The awe-inspiring conservative counter-offensive against woke nonsense

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see why it has to be.  I don't feel that way about discussion with you.

 

Everyone feels that way with you Mike.  I've pointed this out many times, you've asked me to point it out as you do it - you don't really 'discuss' or 'debate'. Instead you favour kind of cheezy debate 'tactics' that you hope make you look intelligent and reasonable while completely dodging the questions  and issues you can't defend (but would like to).

You twist words, you demand definitions for things that have been defined nuimerous times and then just continue on when it's pointed out as if there's still no definition. You demand evidence without giving any, you play the "oh why do you even care, that's such a non issue that you're a fool for even bringing it up" game that the left loves.

And a small handful of others tricks. To actually pin you down to an opinion is rare and to actually get you to defend that position in the face of evidence is non existent.

Cheap tricks and distractions are simply no substitute for reason ,logic and knowledge.  they may impress weak minded fools who are of a like mind but that's about it.

You really should try actually discussing or debating once in a while.  You might manage to put an edge on that brain of yours if you use it - otherwise it just stays dull.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Hmm, maybe.  I think it has something to do specifically with identity politics though.  Like, pharmacare or even "guaranteed minimum income" isn't woke at all.

Perspectiv disagrees, and would put Safe Injection in there too.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

What would be an example?

I think their defintion is more or less correct, or at least more specific and therefore more accurate than yours.  As I said, woke is related to identity politics.

The Bud light campaign, and probably the questions of sports and education are not really included in that definition.  Pronouns and other accommodations are not included.

The definition is about material favoritism based on groupings, what used to be called affirmative action from what I see.

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The only thing you seem conservative about is your desire to a return to an era when people were more civil.  Most if not all of your social views are mainstream progressive.  Even your economic views might be called "progressive".  Argus and BC2004 and all the other conservatives on MLW have socially conservatives views that you don't share, and probably many economically conservative views you don't share.  So calling yourself a "conservative" is at best confusing to others.

I'd call you a polite progressive.

WestCan just expressed tolerance for transgender protection, just as Jim Flaherty did.

If you really want to start trying to split hairs on individual beliefs of mine, you're going to find yourself overwhelmed with complexities.   

I look at all of these things, identity politics issues, and I take it back to the political and judicial processes that got us to this point in history.  People who want to overkill by using Parliament to pass laws against specific small details, or those who do not have tolerance for social change... These are people who do not believe in our institutions.

I do.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. Everyone feels that way with you Mike.  I've pointed this out many times, you've asked me to point it out as you do it - you don't really 'discuss' or 'debate'. Instead you favour kind of cheezy debate 'tactics'...

2. that you hope make you look intelligent and reasonable while completely dodging the questions  and issues you can't defend (but would like to).

3. You twist words, you demand definitions for things that have been defined nuimerous times and then just continue on when it's pointed out as if there's still no definition. You demand evidence without giving any, you play the "oh why do you even care, that's such a non issue that you're a fool for even bringing it up" game that the left loves.

And a small handful of others tricks. To actually pin you down to an opinion is rare and to actually get you to defend that position in the face of evidence is non existent.

Cheap tricks and distractions are simply no substitute for reason ,logic and knowledge.  they may impress weak minded fools who are of a like mind but that's about it.

You really should try actually discussing or debating once in a while.  You might manage to put an edge on that brain of yours if you use it - otherwise it just stays dull.

1. Pretty sure not everybody.  For tactics, you just stated that I was a liar after I am posted an opinion. How's that?

2. What's an example of a question I'm trying to dodge? And stop trying to read my mind as to what my intentions are. I'm just stating my opinion, and my logic. I'm trying to sound intelligent?  I think that says more about your reading of my words, than my intentions.

If I didn't answer a question, ask it again. I just did the Same thing with Perspektiv.  He doesn't answer every question I ask him.  And I don't assume he's trying to trick me.

3. I don't post my own opinions on things as often as I criticize others. Most of my opinions, as I say over and over when conveying my conservative stance, reflect a centrist status quo. The reason I'm on a discussion board is to help improve the discussion, and contribute to the public sphere.  And I see so many bad arguments , and fallacies , and I see more use in pointing those out.

Everybody on here has lots of opinions that mirror my own. My opinions aren't that unique. But go ahead and ask. I sure don't think that I'm running away from questions as you seem to think.

