Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

World news and politics.

Muz said:
Hahahahahaha. Again, assuming that that furry thing is not some sort of street theatre, how does that affect you? I just bet you'd love to get a few of your mates and flog that 'weirdo' wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Street Theatre you call it?! you really are a sick twisted individual.

As for flogging that weirdo? No, looks like they are suffering enough.
 
Beretta said:
Street Theatre you call it?! you really are a sick twisted individual.

As for flogging that weirdo? No, looks like they are suffering enough.
Click to expand...

I said 'ASSUMING IT'S NOT STREET THEATRE, how does that affect you?'

But how does it affect you? Did you manage to get through your day OK?
 
Muz said:
Notice how these blokes can never explain themselves?

Farken crickets.


I'm still waiting for Dan to respond to this.

Who's forcing a belief system on you when pretty much all they're saying is you should respect peoples choices? On the one hand you are happy to accept religious people's beliefs but not some bloke in a dress that wants to use pronouns.

As for 'why does a person's life need to materially or mentally alter to simply agree it's not for government to force a belief system on anyone'?

Why?

You know what else were 'woke' issues in the past?

Abolition of slavery
The right for women to vote.
The right for aboriginals to vote.
Mixed marriages
Public education
8 hour workdays
Women working
Women at university
Social security
Smoking bans
Disability rights.
Civil rights

So yeah IT IS THE PLACE of the government, and activists, to agitate for change. If not them then who?
Click to expand...
Apologies Muz, life's busy in the real world and I'm trying keep up with this conversation since deciding to enter it but missed this response of yours. It's difficult when you post about 30 to my 1.

I'd say forcing pro sports person's to wear gay pride rainbows is a prime example. If a person doesn't want to, why force them? Do they even need something like religion to justify their stance? We teach children consent when touching other people, yet don't need consent to force items on someone's body? Its inconsistent, and ridiculous.

Where did I mention not accepting a bloke in dress? I remember suggesting additional toilets in the public setting specifically for trans people similar how disabled toilets we're Intergrated with building compliance decades back.

I'd agree its the role of activists to challenged established beliefs to progress society, but its never the role of government. Government forcing beliefs and conformity is directing responsible for the rise of nazi Germany and societ russia, shocking totalitarian regime's from both political extremes. How many of your examples were driven initially from government, and how many for social activists? You've provided good examples, id genuinely be curious of the anwser. Sporting bodies tho need to stfu and concentrate on their role, providing entertainment.
 
Dan_The_Red said:
Apologies Muz, life's busy in the real world and I'm trying keep up with this conversation since deciding to enter it but missed this response of yours. It's difficult when you post about 30 to my 1.

I'd say forcing pro sports person's to wear gay pride rainbows is a prime example. If a person doesn't want to, why force them? Do they even need something like religion to justify their stance? We teach children consent when touching other people, yet don't need consent to force items on someone's body? Its inconsistent, and ridiculous.

Where did I mention not accepting a bloke in dress? I remember suggesting additional toilets in the public setting specifically for trans people similar how disabled toilets we're Intergrated with building compliance decades back.

I'd agree its the role of activists to challenged established beliefs to progress society, but its never the role of government. Government forcing beliefs and conformity is directing responsible for the rise of nazi Germany and societ russia, shocking totalitarian regime's from both political extremes. How many of your examples were driven initially from government, and how many for social activists? You've provided good examples, id genuinely be curious of the anwser. Sporting bodies tho need to stfu and concentrate on their role, providing entertainment.
Click to expand...

Well accepting a bloke in a dress would be an example of what I thought you would think is 'woke ideology'.

I think you've missed the point. You don't want 'woke ideology' forced on you, whatever that is, BUT everyone of those causes would have been considered 'woke' back when they were agitating for change. Brought about by 'lefty do-gooders' in the main.

What I can't wrap my head around is those things that are accepted now were vehemently opposed by conservatives, traditionalists and by religious folk. A lot of them of using bible verse for justification. The world is a more tolerant, accepting place now because of these advancements.

if you lived at any of those times, for the sake of the argument, you can easily imagine people saying the exact same things you are saying now.

Besides rainbow flags on jerseys (which I don't agree with forcing people to wear) you've yet to provide any other examples of what this terrible woke ideology is.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
Well accepting a bloke in a dress would be an example of what I thought you would think is 'woke ideology'.

