Great article in the Guardian about wokeism

Lead the way with what exactly?

Why do his minions keep saying that?

Lead the way. I've yet to see anything sensible but remain in hope.

I'm not surprised you don't understand the concept of facts. Facts are important dear. I also wish you the best of days.

It’s so tiring. Especially because there could be so much constructive debate to reach a consensus if it wasn’t shut down so vehemently.

I could sit down and talk respectfully about politics with someone who believes being woke is a good thing and if they engaged in good faith, we may learn something from one another. We may even agree on certain topics. I did one of those political quizzes prior to the last GE where you answer questions about your views on a range of topics and it tells you who to vote for. Mine came out an equal three-way split between Greens, Lib Dem’s and Reform (where do you even go with that?)
But my point is, it isn’t necessarily the political views that are the problem. It’s the way they are presented.

@Lostcat

You hold certain beliefs which you think are “factual”- actually they are the product of a set of narrow and partial assumptions.

I'm curious whether you think this description applies to you.

(I think that's a fair description of all of humanity. That's why recognising the rights of others to advance positions one disagrees with is so important, and why bearing in mind that they might be right is so valuable. Would you agree?).

One of the things that alleged 'woke' is getting wrong is its argument that it is 'transphobic' that females should have sex-based rights in order to be able to fully participate in what is still a patriarchal society.
I have yet to see an argument as to why it makes me a right wing bigot to say that males should not be able to use females' sex-based rights.
I wouldn't even mind if my position was termed 'male-phobic', even though I don't suffer from phobias and know that it is intended as a bit of a slur; at least it would be more correct in the sense that yes, I want females to maintain their sex-based societal protections. But apparently it is progressive to call people like me a 'transphobe' and usually also assume that because I'm a 'transphobe' I am 'aligned' with the 'far right'.
In the 80s I'd have been called a 'Loony Leftie' or a 'dungaree-wearing lesbian'. I wasnt either of those things either but I just can't seem to find a political position that patriarchal capitalism finds acceptable 😂

Exactly. You said Reform LOOKS more sensible. Which is an expressed opinion. And a perfectly valid one. You didn’t state it as a fact.

And the rebuttal was hearsay and telling you to ‘look at facts’ and ‘get out of your echo chamber’

It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion with these people.

OP - claims a decent human being doesn't "belittle, patronise or bully opponents and listen with an open mind"

Also OP - anyone who disagrees is a blue-haired, nose-pierced authoritarian and performative, tantrum throwing, keyboard warrior.

You couldn't make it up ,😂,but as they say the hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds!

By the way OP, if that's your definition of what makes a decent human then I fear you're gonna be in for a helluva shock when you find out what the right have been up to lately 😬

Yes, that’s a good point.

You are literally proving the point spectacularly here. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme view is ‘transphobic’
They really aren’t.

Christ, it’s like we’ve got a vocal few on the far left shouting and screaming, a vocal few on the far right shouting and screaming, and those of us sitting in the middle somewhere are just sick of it.

We cannot even debate it with you if you hold a completely different definition of the word transphobia to the majority of the population. We can’t even agree on what words mean so it becomes a pointless argument.

You're doing a great job for Farage; do keep it up.

@Lostcat

Absolutely not. This is a total failure to engage with the substance of what I wrote.

You may well have meant something different. But what you wrote, very clearly, was a complaint about people wanting to "reserve the right" to advance certain positions.

It wasn't about people who advance a position but object to disagreement. It was an objection to their right to advance X without also believing or stating some other thing Y that you think they should.

Let's look:

the right to "debate" the legitimacy of trans existence, while pretending they have no problem with trans people.

They want to complain about immigration, while refusing to acknowledge the broader injustices at stake.

They want to oppose environmental activism while claiming to care about climate change.

They want to defend a regime committing genocide, without anyone using the word genocide.

That's not about them objecting to disagreement. That's you complaining that they feel they have a "right" to make an argument in a way you dislike. You may concede them the right to say a, b, c, but only if they also say x, y, z.

But maybe you got onto the issue of disagreement later in your post.

You did. Was it to object to people who advance a position and then refuse to engage in debate?

