The awe-inspiring conservative counter-offensive against woke nonsense

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Explain how it was accurate and a realistic depcition of what the original poster you were referencing said.

 

2. you are absolutely on the left unless you spend almost your entire time here aggressively faking it.

1. Well, it seemed to read like a common syllogistic fallacy.

2. Wrong.  Somebody in this very thread tried to say that, and I showed how I'm aligned with WestCan and Flaherty.

Next...

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't think safe injections are woke

Bad policy, though, born of more bad policy (poor mental healthcare and a lousy excuse for a justice system)

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So basically he's your personal idol  

Here's the thing about progressives. They have absolutely nothing but empathy and sympathy for the hardcore drug addicts in the street, the methheads and heroin users with fifty or sixty arrests for thefts, vandalism and violence. But let one guy who isn't even really conservative get hooked on antidepressants because his wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer and it's open season to ridicule him forever after. Even when he finally gets off them.

[I am Groot]

On 3/3/2024 at 11:55 AM, Michael Hardner said:

2. I agree that it's deliberate. People have intentionally repurposed the word woman to mean a cultural signifier rather than just sex. They used to mean the same thing , woman and female, now they don't... in the public sphere.  It's controversial and new, of course.

3. Of course it's intended to improve social cohesion and make lives happier. Maybe it does an or maybe not.  But I doubt you can prove that it's not working. You will likely just give an opinion, and think that's enough to qualify as an argument.

What do you mean it's not working? If you mean the progressives in academia and media have succeeded in getting it accepted by corporations and government, you're correct. Trans has become the holy grail for progressives and much of the Left. ANY disagreement on what trans activists want risks doxxing, accusations of hating 'lgbt people' and demands that you be fired or your company boycotted. 

But if you mean accepted by ordinary people, no. Ordinary people are willing to treat trans people with respect but there are too many elements of what trans activists want that people aren't willing to go along with. Including accepting sex as a completely cultural assumption that can change back and forth any day you want it to. The fact 85% told that poll I posted in the other thread they did not agree that children should be taught that sex was not biological should testify to that. The majority in that poll also don't believe trans women should be in women sports and don't believe in the new pronouns.

The reason people aren't protesting this as much is they're just not paying attention. In that same pole they spoke of opinion on that teacher who called themselves Kayla Lemieux, the one with the giant fake breasts. Opinions on whether they should be allowed to teach were about evenly split for one group. When they tested the other group alongside a picture it broke 75-11 for no. Somehow, most hadn't even seen anything about that story.

I think we get the idea on political groups like this that everyone is as informed as we are of ongoing issues, and it's just not the case.

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

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

I think everything related to trans/lgbt politics is governed by woke as part of identity politics...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, it seemed to read like a common syllogistic fallacy.

That's not much of an argument.

 

Quote

2. Wrong.  Somebody in this very thread tried to say that, and I showed how I'm aligned with WestCan and Flaherty.

LOL - denial, not just a river in egypt apparently 

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

What do you mean it's not working?  

I mean whether the adoption of new language has achieved social goals.  It's too long a causal chain to prove anything.

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I think everything related to trans/lgbt politics is governed by woke as part of identity politics...

Right, but didn't your definition assert that it's tied to affirmative action type programs?

Otherwise we're back to my definition.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. That's not much of an argument.

 

2. LOL - denial, not just a river in egypt apparently 

1. Well what do you have to say against it.  I paralleled the logic Perspektiv laid out.

2. You know who Jim Flaherty was?

[I am Groot]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I mean whether the adoption of new language has achieved social goals.  It's too long a causal chain to prove anything.

OK

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right, but didn't your definition assert that it's tied to affirmative action type programs?

Otherwise we're back to my definition.

My answer was already getting long and as I recall you don't like long answers. But it was implied in the latter part of the definition when talking about how white, straight people "must recognize their self-evil and beg forgiveness) and ordered to observe it in all things.." That included accepting whatever trans/lgbt activists or other identity activists told them.

So if we're told muscular, bearded 300lb wrestlers with a penis are women we have to just accept that or we're bigots and hateful.

