Politics

[aknowledgeableperson]

Without global inflation, the Dems would likely be expanding their majorities despite all the "woke-ism".

Dangerous game to play. Despite all the “trump is the devil”, he would likely still be president if Covid didn’t happen.

Trump and Covid? To a degree you might be correct but Covid by itself wasn't Trump's downfall. Trump's downfall was how he responded to Covid. About the only thing that comes to mind that Trump did correctly was the push to get a vaccine.
Adversity is something all presidents face from time to time. It is how they respond to that adversity is what makes or breaks them. For me Trump was his own worst enemy, and still is.

[DColeKC]

Without global inflation, the Dems would likely be expanding their majorities despite all the "woke-ism".

Dangerous game to play. Despite all the “trump is the devil”, he would likely still be president if Covid didn’t happen.

Trump and Covid? To a degree you might be correct but Covid by itself wasn't Trump's downfall. Trump's downfall was how he responded to Covid. About the only thing that comes to mind that Trump did correctly was the push to get a vaccine.
Adversity is something all presidents face from time to time. It is how they respond to that adversity is what makes or breaks them. For me Trump was his own worst enemy, and still is.

For sure. That’s what I meant but didn’t articulate. Had there been no Covid he would have won a 2nd term because the metrics most Americans care most about were good. Had he handled it better he would likely still be in office as well. He is and will always be his own worst enemy.

[DColeKC]

Without global inflation, the Dems would likely be expanding their majorities despite all the "woke-ism".

Dangerous game to play. Despite all the “trump is the devil”, he would likely still be president if Covid didn’t happen.

My point being that the woke-ism you mention is not the reason races are close.

It is the completely unrelated global inflation.

It’s playing a role as even democrats and minorities are growing tired of extreme positions. Of course inflation, economy and crime dominate overall.

[DColeKC]

Being more mad about the woke boogeyman--definitely annoying, but come on, how much of this is purely online performative bullshit (and of that, how much is just right wing trolling?)--than a literal conspiracy to subvert democracy, which almost succeeded and is by all indications going to be tried again by people who have learned lessons about how to do it better next time? That is the scariest thing of all.

It seems like people look at 1/6 two different ways and shocking, it’s impacted by your bias. I think it was terrible and I’m glad those who had ill intentions are being prosecuted. Had this been done by a liberal mob I question if the same level of prosecution would he happening. Considering we had a few summers of riots across the country and nothing was done about it. Yes, there’s a difference between looting and the capital riots but they share the same core value. These right wing nuts saw all the riots and the apparent refusal to stop them or prosecute those who broke the law. Hard to imagine that wasn’t inspirational to those attacking the capital.

I don’t look at 1/6 as a true threat to our democracy just as I don’t think white supremacy is the biggest domestic terrorist threat to our country. These are tiny overall groups of mental midgets who need to be observed but they’re not as threatening as msnbc claims.

The annoying thing about wokeism is the labeling and forceful nature of that particular mob. For example, your told that if you’re attracted to females but wouldn’t date a trans-female because of her anatomy, you’re “transphobic”. This is ludicrous and most people agree it’s ludicrous, yet those on the left sit silent to this silly concept. Because they’re afraid.

[grovester]

For example, your told that if you’re attracted to females but wouldn’t date a trans-female because of her anatomy, you’re “transphobic”. This is ludicrous and most people agree it’s ludicrous, yet those on the left sit silent to this silly concept. Because they’re afraid.

This is dumb, nobody thinks this or does this.

You're transphobic if you're a dick about it or, I don't know, take away their medical care or civil rights.

[phuqueue]

It is just a buzz word that refers to whatever Tucker Carlson is mad about today

I knew that one word would be the thing focused on by a few of you instead of actually responding with any context about my comment as a whole.

Your reaction is essentially one of the modern definitions of “woke” - “the act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue”. The less it has to do with you the better.

If you weren’t always just looking to be pretentious you’d likely know that the modern version of work was brought back into peoples vocabulary before Trump was president and was made popular by anti-racism, me too movements etc when they started saying “stay woke”. It was hijacked by a segment of the country that acts overly aggressive about every little social issue, the more obscure the better. Being cool with men dressing as women and loving other men isn’t enough!!! You must call them whatever they identify as and acknowledge they can be a mother or else you’re a human hating transphobic scum bucket!

