The Royals
Comments
-
Turns out they didn't have a secret wedding before the official one after all? I mean who knew? It's almost like they're absolutely full of shyte.1
-
Says a lot about those that seem to think it's an insult. Always makes me chuckle.shirley_basso said:You realise that woke isn't an insult, right? To not be woke would be worse - selfish, emotionally vacant and void of simpathy.
0 -
I think that where "woke" is used as pejorative it is more to do with how someone advances their solutions to social/racial injustice and environmental issues. I can be concerned about the environment without thinking that carpeting the countryside with windmills and levying crippling!ing green taxes is the answer. I can be worried about social injustice but I might think that selection on ability in schools is a better route to social mobility and lifting people out of poverty than comprehensive education or targetted benefits . What worries me about your reply above is the implication that if someone doesn't share your ideas there's something wrong with them or they can be excluded from polite debate.shirley_basso said:You realise that woke isn't an insult, right? To not be woke would be worse - selfish, emotionally vacant and void of simpathy.
1 -
-
Woke is everything I hate about you people and I'm not going to stand for it anymore.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Well you've interpreted it wrong then.shortfall said:
I think that where "woke" is used as pejorative it is more to do with how someone advances their solutions to social/racial injustice and environmental issues. I can be concerned about the environment without thinking that carpeting the countryside with windmills and levying crippling!ing been taxes is the answer. I can be worried about social injustice but I might think that selection on ability in schools is a better route to social mobility and lifting people out of poverty than comprehensive education or targetted benefits . What worries me about your reply above is the implication that if someone doesn't share your ideas there's something wrong with them or they can be excluded from polite debate.shirley_basso said:You realise that woke isn't an insult, right? To not be woke would be worse - selfish, emotionally vacant and void of simpathy.
David throws around woke like it's an insult because he's fine / worked hard and isn't racist or sexist. Women also attack men and sometimes men attack each other. Furthermore its illegal for employers to act in a sexist or racist manager.
Life is fine nothing to see here.
For anyone to say that perhaps the reality is not quite like that and perhaps the chips have been stacked in favour of the white male, then 'woke' is what you are called.0 -
Personally, given what "woke" actually means, I'm more than happy to have that used to describe me. I don't see it as an insult.david37 said:secretsam said:Has David the downtrodden white guy been banned yet?
Oh, and for the record, the Queen should be referred to as "Brenda", not Betty
do you think I should be? not woke enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
-
-
I was speaking in general terms and I don't want to intrude on your spat with David but what you describe can be said of a lot of people that is true. The simplest analogy I can think of is the Green Party versus The Countryside Alliance. Both have concerns about conservation, the countryside the environment etc but they have drastically different solutions to offer. The Greens offer what I would describe as woke answers to difficult questions in that they're idealistic, simplistic, expensive and whilst maybe we'll meaning are ultimately self destructive. You are free to disagree with the arguments advanced by the countryside Alliance about managing the land with agriculture and supporting shooting and fishing and so on but just because they aren't woke about it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.shirley_basso said:
Well you've interpreted it wrong then.shortfall said:
I think that where "woke" is used as pejorative it is more to do with how someone advances their solutions to social/racial injustice and environmental issues. I can be concerned about the environment without thinking that carpeting the countryside with windmills and levying crippling!ing been taxes is the answer. I can be worried about social injustice but I might think that selection on ability in schools is a better route to social mobility and lifting people out of poverty than comprehensive education or targetted benefits . What worries me about your reply above is the implication that if someone doesn't share your ideas there's something wrong with them or they can be excluded from polite debate.shirley_basso said:You realise that woke isn't an insult, right? To not be woke would be worse - selfish, emotionally vacant and void of simpathy.
David throws around woke like it's an insult because he's fine / worked hard and isn't racist or sexist. Women also attack men and sometimes men attack each other. Furthermore its illegal for employers to act in a sexist or racist manager.
Life is fine nothing to see here.