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well what do you have to say against it.  I paralleled the logic Perspektiv laid out.

 

You didn't "parallel' it.  Which, lets face it, would just be a term for 'creatively interpreted it to my advantage' anyway.

Firstly his point was woke=dumb, not dumb= woke.  He said he'd never seen anything woke which wasn't also dumb. You turned it into anything dumb is woke.

Let me guess - another 'misunderstanding'?   My me my

So - neither an honest interpretation of his point NOR an accurate account of his stance.  Instead you twisted what he said and tried to present it as a credible argument.

If you can't argue against what they said - claim they said something they didn't and argue against that.  Sound familiar?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You know who Jim Flaherty was?

Sure.  Hey - if you happen to run across a point somewhere along the way feel free to make it

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. You didn't "parallel' it. 

2. Hey - if you happen to run across a point somewhere along the way feel free to make it

1. You haven't shown any understanding of what was happening.

2. Yeah.  A conservative who voted for trans rights.  Is he woke?

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Syllogistic Fallacy:

All woke things are dumb.  Safe Injection is dumb.  Therefore it is woke.

How about this:

Woke is m0r0nic beyond-left drivel, by definition. 

Safe injection is such a terrible non-solution (to an incredibly difficult problem) that it rivals wokeness in terms of its uselessness, but it's not an entirely partisan suggestion. People who care about dying drug users are just clutching at straws, trying to save as many users as they can. 

The 'free country' solution isn't working. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/20/bukele-el-salvador-gangs-crackdown

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You haven't shown any understanding of what was happening.

Of course i did - your saying so doesn't make it so and i've shown a hell of a lot more than you did. Again - dodging the issue with unsubstantiated nonsense terms that mean nothing.  You said something that was no accurate or honest, but now you somehow want it to be my fault.

Quote

2. Yeah.  A conservative who voted for trans rights.  Is he woke?

So all you've told me so far is that he's a conservative (like somehow that matters to the question) and that he voted for 'trans rights'.  And you feel that's enough to decide if he's woke?  You seem to be suggesting that ANY trans rights at all would be woke.  Or that somehow the level of wokeness depends on whether he's conservative.  You must believe that as that's the only information you gave to make a decision about his wokeness.

I'm guessing you think somehow because it's a tory it makes some sort of difference to me.  How shallow.

Voting in favour of transgender people not to be discriminated against in general is not 'woke' and if you need to be told that you're not being terribly honest. Most people including just about all conservatives agreed with that premise. Even when raitt raised concerns as i recall she emotionally talked about the abuses and genuine discrimination they faced and how it was unacceptable.
The conservatives problems with the bill were around misuses and too vague terms  which pretty much turned out to be true.  But they were always in support of people having the right not to be discriminated against.

That doesn't mean that its "discrimination" if you don't get the right to waive your dick in front of the face of a young girl in the swimming pool shower. 

The very fact you would ask that based on only the info that he was conservative and this was about trans rights speaks volumes about you.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

  I paralleled the logic Perspektiv laid out.

My logic was me struggling to see any woke policies which weren't dumb.

I challenged you to find me one.

One which ignored unintended consequences.

Such as just going to any city which felt pushing safe injection sites, minus enforcement or emphasis on treatment.

Look at Vancouver. 

These policies clearly don't work.

Bad or even dumb policies aren't inherently woke.

You're trying to play dumb ironically, to give weight to your flimsy point.

Bad policies, are often simply just that. Bad policy.

Defunding police? Thats woke policy. In feeling you're protecting black communities, you wind up stripping resources away, causing more crime to happen.

Its not the dumb part of the policy that makes it woke.

Its the heavy handed virtue signaling about it. The shaming of the police. The woke tactics used, to put police under the microscope for crimes that just don't statistically come close to the narrative.

Often no communities suffer more, than the ones you're trying to virtue signal about doing something for.

The fact you want things spelled out for you, is ironic as well.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

1. And you feel that's enough to decide if he's woke?  You seem to be suggesting that ANY trans rights at all would be woke.