I think you've missed the point. You don't want 'woke ideology' forced on you, whatever that is, BUT everyone of those causes would have been considered 'woke' back when they were agitating for change. Brought about by lefty do-gooders.

What I can't wrap my head around is those things that are accepted now were vehemently opposed by conservatives, traditionalists and by religious folk. A lot of them of using bible verse for justification.

if you lived at any of those times, for the sake of the argument, you can easily imagine people saying the exact same things you are saying now.

Besides rainbow flags on jerseys (which I don't agree with forcing people to wear) you've yet to provide any other examples of what this terrible woke ideology is.
Click to expand...
We keep rehashing the same stuff.

I'm happy to accept people can have different views and that's ok. Resorting to violence or celebrating it undermines any debate.

I respect your opinions Muz, my final response on the matter.
 
Dan_The_Red said:
Apologies Muz, life's busy in the real world and I'm trying keep up with this conversation since deciding to enter it but missed this response of yours. It's difficult when you post about 30 to my 1.

I'd say forcing pro sports person's to wear gay pride rainbows is a prime example. If a person doesn't want to, why force them? Do they even need something like religion to justify their stance? We teach children consent when touching other people, yet don't need consent to force items on someone's body? Its inconsistent, and ridiculous.

Where did I mention not accepting a bloke in dress? I remember suggesting additional toilets in the public setting specifically for trans people similar how disabled toilets we're Intergrated with building compliance decades back.

I'd agree its the role of activists to challenged established beliefs to progress society, but its never the role of government. Government forcing beliefs and conformity is directing responsible for the rise of nazi Germany and societ russia, shocking totalitarian regime's from both political extremes. How many of your examples were driven initially from government, and how many for social activists? You've provided good examples, id genuinely be curious of the anwser. Sporting bodies tho need to stfu and concentrate on their role, providing entertainment.
Click to expand...
I'd like to counter you on a few things. First, by coming out suggesting others don't live in the real world or have lives already starts your discussion with an antagonising demeanour.

I've seen many sports stars refuse to wear the pride colours. I do agree with you that forceful implementation is not the right way, however the alternate of vehement hateful rhetoric isn't the solution.

You are right, government and religion should be separated. That's not what Charlie Kirk wanted though. he was very strong about religion and it's place in government. America and the right is heavily controlled by religion. We also saw that creeping in here in the last election, and even the election before that. Scomo is a big evangelical who did the bidding of Hillsong, and implemented policy because of his religious belief. He set up back in regards to climate change all because of the belief about climate change being a necessary for the end times.

Again, this all stemmed from people angry that people celebrated Charlies death, and suddenly the right is bringing all these others points into it. Charlie was divisive and hateful, and if people who he was hateful to feel some justification in what happened to him, that's up to them. Free speech is a big factor for the right, but not when it is others engaging in that "free speech". I understand the irony of being against hateful speech whilst trying to empathise with those who did it after his death, but context is a very significant factor.
 
zimbos05 said:
I'd like to counter you on a few things. First, by coming out suggesting others don't live in the real world or have lives already starts your discussion with an antagonising demeanour.

I've seen many sports stars refuse to wear the pride colours. I do agree with you that forceful implementation is not the right way, however the alternate of vehement hateful rhetoric isn't the solution.

You are right, government and religion should be separated. That's not what Charlie Kirk wanted though. he was very strong about religion and it's place in government. America and the right is heavily controlled by religion. We also saw that creeping in here in the last election, and even the election before that. Scomo is a big evangelical who did the bidding of Hillsong, and implemented policy because of his religious belief. He set up back in regards to climate change all because of the belief about climate change being a necessary for the end times.

Again, this all stemmed from people angry that people celebrated Charlies death, and suddenly the right is bringing all these others points into it. Charlie was divisive and hateful, and if people who he was hateful to feel some justification in what happened to him, that's up to them. Free speech is a big factor for the right, but not when it is others engaging in that "free speech". I understand the irony of being against hateful speech whilst trying to empathise with those who did it after his death, but context is a very significant factor.
Click to expand...


It's also interesting that when pushed on what the actual problems are, how they affect you or what 'woke' is they withdraw from the debate.

It seems hating everything that's 'woke' is a statement that doesn't need any further explanation.

To be fair he has withdrawn in a polite way. Usually it's with a hail of insults.

It's a shame because in all the years of asking people I'm still no closer to what this terrible 'woke' is.

As far as I can tell they're annoyed because they're told they should be considerate of others different from them.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
It's also interesting that when pushed on what the actual problems are, how they affect you or what 'woke' they withdraw from the debate.