For anyone to say that perhaps the reality is not quite like that and perhaps the chips have been stacked in favour of the white male, then 'woke' is what you are called.1 -
Anyway back on topic. I wonder if there's anything else contained in their Oprah interview that might not be the whole truth now the secret wedding has been exposed as a lie?1
-
What's your solution?shortfall said:
I was speaking in general terms and I don't want to intrude on your spat with David but what you describe can be said of a lot of people that is true. The simplest analogy I can think of is the Green Party versus The Countryside Alliance. Both have concerns about conservation, the countryside the environment etc but they have drastically different solutions to offer. The Greens offer what I would describe as woke answers to difficult questions in that they're idealistic, simplistic, expensive and whilst maybe we'll meaning are ultimately self destructive. You are free to disagree with the arguments advanced by the countryside Alliance about managing the land with agriculture and supporting shooting and fishing and so on but just because they aren't woke about it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.shirley_basso said:
Well you've interpreted it wrong then.shortfall said:
I think that where "woke" is used as pejorative it is more to do with how someone advances their solutions to social/racial injustice and environmental issues. I can be concerned about the environment without thinking that carpeting the countryside with windmills and levying crippling!ing been taxes is the answer. I can be worried about social injustice but I might think that selection on ability in schools is a better route to social mobility and lifting people out of poverty than comprehensive education or targetted benefits . What worries me about your reply above is the implication that if someone doesn't share your ideas there's something wrong with them or they can be excluded from polite debate.shirley_basso said:You realise that woke isn't an insult, right? To not be woke would be worse - selfish, emotionally vacant and void of simpathy.
David throws around woke like it's an insult because he's fine / worked hard and isn't racist or sexist. Women also attack men and sometimes men attack each other. Furthermore its illegal for employers to act in a sexist or racist manager.
Life is fine nothing to see here.
For anyone to say that perhaps the reality is not quite like that and perhaps the chips have been stacked in favour of the white male, then 'woke' is what you are called.
Go on, stick your neck out.0 -
I think it was Ballsy who pointed out at the time that there was a danger that a couple easily disprovable claims (the "secret" wedding and the non-issue that their children weren't entitled to being prince / princess being those cited) were in danger of damaging perception of the bigger issues that were raised even if they were genuine. There's certainly an element of them being seen to have cried wolf.shortfall said:Anyway back on topic. I wonder if there's anything else contained in their Oprah interview that might not be the whole truth now the secret wedding has been exposed as a lie?
0 -
David doesn't have a solution other than to show his personality off by calling the others 'woke'.
As for the countryside - I don't really know the facts - but I live in it, so open to hear what works.
I am against inhumane treatment of animals, but have no issues with farming meat for consumption. I generally don't buy meat from supermarkets and think that responsible, local, organic (or whatever you call it) isn't as bad for the environment.
I have no issues with culling badgers / shooting birds to eat / fishing / fieldsports but also don't really agree with hunting with dogs.
I think with the countryside and environmental initiatives - it's a chicken and egg situation. If the gov't can lead the way with investment, drive new programmes and change the status quo, that's broadly the right way to go about it. What these changes should be, I don't know, but ideally with a 100y horizon rather than 2 years.
The problem is making the countryside 'self supporting' rather than paying people to constantly look after it.1 -
Yes all of that. Don't want a debate about the countryside particularly, I was just using it for illustration. The woke want to cuddle fluffy bunnies and the countryside Alliance want to shoot them. Both have their reasoning but siding with the countryside Alliance doesn't mean you don't care about animals or the environment.shirley_basso said:David doesn't have a solution other than to show his personality off by calling the others 'woke'.
As for the countryside - I don't really know the facts - but I live in it, so open to hear what works.
I am against inhumane treatment of animals, but have no issues with farming meat for consumption. I generally don't buy meat from supermarkets and think that responsible, local, organic (or whatever you call it) isn't as bad for the environment.
I have no issues with culling badgers / shooting birds to eat / fishing / fieldsports but also don't really agree with hunting with dogs.
I think with the countryside and environmental initiatives - it's a chicken and egg situation. If the gov't can lead the way with investment, drive new programmes and change the status quo, that's broadly the right way to go about it. What these changes should be, I don't know, but ideally with a 100y horizon rather than 2 years.
