Is cycling ‘woke’? Cycling and culture wars discussed with a Conservative aide, plus Lucinda Brand and Eli Iserbyt on the future of cyclocross

perce wrote:

I was going to marry my cornflakes this morning but the dish had run away with the spoon. Anyway my wife wouldn't let me.

Sounds about right

Being woke in the current sense applies to those that push left wing political identity issues; the left are reknowned for being intolerant of free speech when it pertains to points of view they disagree with.

Nope.

A cursory glance at local rags will show you that it is simply used where people don't like something but are unable or unwilling to articulate why.

I think you'll find it's the Tory party who don't like free speech. Unless they aren't right wing enough for you.

You use the historical definition of woke; the historical definition of gay is light-hearted and carefree; I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume you go with the modern definition of gay..

Actually everyone is incorrect here. "Woke" is the past form of "wake" - which as a noun also refers to a gathering for the deceased. Hence the usage of it here as a thought-terminating word for the arousal of conflict / creating waves by towing a dead cat through a discussion.

To be strictly accurate I think "Woke" refers to the sensation experienced by the observers. They all agree this is significant! The definition becomes vague here however as they each know exactly what this is (by introspection) so are utterly convinced others' descriptions are inaccurate.

grOg wrote:

You use the historical definition of woke; the historical definition of gay is light-hearted and carefree; I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume you go with the modern definition of gay..

No, I’m using the only accepted definition of the word. The “modern usage” you’re referring to is it’s use by right-wing commentators to rubbish any left-leaning views they don’t agree with. This usage is as a catch-all pejorative and doesn’t have an accepted definition – which is why the right-leaning members in this very thread can’t seem to agree on what “woke” means. You’ve described it as prescribing to extreme gender theory, to Biker Phil it describes left-wingers with uncompromising views, and LIFL thinks… some nonsensical bollocks about having no personal morals.

grOg wrote:

You use the historical definition of woke; the historical definition of gay is light-hearted and carefree; I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume you go with the modern definition of gay..

Most people can define the modern meaning of gay when they say it, but no-one can define woke when they say it as an insult.  It's not very clever to use words when you don't know what they mean, in fact, it just makes you look incredibly foolish.

BalladOfStruth]<p>[quote=Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

"Tolerance" is a separate thing entirely - and tolerance absolutely has its limits - certain things, such as discrimination, bigotry, etc. should not be tolerated. 

So you say you will not discriminate against me for having the complete opposite viewpoint to you?

Puts me in mind of the story of Euler's algebraic proof of the existence of god.

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html

I dunno much about the gender theory of breakfast cereals, or the ethical implications of civil or spiritual union with milk. There is certainly an interesting landscape of error though. There are those that should be less contentious (logical error, factual mistake) but there is surely a point where it's subjective ("if we allow this then..."), no?

Came to road.cc for the cycling, stayed for the.....
Monty Python and obscure mathematical principles.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

But I do disagree, sometimes we need people not to be tolerant, otherwise things get out of hand. You only need to look generally at people today, and it's so stupid that now I can self-identify as a pack of Weetabix and marry a milk bottle if I wanted. 

The key thing is, nobody is asking you to become a different gender or be in love with someone who is the same gender as you so what gives you the right to decide who or what other people should be, do or love? It doesn't affect you at all that trans people exist, why does it bother you?

(obviously you are being a cunt and acting like transgender people's human gender experience is akin to being convinced you are a cereal so I haven't used your weetabix example, I absolutely do not tolerate your kind of hate, it goes against my strongly held beliefs.)

I agree

And there you have exactly proved my point. I have personal beliefs that differ to yours, and I am not prepared to compromise on this.

However, you can obviously accept more than two genders, but you cannot accept my beliefs, so how does that stack up? Am I not also entitled to my own opinion?

And for that I would be cancelled etc, by the woke. For simply having a different belief. Simply, this is why the "woke" brigade are corrupt, and as I previously stated, without morals.

As you have said, I also cannot tolerate your sort of hate, as it goes equally against my strongly held beliefs.

