Which is worse: woke or gammon?

[LinemanForTheCounty]

And should they both get in the sea?

Gammon!

At least the woke are trying to be nice

No chance. People who fit the characature of either term do so out of ignorance and selfishness, not niceness.

The genuinely woke (Owen Jones is always my go-to example) are utterly mendacious- always attention seeking, lecturing those less fortunate than themselves, hypocritical, attacking anyone who disagrees slightly and arguing in bed faith.

The genuinely woke (Owen Jones is always my go-to example) are utterly mendacious- always attention seeking, lecturing those less fortunate than themselves, hypocritical, attacking anyone who disagrees slightly and arguing in bed faith.

Is he merely 'Woke' or more like 'virtue-signalling, self-licencsed Social Justice warrior'?

Woke. I'm sick of their hectoring attitude and inability to engage in discussion.

I'd forgotten about 'gammon'. Hadn't heard it for ages.

'Woke' is more irritating.

Gammon. Ignorant gammon.

So the definition of work is both people wanting to promote progressive politics, and people who don't understand progressive politics but jumped on the bandwagon.

Gotcha.

Maybe anyone who doesn't want to hear anything about progressive politics should google crab bucket and ask themselves why?

I thought you were talking about Gammon the traveller language.

A Canadian university lecturer was sacked for liking a Donald Trump tweet.
That is how bad woke has got. Do you really want to live in a world where you get sacked for liking a tweet?

Woke.

I think Woke is worse because they silence, no-platform, etc. instead of allowing open debate.

• A Canadian university lecturer was sacked for liking a Donald Trump tweet. That is how bad woke has got. Do you really want to live in a world where you get sacked for liking a tweet?*

I'm so confused about this, he is the President so obvs some people did vote for him. But you can get sacked for liking one of his tweets?!

I think Woke is worse because they silence, no-platform, etc. instead of allowing open debate

Is there anyone who you don't think should be silenced or not have a platform in the UK?

Or do you think anyone should have a platform, regardless of what they have to say?

Isn't hate speech against the law?

One thing from Twitter is always read the facts

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-board-chair-departure-korenberg-1.5623095

www.ubyssey.ca/news/michael-korenberg-resignation/

A Canadian university lecturer was sacked for liking a Donald Trump tweet
That is how bad woke has got. Do you really want to live in a world where you get sacked for liking a tweet

Was he sacked just for liking a single tweet?

Or was there much more to the story than that?

In other words, before Korenberg went on a recent weeks-long spree of liking tweets from far-right figures in the United States — and subsequently apologized and resigned as UBC's chair — people internally knew about his ideology

Gammon makes me think of Nigel Farage; his gammony chops have been quiet of late. And, of course, "Call me Dave" Cameron (the C3PO made of ham).

I think the people who use these ridiculous terms are worse than the individuals they describe

Agree with this.

Why does every opinion have a label now days.

@chomalungma

I think Woke is worse because they silence, no-platform, etc. instead of allowing open debate

Is there anyone who you don't think should be silenced or not have a platform in the UK?

Or do you think anyone should have a platform, regardless of what they have to say?

Well, yes. Free speech is a founding principle of liberalism since forever...until now.

No one is obligated to listen though.

This is where 'la, la, la, not listening' is useful for the delicate.

No one is obligated to listen though

What about the effect on those who do listen - both those who are radicalised through what is said, and the potential impact on those at the receiving end of what is being said?

@chomalungma are you talking about all speech or illegal hate speech?

are you talking about all speech or illegal hate speech

The suggestion was that woke people want silence, no platform instead of open debate.

Yet we already have people who can be jailed for 'hate speech' - and I would imagine that people who say they aren't woke are more than happy to see people locked up for 'hate speech'.

Who gets to define illegal hate speech - and what type of people are people happy to see no platformed, silenced or even jailed for what they want to say?

I thought hate speech was defined by law?

@Onestepup

I think Woke is worse because they silence, no-platform, etc. instead of allowing open debate.

Whereas gammon seem to be on a mission to use anything to triggee a diatribe debate

I thought hate speech was defined by law

Looks complicated.

Usually the people who complain about people being silenced and no-platformed are not the ones who are on the receiving end of 'the debate' and who usually have a large platform themselves to spread their constant negative messages about certain groups to reinforce prejudice.

They are not usually in a group who gets constant negative press and who are at the receiving end of vitriol.