 

Edited March 4 by Michael Hardner

[Perspektiv]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's significant IMO.

You're the only poster to whom it is. The word is also widely used.

Kind of seems like grasping at straws, to passive aggressively dismiss somethings existence. 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your opinion.

"Michael Hardner's Fresh Pretzel Shop". Tell me this wouldn't look good in an LED backlit sign.

Front door, with BLM flag door decal, the LGBTQ flag decal, Palestine flag (along with free Palestine), and among all others, an "entrance" sign with an "EVERYBODY is welcome here" sign that drowns it out.

"If you don't agree with my politics, you better feel very uncomfortable coming here" being the desired vibe being set.

Beautiful.

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your use doesn't meet the definition.

It meets the definition in the dictionary. When you consider how the woke movement is embedded in actual policy, in financial institutions and literally has become part of our daily discourse, being pushed in the media, movies and so on.

You simply disagree with it, but it passes the sniff test.

The BS you push, however does not. 💩

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

you don't think that I am woke. 

You definitely aren't woke. 

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How exactly does "wokeness" make the cost of living high?

Woke policies contribute to it.

From environmental policies that are essentially nothing but virtue signaling, and bureaucratic pushed to shame people like me, who contribute to the economy, to literally hand out thousands to many who do not.

From a cost of living inflated further by hand outs, tightening the belts of the middle class, which literally are your social driving force.

Allowing far too many refugees in, again, to meet woke quotas vs being pragmatic in ensuring you don't overwhelm your systems, driving up the demand, contributing to our market not currently being a buyers one.

Woke policies aren't the only culprit, but I see its finger prints, on part of what is making my life so much more expensive, and what I take home from my paycheque being far lesser, even though I have had 3 salary increases since covid-19.

My salary is mercifully high enough, that I never had to consider selling any of my assets.

Many on my street had to sell their properties, no longer able to afford them. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You probably don't want to go near that one though

You're more passive aggressive than my ex wife. It's a bad look.

[Moonlight Graham]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Perspectiv disagrees, and would put Safe Injection in there too.

I don't think safe injections are woke

[Moonlight Graham]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Bud light campaign, and probably the questions of sports and education are not really included in that definition.  Pronouns and other accommodations are not included.

The definition is about material favoritism based on groupings, what used to be called affirmative action from what I see.

 

Trans/LGBT  politics is identity politics, therefore could included in woke. 

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't think safe injections are woke

Okay so let's notice, especially for those who say we all know what it is, how difficult it is to define "woke".

28 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Trans/LGBT  politics is identity politics, therefore could included in woke. 

Also does not meet the definition Groot and WestCan have touched on.

With you and me and Perspektiv, that makes five conservatives with five different opinions so far.

---+++---

This is why my definition, which is admittedly subjective and general, works best IMO 

Edited March 4 by Michael Hardner

[Perspektiv]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Who's to say that gay people want drag queens to read books to little kids? How does that even make sense?

I'm straight and I don't think that dominatrixes should read to kids. 

I feel bad for leftists who aren't woke jokes

I have seen so many in the gay community decry the portion of their movement which took things too far.

Many in the community including myself, feel disillusioned with the direction the movement has taken.

I remember joining a community for asexuals, and how welcoming it was to ideas, and everyone. I loved it.

So I saw the sudden shift to push gender ideology, and the pressure for me to adopt words like cis to describe myself.

Like this was their offering to me for me to be more inclusive with my language. 

I was ganged up on by hundreds in threads, and many seeing I was scrappy and knew what I stood for, just gave up in trying to change my mind.

It sounded more brainwashed as things went on, vs opening a conversation about people like us.

Went from centrist to as far left as you could possibly go.

Either you join, or in my case, when the book When Harry Became Sally came out--the sheer histrionics on that website about the danger on books like this, piqued my curiosity about them, so I bought several similar books.

The books were balanced, but they refused to toe the line. As a result  some were banned.

I literally felt like I was smuggling cocaine across the border when I ordered that book, as it was banned anywhere I could see in Canada. I can't even read it in public.

I literally would be better off taking a dump downtown and yelling at cars  to blend in better than reading that book on a bus.

That book was labeled as dangerous. Am a rebel, so this music to my ears.

You give any group this kind of power, especially if what they are peddling isn't embedded in fact, and you're taking social experimentation to loony levels.

