The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

A GOP war on 'woke'? Most Americans view the term as a positive, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/08/gop-war-woke-most-americans-see-term-positive-ipsos-poll/11417394002/)
By 56%-39%, Americans say 'woke' means being aware of social injustice, not being overly politically correct.

Republican presidential hopefuls are vowing to wage a war on "woke," but a new USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds a majority of Americans are inclined to see the word as a positive attribute, not a negative one.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed say the term means "to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices." That includes not only three-fourths of Democrats but also more than a third of Republicans.

Overall, 39% say instead that the word reflects what has become the GOP political definition, "to be overly politically correct and police others' words." That's the view of 56% of Republicans.

The findings raise questions about whether Republican campaign promises to ban policies at schools and workplaces they denounce as "woke" could boost a contender in the party's primaries but put them at odds with broader public opinion in the general election.

Independents, by 51%-45%, say "woke" means being aware of social injustice, not being overly politically correct.

“Most Americans understand that to be woke is to be tuned in to injustices around us,” said Cliff Young of Ipsos. "But for a key segment of Republicans who make up the Trump-DeSantis base, 'woke' is a clear trigger for the worst of the politically correct, emerging multicultural majority."

---

Given that screaming wokewokewokewokewoke and running against wokeness is the main policy tentpole of today's GOP, it is difficult to imagine polls like this having any effect on Republican strategy.  Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that the imminent scourge of wokeness is a fear primarily constrained to the further right (if not necessarily the far right).

Interestingly, later in that same article we can see that 53% of those surveyed oppose "critical race theory," but 72% support teaching "the ongoing effects of slavery and racism in the United States" in public schools and 76% oppose efforts by state governments to ban certain books from school classrooms and libraries.  Those results seem to indicate that respondents support the ideas behind critical race theory, but oppose the term itself... which makes the GOP's failure to successfully demonize "wokeness" all the more stark.

Polls also show that Biden is the most hated president in history, but he keeps pulling out miracles in elections.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that poll.  Ron DeSantis won Florida in a landslide due his anti-woke campaign.

What parts of anti-woke are too much?  Expecting that females who go into a female locker should not have to see fully intact male genitalia if they don't want to?

Come to think of it, give me an example of how being WOKE is used to fight for any sort of social justice or to combat any social injustice.  I don't think such an example exists at all.

Bro you just get bad information because you’re deep in what Bob Wilson would call a reality tunnel.

At his most unfavorable Biden is higher than Trump. Trump is the most hated president since Nixon, who are the only two underwater as a whole. Biden is up slightly as writing this.

As to the original topic. Of course it’s mostly popular. “Woke” is just human decency, can it get a bit much sometimes? Sure but people care more about actual policy than mean spirited attacks on minorities these days. And that says a lot of good about our country. These strategies may have worked in the past but not so much.

I wish the republicans would drop the culture war Christian fundamentalist fascism and maybe I’d be open to listening to what they have to say about the economy.

Like, give me an example of positive woke.

My example of negative woke is in my first post is this thread


Lia Thomas.

And many other examples

Is rioting and looting and vandalizing things "Woke"? (See: any number of riots going throughout the country)

Is targeting people who lawfully try to defend themselves "Woke"? (See: Kyle Rittenhouse)

Is targeting cops who do their jobs the way they are trained to do "Woke"? (See: the Bryant case)

Your example is a created bogeyman and not an actual problem. It’s just a weird obsession you guys have. I don’t go to the men’s room making a point to examine people’s junk, do you?

Woke just means being aware of racial injustice.  Which, of course is good.  And of course I am.




The right has perverted it into something that just means things they don't like.

That's interesting considering he didn't create this thread trying to campaign for what most Americans see as positive? Funny how polls are gospel when it pushes the agenda. While simultaneously polls are discredited when they go against the agenda. LMFAO


And at the same time, being woke just means going against things you don't like. How ironic

I wouldn't say I was "campaigning"; I didn't commission the poll.
Given the right's current obsession with fighting wokeness, I myself was surprised at how ineffective they have been at making the public fear that term.

Y'all don't even believe in polling, right?  After all, "The polls said Hillary would win." (And Obama, and Biden, but those don't count.)

I posted two back-to-back threads about polling for a reason: you get out of them what you put into them.  I think even you would agree that black Americans should not be classified as a hate group.

Great point, and a perfect segue:

pondwater, what does "woke" mean?

It's not really anything to fear. Just more silly shit in clown world to ignore. However, I have opinions that I will express and those opinions will dictate my voting preferences. I'm old enough to realize that even though the pendulum is swinging to an extreme that I don't necessarily agree with or like. I also realize that it will eventually swing back the other way to an extreme.
 