I don't care about your comment. I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to akp, who asked what is meant by "woke"/"wokeism." I am aware of how "woke" entered the cultural vernacular, but akp notably didn't ask "where did this word come from," he asked for someone to define it, and it seems these days that the only people using the word are those who are whining about it, so I defined it accordingly. By your definition, though, I would argue that you are the "wokest" one here -- you, after all, are the one most interested in making sure everybody knows exactly where you stand on every stupid culture war issue. The last post in this thread was a week ago and was about a statue of Truman (and prior to that, it had been nearly a month since the previous line of posts, which were just horse race speculation) before you dug the thread up to post an unprompted celebration of what you view as the waning of "PC culture" (and, yes, "wokeism"), making sure to take a few specific shots at the things that apparently most bother you (Trump jokes and gender identity). It seems "very pretentious" (well, that isn't how I would use "pretentious," but I understand what you are going for) "about how much you care about a social issue" to start a whole new discussion out of the blue about how much you hate trans people. Granted, hating other people would not have been considered very "woke" circa 2015, but your definition is agnostic about which side of the social issue you fall on, so congratulations to DColeKC, the wokest boarder on the KCRag web forums.

[mean]

It seems like people look at 1/6 two different ways and shocking, it’s impacted by your bias. I think it was terrible and I’m glad those who had ill intentions are being prosecuted. Had this been done by a liberal mob I question if the same level of prosecution would he happening. Considering we had a few summers of riots across the country and nothing was done about it. Yes, there’s a difference between looting and the capital riots but they share the same core value. These right wing nuts saw all the riots and the apparent refusal to stop them or prosecute those who broke the law. Hard to imagine that wasn’t inspirational to those attacking the capital.

I don’t look at 1/6 as a true threat to our democracy just as I don’t think white supremacy is the biggest domestic terrorist threat to our country. These are tiny overall groups of mental midgets who need to be observed but they’re not as threatening as msnbc claims.

First of all, everything is impacted by one's bias all the time, every day. I get it. I try to look beyond mine, but it can be hard to know when and to what degree you are succeeding. That's fine. But the capitol riot isn't even the issue I have (in spite of my quibble that the two things do not seem to me to share a "core value", I am happy to let that slide)--it's the larger cultural impact: the growing suspicion and distrust of democracy, elevation of election deniers and/or conspiracy theorists to being candidates for office all over the place. That's the stuff that keeps me up at night.

And I mean sure, most people are sensible and aren't conspiracy theorists, they are a small minority. Hopefully sense will prevail and we won't elect those people in large numbers. But the possibility that we could, and what would happen if we did, is 1000x times scarier to me than the prospect of being... socially shamed by a different small minority for not wanting to suck a girl's dick? Like, I couldn't care less.

[DColeKC]

For example, your told that if you’re attracted to females but wouldn’t date a trans-female because of her anatomy, you’re “transphobic”. This is ludicrous and most people agree it’s ludicrous, yet those on the left sit silent to this silly concept. Because they’re afraid.

This is dumb, nobody thinks this or does this.

You're transphobic if you're a dick about it or, I don't know, take away their medical care or civil rights.

If nobody thinks this or does this, why are there articles and studies about it?

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/201 ... phobic?amp

[DColeKC]

It is just a buzz word that refers to whatever Tucker Carlson is mad about today

I knew that one word would be the thing focused on by a few of you instead of actually responding with any context about my comment as a whole.

Your reaction is essentially one of the modern definitions of “woke” - “the act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue”. The less it has to do with you the better.

If you weren’t always just looking to be pretentious you’d likely know that the modern version of work was brought back into peoples vocabulary before Trump was president and was made popular by anti-racism, me too movements etc when they started saying “stay woke”. It was hijacked by a segment of the country that acts overly aggressive about every little social issue, the more obscure the better. Being cool with men dressing as women and loving other men isn’t enough!!! You must call them whatever they identify as and acknowledge they can be a mother or else you’re a human hating transphobic scum bucket!

I don't care about your comment. I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to akp, who asked what is meant by "woke"/"wokeism." I am aware of how "woke" entered the cultural vernacular, but akp notably didn't ask "where did this word come from," he asked for someone to define it, and it seems these days that the only people using the word are those who are whining about it, so I defined it accordingly. By your definition, though, I would argue that you are the "wokest" one here -- you, after all, are the one most interested in making sure everybody knows exactly where you stand on every stupid culture war issue. The last post in this thread was a week ago and was about a statue of Truman (and prior to that, it had been nearly a month since the previous line of posts, which were just horse race speculation) before you dug the thread up to post an unprompted celebration of what you view as the waning of "PC culture" (and, yes, "wokeism"), making sure to take a few specific shots at the things that apparently most bother you (Trump jokes and gender identity). It seems "very pretentious" (well, that isn't how I would use "pretentious," but I understand what you are going for) "about how much you care about a social issue" to start a whole new discussion out of the blue about how much you hate trans people. Granted, hating other people would not have been considered very "woke" circa 2015, but your definition is agnostic about which side of the social issue you fall on, so congratulations to DColeKC, the wokest boarder on the KCRag web forums.