2.   ... You must believe that as that's the only information you gave to make a decision about his wokeness.

...

3. Voting in favour of transgender people not to be discriminated against in general is not 'woke' and if you need to be told that you're not being terribly honest.  

4. The very fact you would ask that based on only the info that he was conservative and this was about trans rights speaks volumes about you.

You keep equating my asking a question with suggesting something,  or assuming something.  You infer my beliefs from my asking a question.  You even say that ASKING a question is somehow dishonest.

It's not.  It's asking a question, that's all.  It's requesting information.  All of that extra speculation that you pile onto it is just that.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You even say that ASKING a question is somehow dishonest.

Not quite. You're a dishonest poster.

I type as is. Spelling errors and all. I have nothing to hide behind. I would have the same opinions in person, if not darker like my sense of humor.

You flip flop on topics, and seemingly are petrified to stand for anything.

No harm in this, mind you, but to then debate using passive aggressive tactics, while avoiding the heat, is silly at best.

I love the heat. I bask in it. Pressure calms me down. Am also not afraid of putting myself out there. 

I make my bed, no issues lying in it. 

You come across like Ron McClean from coaches corner, who would contort himself so profusely to remain politically correct, while at times saying nothing.

 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Not quite. You're a dishonest poster.

2. You flip flop on topics, and seemingly are petrified to stand for anything.

3. No harm in this, mind you, but to then debate using passive aggressive tactics, while avoiding the heat, is silly at best.

4. I love the heat. I bask in it. Pressure calms me down. Am also not afraid of putting myself out there. 

5. I make my bed, no issues lying in it. 

6. You come across like Ron McClean from coaches corner, who would contort himself so profusely to remain politically correct, while at times saying nothing.

 

1.  Why do you think so ?  Most often when I hear that, it seems to me that people only suspect it and don't have proof.
2. Another assumption.  Another suspicion.  Ask me where I stand and I will answer.
3. You think that all discussion is debate, and therefore some kind of competition so your whole view of our discussions is fraught with suspicion and zero-sum thinking.  
4. Respectfully - who the f*** cares ?  Just discuss things, stop with the PR and peacocking.  Nobody signs off from the board and says "Boy, did Perspektiv ever BASK IN THE HEAT TODAY".  You glorify what are, basically, little chats into something too important in my opinion..
5. Uh huh... I just post.  
6. Well, like I say... ask me.  I think you do think about things, and have a basic level of respect and curiosity to be a good poster.  If I see you post contradictory things, I maintain that it's fair game to ask how you resolve them within your thoughts - because you ARE basically thoughtful.

This is what I was doing to find out what CanFox thinks "woke" is.  While I agree that I can be quiet about how I feel about things, it's equally difficult to get an opinion out of people who are outspoken about transgender issues without explaining explicitly what they're in favour of.  So I ask.  WestCan simply answered and didn't suspect me of trying to "trick" him or whatever.  CanFox basically puked on the thread when I asked him what he thought of Flaherty's position.

Some exerpts from CanFox's post illustrate why we have trouble discussing things normally, ie. me asking him questions:

"You seem to be suggesting that..."
"You must believe that..."
"I'm guessing you think..."
"If you need to be told that..."
"The very fact you would ask that ..."

So, it's altogether clear that CanFox doesn't trust me and reads into things like... me asking questions.  It's fine.  I am parsing his words to this degree of detail only to show that we're not at a point where we can have trustfull conversations and hoping that you might work to get to a point where we can trust.  I have hope.

The thing you have to do when there is no trust is codify, document, make agreements or state your understandings, in my experience.
 

[Black Dog]

On 3/4/2024 at 5:43 AM, Perspektiv said:

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.

You don't have to be a psychologist to see what's going on here lol.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think so ?

You use deceptive tactics like spinning, among others.

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Another assumption. 

You act a certain way, and can't get mad at people assuming things.

Kind of like a used car salesman switching up their story. Odds are they will try to rip me off.

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You think that all discussion is debate

If you were self aware, you would realize what you bring to the table that causes people to react to you the way that they do.