As I said, people use polls to support their position. I'm guilty of it, you're guilty of it, and most people are guilty of it. I can pull up plenty of polls that support my beliefs and opinions. So can you. And at the end of the day none of it means shit and we're in the same place we were when we started.

I'm sure you will agree that every ethnicity has hate groups of some sort in this country. However, it really doesn't matter unless they are physically harming people or destroying property. I don't give two shits about what group of people says mean words. They have the right to hate whitey, hate blackie, or hate whatever the hell they want. It's not illegal to be hateful, mean, or racist. And while I don't nessisarrily condone or agree with those actions or opinions. I do however support their right to express those beliefs. That's the whole basis of this country.

If someone wants to loudly go around normalizing men prancing around as women and vice versa. Great, fabulous, and wonderful. However, I disagree with that as being normal behavior. I also disagree that men can be women and vice versa. Therefore, I should be able to state my opinions and beliefs just as loudly as the people I disagree with. But yet when people do that they are labeled hateful, when in reality it's just a difference of opinion or beliefs.


Woke to me encompasses all of the clown world shit that's going on today with race, sex, politics, etc. Hell, yesterday I was scolded by some militant feminist for using the word female instead of woman. WTF, that's the nuttiest shit I've ever heard. Women are female, LMFAO. And she wouldn't even answer the question she was asked repeatedly. She had to hyperfocus on my vernacular in attempt to redirect the conversation away from the answer she refused to provide, to some silly irrelevant "woke" nonsense. Most of the "woke" stuff is full of double standards and hypocrisy.

But labeling people as hateful is also stating an opinion or belief.
It doesn't make sense to, as you put it, "support the right to express" hateful, mean, or racist beliefs you may disagree with, but then turn around and oppose people who express their disapproval of the former group.  Why don't you support (or oppose) both groups equally?

I support the legal right of people to express hateful speech, and I also support the legal right of other people to ostracize those who express hateful speech, including boycotts or similar social action to pressure corporations to stop providing megaphones for hateful speech.  It is not a violation of anyone's legal rights or freedom of speech when they get banned from YouTube or Twitter; no one is owed a megaphone.  Anyone can still mail out newsletters in the proud tradition of American cranks over the many decades predating the Internet.

Is that the same thing as "political correctness," or different somehow?

You are 100% right, which means that you support anyone's right to classify black Americans as a hate group. Correct?

I think SCOTUS is looking into this currently. And as I explained in another thread. Social Media companies that make revenue off their users and/or keep, store, share, or sell user data should have to identify themselves into one of two categories.

1. Content Publisher - Full freedom to edit, modify, or delete any and all content on their platform. However, the are held 100% responsible for all content published.

2. Content Host - No freedom to edit, modify, or delete content. Content host is not responsible for content. Responsibility falls on original poster.


You need to rephrase your question, I don't understand.

Absolutely.  I - sincerely and genuinely! - support Scott Adams publicly stating his terrible opinions, especially when he puts them on video.  That makes it a lot easier to convince newspapers that they should not be giving him money.  Let capitalism and the marketplace of ideas do their work.

What I don't support is a system where the speech of people like Scott Adams is seen as important to protect, but the speech of people who criticize Scott Adams, and encourage others not to give Scott Adams more money... that speech is somehow interpreted as more out-of-bounds than what Scott Adams said in the first place.  That's why all this talk of free speech rings hollow; most of the people crowing the loudest about being Champions of Free Speech are continually trying to silence critics they disagree with.

What is the difference between "wokeness" and "political correctness"?

Ummmmm, OK

I don't care what the difference is. It's not a debate, argument, negotiation, or opinion. Women are females. They are literally synonyms, political correctness has nothing to do with it.

They don’t give a shit about free speech they just want to say racist or homophobic things without any consequences.

Who is they? I can say those things now whenever and wherever I want with absolutely 100% zero consequences. Hell, anyone can, that's precisely what free speech is. Exactly what consequences are you talking about?

Deplatforming, boycotts, “cancellation” in other words.

Sure you  have the legal right to say those things but I bet you wouldn’t say them in Harlem or The Castro.

Everyday nobodies don't have to worry about such things. In other words 95% of the population

I would never travel to either one of those shitholes, so your point is moot. But why would you say someone wouldn't exercise their constitutionally guaranteed 1st amendment right in those locations?

You can lose your job if you get caught posting such things on socials media even if you’re a “nobody”. It’s why antifa doxing campaigns against neo-Nazis were affect. Sure you can be a neo Nazi by law you can spout it as much as you want but it can have
consequences.