Lol. Sorry for activating a dormant thread and the result is some spirited debate. Exactly what I was looking for. If that makes me woke, I’ll take it. Of course these days you can use whatever definition you want which is basically all your latest response was. You told akp what woke is these days with your definition. I’m woke by your definition. Pretentious wasn’t used accordingly in your definition as well which you made clear.

I specifically had you in mind when I used the world woke because I knew it would force you to enter the conversation as you’re by a large margin the wokest member of this forum. Take any far left or democratic socialist agenda item and put it on here, you’ll be quick to defend it with cape and all.

My post was actually about politics and the close Governor races in blue states and how social, progressive and woke culture may be impacting that much like the Virginia race that was flipped red. Sorry you skipped past the substance of the conversation to take the bait and lose your mind over the wokeness. Since we can just make our own definitions these days, here’s mine. Woke = A once championed social position that has gone too far and is now having a serious impact on elections.

No one has asked me my position on these things and it’s complicated.

I’ll think twice next time before posting something on a forum meant for conversation if it will indeed stir up conversation. Statues and horse racing are far more important than social issues anyway.

And come on you scholarly legal mind. You may have been responding to akp but you knew without a doubt your response was meant to get a reaction and not simply in the interest of helping a fellow rager out. It was pure bullshit and sarcastic.

[DColeKC]

It seems like people look at 1/6 two different ways and shocking, it’s impacted by your bias. I think it was terrible and I’m glad those who had ill intentions are being prosecuted. Had this been done by a liberal mob I question if the same level of prosecution would he happening. Considering we had a few summers of riots across the country and nothing was done about it. Yes, there’s a difference between looting and the capital riots but they share the same core value. These right wing nuts saw all the riots and the apparent refusal to stop them or prosecute those who broke the law. Hard to imagine that wasn’t inspirational to those attacking the capital.

I don’t look at 1/6 as a true threat to our democracy just as I don’t think white supremacy is the biggest domestic terrorist threat to our country. These are tiny overall groups of mental midgets who need to be observed but they’re not as threatening as msnbc claims.

First of all, everything is impacted by one's bias all the time, every day. I get it. I try to look beyond mine, but it can be hard to know when and to what degree you are succeeding. That's fine. But the capitol riot isn't even the issue I have (in spite of my quibble that the two things do not seem to me to share a "core value", I am happy to let that slide)--it's the larger cultural impact: the growing suspicion and distrust of democracy, elevation of election deniers and/or conspiracy theorists to being candidates for office all over the place. That's the stuff that keeps me up at night.

And I mean sure, most people are sensible and aren't conspiracy theorists, they are a small minority. Hopefully sense will prevail and we won't elect those people in large numbers. But the possibility that we could, and what would happen if we did, is 1000x times scarier to me than the prospect of being... socially shamed by a different small minority for not wanting to suck a girl's dick? Like, I couldn't care less.

Lol. Ok I understand what you’re saying and actually agree completely.

[grovester]

The internet has articles on everything?

[DColeKC]

The internet has articles on everything?

And studies on everything. What a great excuse to not give up your position. Just don’t read or except evidence when it’s presented! Ignorance is bliss.

[phuqueue]

For example, your told that if you’re attracted to females but wouldn’t date a trans-female because of her anatomy, you’re “transphobic”. This is ludicrous and most people agree it’s ludicrous, yet those on the left sit silent to this silly concept. Because they’re afraid.

This is dumb, nobody thinks this or does this.

You're transphobic if you're a dick about it or, I don't know, take away their medical care or civil rights.

If nobody thinks this or does this, why are there articles and studies about it?

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/201 ... phobic?amp

Curious whether you actually read your own article there, since it explicitly asserts that it is not transphobic to have a "genital preference":

Which brings up the question: is it transphobic to have a genital preference? I would argue that it is not, using the sort of logic that would be used in legal circles. Namely, this rule can theoretically be applied neutrally across cisgender and transgender people. Thus, the rule of, “I am not attracted to people with a vagina” or, “I am not attracted to people with a penis” can be equally applied to both cisgender women and transgender men.