We get it. You can't define woke in any meaningful way but you're basing your entire belief system on it. No compromise. No surrender & all that.

Have you been cancelled yet?

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Road.cc really pulled the pin and ran on this one. 

Maybe site traffic was beginning to tail off?

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Woke = another word used by lefties to cancel anything they don't agree with. 

A comment directly contradicted by the observed facts.  Woke is used almost exclusively by the far right e.g. tories, to describe something that they are policitally opposed to.  Even more bizarre, I've never met or heard anyone from the far right who is able to define the term, even when they use it so often.

The word 'woke' is used as a pejorative by those critical of political correctness, cancel culture and left-leaning bias; a very obvious definition of its current meaning and usage, so I find it strange that those on the left and right struggle to define the term correctly.

Woke lefty here: what planet are you living on, and is it opposite day there?

Is this cancelled in the same way that Elon musk is being cancelled by advertisers who don't see his platform as a good investment? or cancelled in the same way as Donald Trump who is able to get his racist, ablist, working class hating rhetoric onto every screen in the world whenever he wants? Or cancelled in the same way as the tories who have been in power for a decade and a half, lining their pockets at the expense of decent hardworking people?

Or is it cancelled in the way that people who say awful shit get called out for it but nothing actually happens to them and they are free to keep saying awful shit while others are free to ignore them?

Or cancelled in the way GB news cancels guests who criticise them in a debate on free speech (Michael Crick 4/11/23) ?

Hirsute wrote:

Or cancelled in the way GB news cancels guests who criticise them in a debate on free speech (Michael Crick 4/11/23) ?

Or cancelled like right wingers cancel brands for representing LGBTQ+ people in their advertising campaigns? 

Or cancelled like right wingers burning their Nike products for not cancelling athletes making a stand for their beliefs. 

Refusing to use a product is not cancelling, that's just putting your money where your mouth is; cancelling is people losing their job for expressing their views, a breach of free speech.

grOg wrote:

Refusing to use a product is not cancelling, that's just putting your money where your mouth is; cancelling is people losing their job for expressing their views, a breach of free speech.

That’s not “cancelling”, that’s “consequences”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences, and if you’re going to say something on a privately owned platform that is against the values of the platform (or the values of their advertisers), you can expect there to be consequences regarding your relationship with that platform. This is nothing new, and it does not affect only the right - see the Meta-wide censorship of comments and removal of accounts showing support for the Palestinian civilians in Gaza (civilians, not Hamas).

This goes even further with employers, as your employer will view you and your behaviour (both in and out of the workplace). Again, this is nothing new and people have been sacked for all kinds of shit that has brought unwelcome attention to their employers – back when I worked in a supermarket after school, people got sacked for smoking if they didn’t cover their uniform.

As for the most widely-used example of “cancelling” is celebrities/influencers/organisations saying or doing something that people don’t agree with, and these people no longer supporting these celebrities or consuming what the organisations produce. Again, this is nothing new and always used to be thought of as a good thing – it was called “voting with your feet”. That was before it started happening to right-wingers though. Now, people supporting who/what they agree with is apparently some massive injustice.

One mans 'awful shit' is another mans truth telling..

All this debate about what "woke" means (it's the Dafties that are obsessed by wokery yet don't seem to know what it is other than anything they don't think they like) it's no wonder "truth" seems so confusing also. Opinion is not "truth".

Laurence Fox is still a foghorn of awful shit.

Whereas the dafties ("school of life mate....common sense innit" etc) call that sort of thing Tory/Republican policy

Clem Fandango wrote:

Whereas the dafties ("school of life mate....common sense innit" etc) call that sort of thing Tory/Republican policy

It's shocking how some of the U.S. Republicans are banning library and school books, especially history books. Those who try to hide history are planning on recreating it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Clem Fandango wrote:

Whereas the dafties ("school of life mate....common sense innit" etc) call that sort of thing Tory/Republican policy

It's shocking how some of the U.S. Republicans are banning library and school books, especially history books. Those who try to hide history are planning on recreating it.

Yes, but this incident did make me chuckle.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/07/book-bans-are-swee...