Because they’d get their asses kicked and rightly so. You can drive thru little Havana shouting “Viva Fidel” but there might be some consequences of doing so.

The whole "you wouldn't say it to their face" stuff lost a lot of its punch when we had swastika-flying Nazis in the streets of Charlottesville carrying torches and screaming "Jews will not replace us!"  The Proud Boys have made saying it to their faces practically a rite of initiation. 

Today's Republicans will literally invade the seat of our government and scream this stuff at the Capitol Police (who are taking selfies with them).  You are operating under yesterday's rules.

Armed gangs doing it is different than one or two guys going to the hood and screaming the n-word at passersby which is the only point I was making.

It’s not like the proudboys we’re going to Watts either

The whole point of the whining about "cancel culture", and the associated complaints about the death of free speech, is entirely about the (economic and/or social) consequences that some people are suffering as a result of making unpopular statements.

And yeah, there are plenty of people who can say racist and/or homophobic things with no consequences; many of them work in conservative media and are even incentivized to do so!  But we aren't talking about the people who say unpopular things and get away with it; we are talking about the people who DON'T get away with it, which has been causing a bunch of people on the right to lament the spread of "cancel culture."

350 million people in the US. Let me know when all the racists and homophobes get fired. I'm sure you can find a couple hundred examples. Even a couple thousand is miniscule. But yeah, that's not really a thing anyone worries about. Next.......

Like the kiddies say these days, "fuck around and find out". For example, 85% of the time I CCW. 100% of the time I have a 3.5 inch blade.

Therefore, if hypothetically, someone wanted to physically assault a someone like me because they don't like my opinions or vernacular. The options are:

At best, you're going to jail and you're more than likely injured.

At worst, I would do everything in my power to put lead center mass, or put a blade through their throat, or attempt to beat them with my fists until they are no longer a threat. I may win, I may lose, but when someone initiates physical violence it's kill or be killed.

And if they're willing to risk all that because their feelings are hurt and they can't control their emotions, they deserve what they get. You can't have unstable people walking around attacking people, that's clown world shit.

Freedom of speech and self defense are legal rights. Assault and/or battery isn't. The very fact that you condone violence says a hell of a lot about you and the political spectrum you support. You just confirmed what I already knew.....

Clown world shit is thinking you’d make it out of the hood alive after spouting off your dumb “opinions” there. Typical right wing tough guy talk, heads up you’re not the only side armed anymore. Stay in your shit hole meth infested rural areas or we’ll run you out of town like we did over and over during Mango Mussolini’s presidency.

Well, see that's the rub. I don't usually agree with D4L, but on this point he's correct. Currently everything is considered racist or offensive and the list keeps growing. As noted earlier, the word female is offensive. The perfectly valid word retard is offensive. Hell, I read an article saying that 2+2=4 is racist. And on, and on, and on....

At one point I was getting tired of all this "woke" nonsense. But hell no, keep this shit going. There will be blowback eventually. Like I said, the further and more extreme the pendulum swings one way. The further it's going to swing the other way when it eventually happens. So go ahead, cancel everything. It doesn't affect me and I have no control over it. Therefore, I don't care. I'm just stuck in clown world watching the show. Just keep you hands to yourself and everything will be fabulous

Sir, you should calm down, your kotex is leaking estrogen. Also, I don't go to the "hood". Why would anyone go to the "hood" if they don't live in the "hood"?

And if you think defending yourself from being attacked is tough guy stuff, you ain't too smart. So not only are you condoning  criminals physically attacking people. You're condoing criminals using sidearms against their victims if the victims try to defend themselves. Yeah buddy, you sound logical and psychologically stable.

Let me ask you a question. Hypothetically, if you said something that offended someone. And they attacked you. Exactly what the fuck would you do?

Where’s the ignore button? I don’t talk to terrorists.

I know i'm a little late to the party but i reported him to dave. This is just race baiting threatening bull shit. The guy is clearly screwed in the head.

Lol oh no :( so much for freeze peach

Now I'm a terrorist? Got damn, I can't stop laughing. I just spit my drink all over my monitors. Damn kid, you're so silly...

If I may ask, what did I say that was "race baiting"? Damn, you guy have become such a sensitive bunch around here

He meant he reported me dude lol see you conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to have any kind of power with that level of comprehension.

Not you, the mental patient that your talking to on here. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing his crap on here.

Use the ignore button as soon as I find it I’ll put you and Atomwaffen Pondy on it.

To be honest, I haven't been hanging out here too often lately. So besides a few people, I don't remember who's who. Anyhow, raptor quoted me so I figured he was talking about me. It's a heavily left leaning site, so I'm used to being ganged up on.

