what i use.
See - over your head.
14 minutes ago, Rebound said:
Black people have used the expression for many years to describe a white person who understood their plight.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
-
4 hours ago, Hodad said:
But I don't necessarily agree about a lie by omission--at least not to a degree that it's outside social norms for getting to know someone.
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.
-
Just now, Rebound said:
So “woke” is any political opinion which you disagree with?
is there any “woke” idea which you agree with?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.
-
1 minute ago, robosmith said:
Nope. Original use was quite DIFFERENT. Sorry but YOU (and right wingers) don't get to redefine the original meaning
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
-
10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
In other words “woke” is any idea that can be labeled “left wing”
Well - there's a SLIGHT difference between ideology and ideas, but i suppose that's not ENTIRELY wrong. Lets say yes with caveates.
10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Left wing is any political idea that not accepted by conservatives
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.
10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Therefore “woke” is any political idea not accepted by conservatives.
No as noted, and it's generally better to let people address your first example of being retarded before proceeding to another example.
10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:“Don’t worry we only want to ban things that are woke.
-Said no one ever.
10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:You’re not woke are you?”
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,
-
25 minutes ago, robosmith said:
It was NOT originally used to describe general "left wing ideology." It was specifically used to describe what I said in the OP; the RECOGNITION of equal rights of various MINORITY groups. AKA, blacks, browns, LGBTQ, etc, and the historical denial of those rights. You know, things like the FACT that Black Lives Matter, despite the way they are treated by cops.
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.
25 minutes ago, robosmith said:The right wing mangled it to refer to whatever left wing ideology they didn't like.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
In other worst it’s whatever you say it is. The Salem Witch Trial folks couldn’t have said it better n
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.
-
1 hour ago, Rebound said:
It’s anything you don’t like?
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.
-
2 hours ago, taxme said:
Russia has no aggression plans to invade another country
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.
2 hours ago, taxme said:But China has. China is now trying to prepare the takeover of Tawain by China.
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.
2 hours ago, taxme said:The neocon warmongers in Washington and NATO want a war with Russia. N. Pelosi has been pushing the scenario to happen for years now.
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.
2 hours ago, taxme said:Putin entered Ukraine because of the way Nazi Zelensky was treating the Russian speaking people in the Donbas.
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.
2 hours ago, taxme said:but let's try and get our stories straight. You need to stop listening to the liberal leftist MSM for your only source of news. Try alternative media source for a change.
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.
-
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
Inflation rates were higher for a long time
Irrelevant unless you compare them with income as well. The relevant number is income increase vs inflation.
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Mortgage rates, a lot higher and for a lot longer than you think.
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
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Too many people say it was easier back then to buy a home and that is what I am disputing. It was not.
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.
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:I am saying, inflation and rates are a little thing now and people are panicking whining and crying. Inflation and mortgages are interfering with their lifestyle. So sad.
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!)"
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Boomers paid a price, a heavy price.
For sure. And we haven't even touched on the stagflation of the 80's.
2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Predate? By how many years. I gave you links that go back 80 and 50 years.
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.
-
3 hours ago, robosmith said:
^This was addressed in the OP.
It is ONLY the right wing mangling of the term to TRY to fit THEIR AGENDA with no basis in the way it was ORIGINALLY USED by the left.
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.
QuoteIf wokeness is an explanation for everything, it is also an explanation for nothing.
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.
-
1 minute ago, robosmith said:
All of the most socialistic policies (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP) which ever existed, still EXIST.
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.
-
1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:
You are wrong about what it was like in the early 80's
In the early 80's wages, mine was about $30K per year. Yes, houses were about $100K bit interest rates were 15 to 18%.
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?
1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:Developers played games like selling you a house but keeping the land out of the price for up to 5 years so you could afford to buy. Buying a house was up to the bank, they had almost total control of mortgages back then. In Alberta, people bought houses but then many defaulted.
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.
1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:A industry grew up and they called it dollar dealers. they would buy your house for $1 and then you paid rent. They never paid the mortgage, just collected rent and eventually the banks repossessed the homes.
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.
1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:Inflation was 7 to 12% for many years, not just a blip. Inflation rates for the 70's till well it the 90's was over 5"% and higher and mortgage rates, as I mentioned went over 18%.
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.
1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:Point is, we have gotten very used to low inflation and interest, we bathed in luxuries and ourselves and when the reality hammer hit, we panic.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571
If I'm reading the chart on that URL correctly, the Cretien/Martin years had a surplus. But there had been deficit from Trudeau to Cretien.
Yes - chretien managed to reap the benefits of the unpopular gst and free trade deal mulroney put in place. Those two things did much to wipe out the deficit, along with falling interest rates (which got as high as 20 percent in the 80's Imagine putting the entire national debt on a credit card and keeping up with the payments
)
Trade wiht the us increased 10 fold and the gst was designed specifically to be a deficit killer. But - such things take time. Chretien took over just as the payoff was happening, and combined with some transfers to the provinces he balanced the books. His "surpluses" basically were the money he stole from the EI fund, but he legit did balance the books.
So it would be fair to say that even in Muroney's time deficits had come to be seen as unacceptable, and gov'ts were moving to eliminate it. But certanly by chretien's time they were eliminated and stayed that way till the great recession, and then we went back to balance.
-
15 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Actually...deficit spending started with Trudeau Sr.
There was a time of it then but that did end thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade act. For about 23 year other than the great recession we were all about balances and gov'ts knew it was important. So the next trudeau that came along changed that again.
Woke Nazis destroy a Bible at a free speech event in Albany
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
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.