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Respectfully - who the f*** cares ? 

You clearly do. 😝

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just post. 

Deceptively.

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

ask me

If I have to ask you why you post so sheisty, not only are you crooked, but entitled, to boot. 

Thats like a house thief in court berating you, with: "if you wanted me to stop, you should have asked me".

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing you have to do when there is no trust

I prefer cutting my losses or giving the amount of rope the person deserves and keeping them there. 

It's like someone cheating on you multiple times, and you always taking them back.

Thats not working towards trust building. 

Thats needing to recognize some people are who they are, accepting it, holding no ill will towards them, and moving on.

 

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You use deceptive tactics like spinning, among others. You act a certain way, and can't get mad at people assuming things. Kind of like a used car salesman switching up their story. Odds are they will try to rip me off.

2. If you were self aware, you would realize what you bring to the table that causes people to react to you the way that they do.

3. You clearly do. 😝

4. Deceptively.

5. If I have to ask you why you post so sheisty, not only are you crooked, but entitled, to boot.  Thats like a house thief in court berating you, with: "if you wanted me to stop, you should have asked me". I prefer cutting my losses or giving the amount of rope the person deserves and keeping them there.  It's like someone cheating on you multiple times, and you always taking them back.

6. Thats not working towards trust building.  Thats needing to recognize some people are who they are, accepting it, holding no ill will towards them, and moving on.

 

1. I don't know what "spinning" is.   I have seen it used to describe political operatives who go on talk shows to reframe an issue but it's hard to see how that could apply to some posting their opinion on their own.  I suppose part of buying in to the idea of "spinning" is believing that the speaker doesn't wholly hold the views they're expressing but are doing so as a propaganda campaign, paid or not.
2. So far "people" who react to me seem to be you and CanFox.  There are other people on this thread that I just discuss things with... As for my self-awareness, it seems contradictory to me to accuse someone of knowingly spinning, ie. spreading propaganda, and not being aware that they are doing that.  Can you explain how that works ?
3. Only that I find it irritating and - ironically - emblematic of someone who is not self-aware, ie. thinking that their personal stories of "growing up on the street, as an asexual martial arts enthusiast" needs to be included in the discussion.
4. Based on your suppositions and assumptions.  Find an actual hard "lie" please.  If I post an opinion you don't agree with, it's not a lie.
5. In court you have to prove your accusations.  I was accused of lying on this thread and when I responded to it the poster then accused me of "distractions".  Clearly, I can't win.  You don't want to back up your accusations, and you simultaneously accuse me of avoiding questions and being deceptive... hard to respond, that's all.
6. I'm guessing you have trust issues.  If I were really so irredeemable I am honestly curious as to why you post to me ?  I have indicated that I think there is value in your posts.

Edited March 5, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't know what "spinning" is.  

really. You've never heard the term. You're unaware of it's use in everyday language by virtually everyone.  You have NO idea - could mean anything. There's no hint - you're utterly baffled are you?

Now you'll want to talk about the definition of spinning to avoid having to deal with the fact that you do it all the time.

Like - you don' think i see that? You don't think @Perspektiv sees that?  Your attempt to distract instead of address the issue?

It's DISHONEST Mike.  It's not the behavior or a person who's interested in honest debate. And this kind of thing keeps getting pointed out and you keep pretending you have no idea what people are talking about and it's not just me or one or two others.

Why can't you just have an honest discussion?

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. really. You've never heard the term. You're unaware of it's use in everyday language by virtually everyone.  You have NO idea - could mean anything. There's no hint - you're utterly baffled are you?

2. Now you'll want to talk about the definition of spinning to avoid having to deal with the fact that you do it all the time.