Only in time we will tell how bad that experiment was.

[Nationalist]

Oh for Gawd's sake.

EXAMPLES OF "WOKE":

1. Hard drug and needle dispensaries.

2. Low or no cost bail.

3. Lack of strict prosecutions.

4. Calling climate change a "crisis" and all the abject bullshit that comes with.

5. Trannie storytime. 

6. Pornograhy in elementary schools.

7. Masks vaxxes and lockdowns.

8. Fiscal irresponsibility and expansion of social services. 

9. Unbridled and unhinged hatred of mankind.

10. Insane immigration policies.

11. Insane size of bureaucracy. 

And

12. Unnatural colored hair.

I forgot 1.

Lucky number 13. Biological men playing in women's sports, using the women's change and bathrooms.

Now you have a good idea what "woke" is @Michael Hardner. As if you didn't already know...

You fit comfy cozy into several of these BTW. Now...call me a "chud".

Edited March 4 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Oh for Gawd's sake.

EXAMPLES OF "WOKE":

1. Hard drug and needle dispensaries.

2. Low or no cost bail.

3. Lack of strict prosecutions.

4. Calling climate change a "crisis" and all the abject bullshit that comes with.

5. Trannie storytime. 

6. Pornograhy in elementary schools.

7. Masks vaxxes and lockdowns.

8. Fiscal irresponsibility and expansion of social services. 

9. Unbridled and unhinged hatred of mankind.

10. Insane immigration policies.

11. Insane size of bureaucracy. 

And

12. Unnatural colored hair.

I forgot 1.

Lucky number 13. Biological men playing in women's sports, using the women's change and bathrooms.

Now you have a good idea what "woke" is @Michael Hardner. As if you didn't already know...

You fit comfy cozy into several of these BTW. Now...call me a "chud".

Sorry, my definition is actually a definition. You can't define something by listing a bunch of examples.  It's the tower of Babel problem.

Colored hair? Rocket Richard used Grecian formula.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Pretty tough to define that. Deficits?

Try to keep me out of it. This to me is an exercise in politics, in defining the terms of a discussion.

Not calling you a chud, because at least you're trying.

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry, my definition is actually a definition. You can't define something by listing a bunch of examples.  It's the tower of Babel problem.

Colored hair? Rocket Richard used Grecian formula.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Pretty tough to define that. Deficits?

Try to keep me out of it. This to me is an exercise in politics, in defining the terms of a discussion.

Not calling you a chud, because at least you're trying.

Green or pink is not a natural hair color.

Fiscal irresponsibility...spending money you don't have. Not just gassing up your car with a credit card, but printing money with no possible way to cover the expense.

Mike...you may be able to fool the Libbies. But you don't fool me. Your biggest issue is the fear porn of the anti-fossil fuel goofs. You willingly want to punish man for burning them for energy. There is really no doubting or disputing that.

And anyone who dare oppose this...foolishness...is just a "chud" as far as you're concerned. 

Now...wanna discuss your pure hatred for modern conservatism? Wanna discuss the virtues of lockdowns? Wanna call the truckers and farmers "chuds"...yet again?

You know Gawd damn well what "woke" is, and you happen to be all in favor of the "woke" agenda. 

Have a nice day...

Edited March 4 by Nationalist

[Ethan Wylde]

On 3/2/2024 at 2:06 PM, CdnFox said:

people are becoming intolerant of them.

Left wing, socialist, woke - these ideologies are starting to become hated and reviled, and young people are turning away from them.

Well, that us your point of view anyway. Did if escape Jordan Peterson's attention that the media through which he is opining is also in receipt of federal funds? The mere fact that he misleads on this point alone, makes the rest of his piece suspect.

It's the new conservatism, twist the truth and backfill with snappy lines of half truths, and you will fool those who are unhappy and largely unaware

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry, my definition is actually a definition. You can't define something by listing a bunch of examples.  It's the tower of Babel problem.

Colored hair? Rocket Richard used Grecian formula.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Pretty tough to define that. Deficits?

Try to keep me out of it. This to me is an exercise in politics, in defining the terms of a discussion.

Not calling you a chud, because at least you're trying.

Nationalist woke examples suck but fit under your definition.  Vaccines and masks being woke is ridiculous.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Nationalist woke examples suck but fit under your definition.  Vaccines and masks being woke is ridiculous.