Let's look:

They are also so entitled that they think it's the job of other people to persuade them to change their mind...

No it wasn't. The opposite in fact. Your objection is that they do, in your telling, expect argument back.

What should they have done instead? Well, it's:

[...] their own responsibility to behave in socially responsible ways.

Not only are they wrong to "reserve the right" to advance positions on terms they, not you, approve of, but they have an active "responsibility" to fall into line.

That's why I said your post suggests an authoritarian outlook. A closer reading, engaging with the substance of what you wrote, hasn't changed that.

@inkognitha

to the point that indeed Reform looks more sensible and aligned with the population.

No it doesn't. The new Reform councillors look like a bunch of amateurs and Reform barely has any MPs. Desperately wanting something doesn't make it reality. Try looking at facts and ignore your echo chamber for a change.

The problem here is your definition of transphobic or anti-immigration. I would imagine that you define both of these terms as anyone who disagrees with your stance on them.

I would imagine the majority of us who are tired of either extreme sit around the centre somewhere. Whether it’s left of or right of. So our views are more nuanced than yours. I understand that we live in a varied society and that things need to be as balanced as they can to benefit the majority.

I would consider a transphobic person as someone who hated trans people. I don’t hate trans people. I support their right to exist in society, calling themselves whatever they wish and largely doing as they wish as long as (and this is the important part) they don’t encroach on others.

On immigration - there is a huge range between being completely xenophobic and believing in completely open borders. The problem is, you’re seeing these as binary opinions. That if someone doesn’t agree with unchecked immigration then they must be xenophobic. This is simply not the case. Most people in the centre (myself included) understand that immigration is a good thing and is necessary but with certain checks and balances in place so that it doesn’t become a huge issue.

Just because people don’t agree with you, does NOT mean they are far right. They’re probably more likely to be in the centre.

You can of course dress, act, mimic what you think the opposite sex behave, feel, look like

this is transphobic.

You hold certain beliefs which you think are “factual”- actually they are the product of a set of narrow and partial assumptions. And based on these presumed to be “factual” claims you’ve drawn transphobic conclusions.

It is right and appropriate to point out that transphobia is transphobia and there’s nothing intolerant , woke, angry or authoritarian about doing so.

It's the go to way of shutting people down. I'm talking about the idea of transphobia, in general. It backfired, big time when the wonderful JKR got stuck in, to fight back.

It's an interesting paradigm how this thread has gone. One of the problems for 'woke' is the assumption that if you are deemed 'woke' in one way, you have to be 'woke' in all ways, or suddenly you've become 'right wing' or 'a bigot' or a hypocrite instead.
The same is true to an extent the other way, but I'd say less so. I'm glad the Guardian is at least looking at itself a bit.

Not any more. It now seems to describe the opposite position to 'Gammon'.

Most rational people are about half way between the two, give or take a bit.

Just looking at first first line

'be transphobic' when individuals accuse people of being 'transphobic' because they believe in biological reality and science that you cannot change sex or transform into the opposite sex. It's impossible. You can of course dress, act, mimic what you think the opposite sex behave, feel, look like but you can never BE the opposite sex. That's not transphobic that factual! Why does reality get called 'transphobic' it really isn't.

I admire your principles. 😊

Insults, threats, cancel tactics, intimidation, bullying or aggression is not the way to win over the hearts and minds of the majority of the population. We have seen it with ‘Just Stop Oil’ basically annoying motorists who were inconvenienced or sports viewers having whatever they were watching disrupted, and then the behaviour of TRAs has just repulsed some people, nurses are forming new unions as they feel they are not supported, LGA has formed, Stonewall is in crisis and even the National Trust is throwing away its core membership in favour of wokeism.

Big business is increasingly aware they need to be more non-political. Customers vote with their pockets.

People should read the comments with the most BTL recommends on that 2016 article. People were angry. The Guardian was shameful, only reporting on it when they could no longer avoid it. In Hinsliff’s mealy mouthed, grudging rape apologist article she acknowledges this desire of the righteous to avoid talking about it. And myself and other women who read the Guardian regularly and considered themselves “Guardian readers” stopped doing so at that time as @TheaBrandt1 refers to.