3.  Your attempt to distract instead of address the issue?

4. It's DISHONEST Mike.  It's not the behavior or a person who's interested in honest debate.

5. And this kind of thing keeps getting pointed out ...

6. Why can't you just have an honest discussion?

1. Please read the second sentence in that paragraph.
2. If you are accusing me of acting like a paid shill on Meet the Press or FOX News Sunday, well you'll have to allow that I might not be instantly familiar with what you're saying about me.  Who exactly would I be shilling for ?
3. Well I address it by saying it's hard to understand how it could apply to me.   I guess I COULD address it by dismissing it.  Would you like that better ?
4. I'm not actually interested in 'debating' with you two.  Nor am I willing to simply accept your paranoid assumptions about me.  I have been explaining over and over how you're making assumptions on me, and they become more and more bizarre because when I question them or cast doubts, you take it as more evidence.  
5.  By you two I guess...  Maybe some others but you two go out of your way to make assumptions as to my motives.  "Spinning" ... wow
6. Why do you ask loaded questions ?  I guess we'll never know.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Please read the second sentence in that paragraph.

Why? Did you suddenly start telling the truth then?  Decided to wait a bit? Lull them into a false sense of security then pounce with the truth?

Your second sentence is as much bullshit as the first.  Again  you're claiming that as someone over the age of 10 you've NEVER heard the term used to apply to people?  You can't imagine what it could mean if i say "Someone is spinning the truth"?  Or 'try to put a positive spin on it'?  The term is used every day commonly. 

Dishonesty mike.  And you're doubling down on it.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you are accusing me of acting like a paid shill on Meet the Press or FOX News Sunday, well you'll have to allow that I might not be instantly familiar with what you're saying about me

More distraction.  Point to where ANYONE said that. Nobody suggested it. Nobody hinted at it.  Nobody anywhere thinks you work for fox news - tho they might buy cnn a bit more

So why be dishonest like that? Again - you think we can't see it?

NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD is going to believe that you couldnt' possibly see how it  might possibly apply to you.

 

Why can't you just have an honest discussion. Why must you make a fool of yourself trying to substantiate !diotic claims that you have NO idea how the term spinning could POSSIBLY be applied to an individual.

FFS.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Why? 

2. NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD is going to believe that you couldnt' possibly see how it  might possibly apply to you.

3. Why can't you just have an honest discussion. Why must you make a fool of yourself trying to substantiate !diotic claims that you have NO idea how the term spinning could POSSIBLY be applied to an individual.

 

1. It answers your question.  You know - the question you asked.
2. If I can find a single one will you shut up about this ?
3. Your questions, they be loaded.  Still.  Do you WANT to have an honest discussion with me ?  Do you think I'm capable of it ?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It answers your question.  You know - the question you asked.

It didn't. At all. It just doubled down on the first sentence.

So again - why? Do you think if you say something rediculous twice it become less rediculous somehow?

 

Quote

2. If I can find a single one will you shut up about this ?

Sure - if you stop behaving that way altogether as well    In fact  i'll even spot you the 'one' if you do that.

 

Quote

3. Your questions, they be loaded. 

Nope. It's straight up.  it's well established you're not discussing things honestly. There' nothing loaded about it.

Therefore the question is simple and honest - why? Why do it? Why not just have honest conversations? Why play the little cheap tricks? I mean hell, sure SOME times it's fun to spar a bit but why not just focus on discussing the matters at hand rather than playing games most of the time?

If you just enjoy the gamesmanship and think of this place as a bit like a checkersboard where the goal is to play a game and it's not ABOUT having a discussion then fine, i can respect that. But i think it's important to be honest about it.

Quote

Do you WANT to have an honest discussion with me ?  Do you think I'm capable of it ?

Sure - i enjoy serious discussions about topics even when people passionately disagree or the like as long as it's honest and some thought goes into it.  As to whether or not you're capable - i would assume you're technically capable, it takes no huge amount of training to be honest and sincere, and i assume you know how to look up information when necessary and i'm not hyper focused on 'cites' anyway.

The question of are you capable or even interested in doing so from a personal point of view is up to you to answer.  If not that's fine -  there's nothing wrong with having another 'sparring buddy' and we can all understand where you're coming from and react appropriately knowing you're not TRYING to be serious.

But if you pull the "i have  no idea what spin means - you must believe i'm a fox news host" crap you can't also argue you're attempting to be serious