Anyhow, I hope they don't ban or delete Denver's posts. I'm good with anyone saying anything that comes to their mind. I can 100% guarantee you, I won't lose any sleep over overly emotional grown men LMFAO

Is this English or some new trendy catchphrases or something?  ::)

working at a nursing home i deal with people with mental issues all the time, after awhile you want a break from that. people trying to race bait and threaten other people annoys me to no end.

Yeah man, I get it. There's people with mental issues everywhere these days. The older I get the less they bother me, I just tune them out. It's all just part of living in this crazy circus world.

I know I'm late to the party but this whole things seems to be a hug leap. USA article says Fifty-six percent of those surveyed say the term means "to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices." That includes not only three-fourths of Democrats but also more than a third of Republicans. I don't get "knowing" what woke means makes it a positive statement. I'd argue that even liberals are fighting against "wokeness" these days so I find it hard to believe they think it's positive to be "woke" all the time.

Do you agree that "woke" means "to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices" and not, say, "to be overly politically correct and police others' words"?
Seems to me that if you believe that "woke" meets the former definition, you have just listed things that are positive.

I'm guessing you mean "liberals" like Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk.

I think woke "pretends" to be educated and informed. More times than not it's people pretending to be outraged by something that isn't really an issue.

Yes those two as well as people like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.  Left wing writers like Andrew Sullivan and Matt Taibbi have taken on Biden for his embrace of the woke culture as well as liberal mouth pieces like James Carvelle. There are also many liberal comedians who are calling out the progressive extremists.  Attacking the "woke" isn't just for the GOP any longer.

They're not attacking woke.  They're attacking political correctness and cancel culture and calling it woke.

Woke is a boogeyman word that is used incorrectly.

This sounds exactly like "political correctness."  What's the difference?

Andrew Sullivan and Matt Taibbi are no more "left wing" than Charlie Crist is a conservative.  They attack "wokeness" because their current business model is appealing to a right-wing audience.

Andrew Sullivan doesn't fit into any one political mold; I'll give you that.

But he self-identifies as a conservative.

On some social issues, namely homosexuality, he aligns with the left.
He's pretty staunchly a libertarian.  But he's not a hawkish or Trumpian conservative either and he will break from the party on any issue and support the opposition.  And he does.


But he is most certainly not a liberal.

Bill Maher - “I mean, five years ago Abraham Lincoln was not a controversial figure among liberals. We liked him. Now they take his name off schools and tear down his statues. Really, Lincoln isn't good enough for you?” he said. Five, 10 years ago, bedrock liberalism was [that] we are striving to be a color blind society where we don't see race,” continued Maher, whose Overtime segments began running Friday nights on CNN earlier this month. “Of course we see it, but it doesn't matter. That's not what woke is. Woke is something very different. It's identity. We see it all the time. It's always the most important thing. I don't think that's liberalism.”

“I remember doing that show on HBO — Comic Relief for the homeless. The idea then, again, among liberals, I thought, was for the sake of compassion: can we get these people off the streets so they have a roof over their heads?” he said. “And now it's like, ‘How dare you try to move the homeless. This is where they live.’” Sounds to me Dave he is speaking about wokeness but then again, I see political correctness as a symptom of the disease "wokeness".


You also said Bill Maher was conservative so obviously you don't mind stretching the truth. I think the problem is you are so far left you can't see the middle. 

Yeah, I don't know what to tell you, man.  That's not wokeness.  You (or Bill Maher or whoever else) is just naming things they don't like and calling it wokeness.

I don't like homeless people either.  I don't want them hanging out in the streets where they don't live.  That pisses me off too.  It has nothing to do with wokeness, though.

Bill Maher is just wrong about this.  He's one person, using a term incorrectly to take on a culture war.  He's just a comedian using a term incorrectly.  He may be right about the underlying issue -- that we're too stringent with purity tests for liberalism.  Fair point.  But it's not wokeness.

The guy who typed the words "current Democrat George Bush" says that I am stretching the truth in my evaluation of political alignments.  :D

Notwithstanding Dave's point that Sullivan directly labels himself a conservative, this entire "Even the liberal commenter blahblah says..." line of discussion makes no sense.  You don't even believe in that argument!  I mean, if I were to point out the statements from people who were elected to Congress as Republicans like Joe Scarborough, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Mitt Romney, you would just say "Who cares, they're basically Democrats" and be done with it.  So I don't see why should anyone care if you call Bill Maher or Matt Taibbi "liberals"; you don't even recognize that as a valid point when applied to the right.

The only difference between the Clintons and the Bushes are the body counts.   :D