Yes, but for him exactly because it has to be subjective.  And the problem with a list format is that you can never list all of the "woke" things.

For example, could you define delicious by listing all the delicious things ?  No.

I have been criticized, and I'll admit it's fair comment, about not weighing in on my own takes on things.  Perspektiv and CanFox say that.  Well, this is related to political mechanics, the public sphere etc. so it's easier to put something out there without looking like you're taking sides.

[Nationalist]

59 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Nationalist woke examples suck but fit under your definition.  Vaccines and masks being woke is ridiculous.

Tell me...did masking produce any benefits?

Quote

We now have the most authoritative estimate of the value provided by wearing masks during the pandemic: approximately zero. The most rigorous and extensive review of the scientific literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/approximately-zero

Have a nice day...

[Nationalist]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but for him exactly because it has to be subjective.  And the problem with a list format is that you can never list all of the "woke" things.

For example, could you define delicious by listing all the delicious things ?  No.

I have been criticized, and I'll admit it's fair comment, about not weighing in on my own takes on things.  Perspektiv and CanFox say that.  Well, this is related to political mechanics, the public sphere etc. so it's easier to put something out there without looking like you're taking sides.

LOL...Mike...you've already chosen sides. Your side is the one that has nothing but disdain for any anti-establishment ideas. You believe the CBC and defend their lies consistently. You opposed the Trucker protests and supported the asinine idea that they were some sort of anarchistic criminals. You perpetuate the fear porn of the Climate Cult knowing full well there is no crisis. And your hatred of the current conservative leaders in North America is rather obvious.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Pretty sure not everybody.  For tactics, you just stated that I was a liar after I am posted an opinion. How's that?

 

Maybe your mother still thinks your kewl.

And the word 'liar' doesn't appear in the post you're responding to so i have no idea what you're referencing -  so this is just more distraction. You're hoping to change the subject again. DIshonest.

Quote

2. What's an example of a question I'm trying to dodge? And stop trying to read my mind as to what my intentions are. I'm just stating my opinion, and my logic.

I point them out all the time mike.  I'll continue to do so for your benefit but there are tonnes of examples - it's a very common phenomenon with you.

And you don't state your opinion OR your logic by and large.  Look at your pathetic attempt here to dodge the issues by distracting the argument and dodging the issue by claiming there's no definition of woke - as if you're just too stupid to get your head around it.  You rely on other peoples difficulty in articulating it to avoid dealing with the issue but that's just a cheezy trick. People are like that with MOST words - they know what they mean but they have a hard time clearly expressing a proper definition -  everyone basically understands what 'ironic' means but the vast majority won't get the definition right. Most people can't get the definition for 'chair' right without a few tries.

It's cheap and cheezy and dishonest.

Oh - and your motivations are quite clear.  No "Mind reading" necessary.

 

Quote

If I didn't answer a question, ask it again. I just did the Same thing with Perspektiv.  He doesn't answer every question I ask him.  And I don't assume he's trying to trick me.

You never answer the questions.

Quote

3. I don't post my own opinions on things as often as I criticize others.

Because you're not here to discuss things.  You have no intention of having a reasoned logical discussion, you're here to attack things and people you don't like without actually putting forward a logical argument.

And that's what you're being called on. That's why people say its like a contest with you.

Quote

Everybody on here has lots of opinions that mirror my own. My opinions aren't that unique. But go ahead and ask. I sure don't think that I'm running away from questions as you seem to think.

How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?

[Perspektiv]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Perspectiv disagrees, and would put Safe Injection in there too.

Well, safe injection without emphasis on treatment, is a woke idea. 

You're incentivizing drug use. 

Coupled with softening crime laws in those areas, creating virtually lawless kilometers of typically downtown cores, where I can literally sell these people fetanyl and have police turn a blind eye due to of course, being underfunded (wonder why), and the sheer explosion of the issue.

Public defecation on private property? No problem. 

This, along with the crime this brings along with it, driving businesses to leave in droves, as drug addicts look for money for their next hit.

Ignores data (on the lack of treatment being offered to the growing need of safe injections, for someone wanting to turn their lives around). Check.

Ignores unintended consequences (needles in playgrounds, used condoms in public spaces, and needing to hire "needle picker uppers, vs accept the issue has grown beyond their control". Check.