It seems hating everything that's 'woke' is a statement that doesn't need any further explanation.

To be fair he has withdrawn in a polite way. Usually it's with a hail of insults.

It's a shame because in all the years of asking people I'm still no closer to what this terrible 'woke' is.

As far as I can tell they're annoyed because they're told they should be considerate of others different from them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's always just the usual retorts. Lack of accountability, but quick to judge (and be very socialist and left) when the left does something.

To be fair, Dan seems to be quite a decent person who is open to conversation unlike some of the other right wingers on here.

I love Jordan Klepper when he does his Finger on the Pulse clips. It holds a mirror up to the right, but they just can't see it.

I do worry that American politics is creeping in way more though. It's starting to fill our news and every time Trump does something, it's headline. It would be quite interesting if the media were just like, "nah, we're not giving this orange anymore time of day"
 
zimbos05 said:
I'd like to counter you on a few things. First, by coming out suggesting others don't live in the real world or have lives already starts your discussion with an antagonising demeanour.

I've seen many sports stars refuse to wear the pride colours. I do agree with you that forceful implementation is not the right way, however the alternate of vehement hateful rhetoric isn't the solution.

You are right, government and religion should be separated. That's not what Charlie Kirk wanted though. he was very strong about religion and it's place in government. America and the right is heavily controlled by religion. We also saw that creeping in here in the last election, and even the election before that. Scomo is a big evangelical who did the bidding of Hillsong, and implemented policy because of his religious belief. He set up back in regards to climate change all because of the belief about climate change being a necessary for the end times.

Again, this all stemmed from people angry that people celebrated Charlies death, and suddenly the right is bringing all these others points into it. Charlie was divisive and hateful, and if people who he was hateful to feel some justification in what happened to him, that's up to them. Free speech is a big factor for the right, but not when it is others engaging in that "free speech". I understand the irony of being against hateful speech whilst trying to empathise with those who did it after his death, but context is a very significant factor.
Click to expand...
Lets not forget Morrison and Abbot'ts championing of the Plymouth Brethren, and the current investigation into how they have been awarded millions of dollars of governmanet tenders.

www.abc.net.au

These Brethren members stepped out of line. Then the threats and intimidation started

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church is fiercely protective of a multi-billion-dollar business which supports the church. These men found out the extraordinary lengths it will take to keep it safe.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Muz
Muz said:
It's also interesting that when pushed on what the actual problems are, how they affect you or what 'woke' they withdraw from the debate.

It seems hating everything that's 'woke' is a statement that doesn't need any further explanation.

To be fair he has withdrawn in a polite way. Usually it's with a hail of insults.

It's a shame because in all the years of asking people I'm still no closer to what this terrible 'woke' is.

As far as I can tell they're annoyed because they're told they should be considerate of others different from them.
Click to expand...
" can't STAND the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up, new age term, and it does a LOT of damage." -CHARLIE KIRK .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
zimbos05 said:
To be fair, Dan seems to be quite a decent person who is open to conversation unlike some of the other right wingers on here.
Click to expand...

Yes he does seem to be a decent person. And polite and respectful HOWEVER that does not get him a free pass.

When you want to interrogate the 'why' they go running. Just like he did. If you like Jordan Klepper then you understand where I'm coming from. I'm asking them to justify their positions. For example, any of those things I listed that would've been considered 'woke' in the past. Rather than defending their positions they scuttle off. How hard is it? You don't like Pride month? Why?

Why?

Fuck knows. Something about it being 'shoved down our throats'. I think a month is over the top but I couldn't give a flying fuck about it. It doesn't affect me.

Let's face it. They're upset, in the main, because the world they grew up in is changing. Deep down they're bigots and racists. (Not calling Dan either of them here because I haven't heard enough from him so would reserve judgment.) Being polite doesn't ipso facto make you not either of those. Charlie Kirk is a prime example.

But there is no doubt that some of the blokes here would happily fantasise, or worse, about bashing a trans person or a furry or a homosexual for no other reason than because they think they're 'sick'.

That's the real issue. You have to ask yourself who's the 'mentally ill' people.
 
This is what Dan defined as 'woke'.

Easy, the woke agenda is a concerted effort by entities such as the media to force beliefs and lifestyle on the entire populus through all medium.

Still waiting for an expansion of what this means. And besides rainbows on jerseys that's as far as we got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top