The problem is making the countryside 'self supporting' rather than paying people to constantly look after it.0 -
Why do you say "the woke" have a single opinion between all of them on animal welfare?0
-
I think the Countryside Alliance seems to be more about wanting to be left alone to do whatever the feck they want and carry on with their own way of life rather than being concerned about what is best for the country/planet with regards to conservation or looking after the environment. I'm not going to comment on whether that's right or wrong (although you can probably guess), but i don't think they and the Green Party are two sides of the same coin so to speak.0
-
Me neither. Headline is enough. "How Britain became the world capital of woke"secretsam said:
Can't read that, paywalled.kingstongraham said:0 -
I don't think they do, this is just an illustration for the sake of the argument.kingstongraham said:Why do you say "the woke" have a single opinion between all of them on animal welfare?
0 -
Lots of pro-plus?kingstongraham said:
Me neither. Headline is enough. "How Britain became the world capital of woke"secretsam said:
Can't read that, paywalled.kingstongraham said:0 -
Just accept that Britain is best. This anti-Britain sentiment just proves how right it is.elbowloh said:
Lots of pro-plus?kingstongraham said:
Me neither. Headline is enough. "How Britain became the world capital of woke"secretsam said:
Can't read that, paywalled.kingstongraham said:0 -
Given the less than startling revelations that Meg was less than truthful, should this really go into the Irony thread?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/24/prince-harry-joins-us-initiative-to-tackle-fake-news1 -
Come now Bally you've already been pulled on this. If a person of colour makes a complaint of racism then we must take it entirely on face value because it's their lived experience, their truth, and facts and evidence have no place in these discussions. Own your white privilege you loser.ballysmate said:Given the less than startling revelations that Meg was less than truthful, should this really go into the Irony thread?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/24/prince-harry-joins-us-initiative-to-tackle-fake-news1 -
Anyone done the brain scans to prove Morgan right?0
-
Its ironic who you have chosen as your avatar.shortfall said:
Come now Bally you've already been pulled on this. If a person of colour makes a complaint of racism then we must take it entirely on face value because it's their lived experience, their truth, and facts and evidence have no place in these discussions. Own your white privilege you loser.ballysmate said:Given the less than startling revelations that Meg was less than truthful, should this really go into the Irony thread?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/24/prince-harry-joins-us-initiative-to-tackle-fake-news1 -
Is there any truth to the rumour that they left because his uncle kept asking when he'd be able to babysit when he heard it was a daughter?2
-
Yes it's almost like I can venerate one of the greatest athletes and human beings of my generation and respect his struggles against racism, whilst simultaneously being sceptical about some of the more lurid accusations made by a highly privileged person and the motives thereof of someone else who happens to share the same skin colour as one of my idols.elbowloh said:
Its ironic who you have chosen as your avatar.shortfall said:
Come now Bally you've already been pulled on this. If a person of colour makes a complaint of racism then we must take it entirely on face value because it's their lived experience, their truth, and facts and evidence have no place in these discussions. Own your white privilege you loser.ballysmate said:Given the less than startling revelations that Meg was less than truthful, should this really go into the Irony thread?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/24/prince-harry-joins-us-initiative-to-tackle-fake-news3 -
If you can't see the irony in your actual post, then i can't help you.0
-
I think my meaning has been lost in translation. My comment was about a specific answer given to Bally by another poster. I tried to find it but I lost the will to live when searching for it so just take my word for it. Suffice it to say, I can simultaneously believe that Muhammed Ali was a wonderful human being whilst holding that Meghan Markle's bleatings on Oprah were questionable, vengeful, in some cases proveably untrue, and said with malice.elbowloh said:
Your comment didn't come across about one individual though, it was general about people of colour.shortfall said:
Yes it's almost like I can venerate one of the greatest athletes and human beings of my generation and respect his struggles against racism, whilst simultaneously being sceptical about some of the more lurid accusations made by a highly privileged person and the motives thereof of someone else who happens to share the same skin colour as one of my idols.elbowloh said:
Its ironic who you have chosen as your avatar.shortfall said:
Come now Bally you've already been pulled on this. If a person of colour makes a complaint of racism then we must take it entirely on face value because it's their lived experience, their truth, and facts and evidence have no place in these discussions. Own your white privilege you loser.ballysmate said:Given the less than startling revelations that Meg was less than truthful, should this really go into the Irony thread?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/24/prince-harry-joins-us-initiative-to-tackle-fake-news1