Sounds woke to me. 

Its humiliating enough to lose everything, but for those who want out, struggling to find help, is adding insult to injury.

I know way too many people who have gone homeless. 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have been criticized, and I'll admit it's fair comment, about not weighing in on my own takes on things.

Oh, there be flowers in Bermuda. Beauty lies on every hand,
And there be laughter, ease and drink for every man, but there is no joy for me;
For when we reached the wretched Nightingale what an awful sight was plain.
The Captain, drowned, was tangled in the mizzen-chains smiling bravely beneath the sea

[Legato]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry, my definition is actually a definition. You can't define something by listing a bunch of examples.  It's the tower of Babel problem.

Colored hair? Rocket Richard used Grecian formula.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Pretty tough to define that. Deficits?

Try to keep me out of it. This to me is an exercise in politics, in defining the terms of a discussion.

Not calling you a chud, because at least you're trying.

The examples are by definition are a definition.

[Moonlight Graham]

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Well, safe injection without emphasis on treatment, is a woke idea. 

You're incentivizing drug use. 

How is it "woke"?  You can label it dumb if you want, but it's not "woke".  

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Maybe your mother still thinks your kewl.

2. And the word 'liar' doesn't appear in the post you're responding to so i have no idea what you're referencing -  so this is just more distraction. You're hoping to change the subject again. DIshonest.

3. I point them out all the time mike.  I'll continue to do so for your benefit but there are tonnes of examples - it's a very common phenomenon with you.

4. And you don't state your opinion OR your logic by and large.  Look at your pathetic attempt here to dodge the issues by distracting the argument and dodging the issue by claiming there's no definition of woke - as if you're just too stupid to get your head around it. 

5. You rely on other peoples difficulty in articulating it to avoid dealing with the issue but that's just a cheezy trick. People are like that with MOST words - they know what they mean but they have a hard time clearly expressing a proper definition -  everyone basically understands what 'ironic' means but the vast majority won't get the definition right. Most people can't get the definition for 'chair' right without a few tries.

6. It's cheap and cheezy and dishonest.

7. Oh - and your motivations are quite clear.  No "Mind reading" necessary.

8. You never answer the questions.

9. Because you're not here to discuss things.  You have no intention of having a reasoned logical discussion, you're here to attack things and people you don't like without actually putting forward a logical argument.

10. And that's what you're being called on. That's why people say its like a contest with you.

11. How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?

1.  I doubt that.  But she doesn't seem to compete with me.  Not sure why you think you do.  

2. Top of page 2.  You quoted part of my post "But only tribally, I suspect.  It's just code for something you don't like" and you responded "This is just such a lie.".  See - my post says "I suspect", meaning that it's my opinion.  Then you called my opinion a lie.

3. Ok, please do.  I sincerely will try to keep an eye out.

4. Maybe you're not reading the posts that followed, with you, me, Graham et al. trying to find said definition.  I have put forward MY version.  At best, it's vague and subjective and that's my point.  If you want me to retract that there's "No definition", if I said that, than I will.

5. We're now in the vicinity of the philosophers like Kant and Hegel.  So if you want to go by that way of defining words, then I agree that it's a better approach.  But you have to also accept that there will be at least "quibbles" as to details as evidenced by the posts on here.  But ok.

6. Says you.  You also haven't admitted that I'm right.  If you want to be an absolute moralist and claim that anybody different from you is just wrong then I can also point out the fuzziness of definitions.  It's fair game as far as I can see.  Just as it's fair game for you to point out my reluctance to nail down a static and detailed definition or opinion on something.

7.  9. 10. 11. You project your view of the world on others then.  Because I for one know you're wrong about me.  There's no other explanation I have other than you think I must only be thinking in a way that you can accommodate in your imagination of how others think.

8.  Never ?  Let me look at this post and see how I did... Well, oddly, you only have one question mark in your last two posts to me: "How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?"  

My answer is: "I'm not participating in dishonest tricks.  If you think I'm being evasive or dishonest, show how.  Don't just assume that I have an agenda based on your suspicious."  That's an answer.

 --++--

Believe it or not, I think we're getting somewhere.  I took you off ignore.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How is it "woke"?  You can label it dumb if you want, but it's not "woke".  

Dumb yes and probably just a little bit woke.