Please don't interpret this as my having any interest in further engaging with you on trans issues, it's just very easy when somebody posts an article supposedly in support of their position to point out when it says exactly the opposite.

Lol. Sorry for activating a dormant thread and the result is some spirited debate. Exactly what I was looking for. If that makes me woke, I’ll take it. Of course these days you can use whatever definition you want which is basically all your latest response was. You told akp what woke is these days with your definition. I’m woke by your definition. Pretentious wasn’t used accordingly in your definition as well which you made clear.

I mean just to clarify, I'd say that you're woke by your definition. I generally don't use the word myself and wouldn't bother to describe anybody that way.

I specifically had you in mind when I used the world woke because I knew it would force you to enter the conversation as you’re by a large margin the wokest member of this forum. Take any far left or democratic socialist agenda item and put it on here, you’ll be quick to defend it with cape and all.

But it didn't force me to enter the conversation. I responded to akp, not to you. I'm responding to you now because you are directly addressing me, but I was not interested in your thoughts on "wokeism" before and I am still not interested in them now. I am flattered that you think so highly of me that you are trying to bait me into arguing about your hobby horses, but I'm afraid "wokeism" is just not as important to me as it apparently is to you.

My post was actually about politics and the close Governor races in blue states and how social, progressive and woke culture may be impacting that much like the Virginia race that was flipped red. Sorry you skipped past the substance of the conversation to take the bait and lose your mind over the wokeness. Since we can just make our own definitions these days, here’s mine. Woke = A once championed social position that has gone too far and is now having a serious impact on elections.

No one has asked me my position on these things and it’s complicated.

I’ll think twice next time before posting something on a forum meant for conversation if it will indeed stir up conversation. Statues and horse racing are far more important than social issues anyway.

You will have to forgive me for skipping the "substance" of your post (your post that I in fact skipped entirely), but I don't really find horse race speculation particularly interesting either, so I have about as much to say about governor races as I do about "wokeism." I don't mean to cast "wokeism" as being particularly less worthy of conversation than the horse race, only to point out that nothing fits your previously-offered definition of "woke" better than gratuitously opining on social issues that nobody else was talking about.

And come on you scholarly legal mind. You may have been responding to akp but you knew without a doubt your response was meant to get a reaction and not simply in the interest of helping a fellow rager out. It was pure bullshit and sarcastic.

You had already made a post explicitly about this, so I don't know why you think I needed to use a joke as some kind of Trojan horse to start a conversation with you. In your defense, though, you do have the razor thin skin and raging victim complex of any good Republican, so I probably should have anticipated that you would take it personally, but I don't spend much time gaming out how you will react to my posts.

[DColeKC]

^ You don’t care what I have to say yet you’ve put more words on this website in responses specifically to me than any other person or topic.

Where do I send the invoice?

I’m not sure where you get the idea I have thin skin. The Tucker Carlson comment had no impact on me as I think he’s a complete and utter fuckin moron. Him and other opinion hosts on cable news networks are contributing to the overall discourse in this country. I support free speech but I sure wish more people understood they are opinion pundits doing the work of whatever party they support.

As for the article. Maybe you missed this part: “The question that gets danced around, however, is: “Are all these numbers indicative of transphobia?” The answer, I believe, is clearly yes.”

Or

“There are conventionally attractive, intelligent, charming transgender people who can have children out there who are physically indistinguishable from their cisgender counterparts. Blanket refusals to even entertain the possibility of dating someone who is transgender is borne out of transphobia, just as “No Asians,” on gay dating apps is an expression of racism.”

And I’m used to being called a Republican but the raging victim deal is new. That’s special.

[grovester]

The internet has articles on everything?

And studies on everything. What a great excuse to not give up your position. Just don’t read or except evidence when it’s presented! Ignorance is bliss.

I would also argue you are conflating two definitions of "transphobic".

The article is referring to a classic dictionary definition as relating to phobias, where you are using it to represent someone who is anti-trans.

[phuqueue]

I don't care about your opinions on "wokeism" or the horse race, which is why I have not argued with you about "wokeism" (ok, I pointed out that your own article contradicts you, but other than that) or the horse race. I made a one-off joke about "wokeism," not addressed to you. I'm not against replying to you on principle -- if you post something that is worth discussing, as in the other thread about housing, for instance, then sure. But I find your opinions on "wokeism" so uninteresting that I'd apparently rather have a tedious meta-conversation about talking about "wokeism" than actually argue about "wokeism" itself.

I read the whole article and didn't miss any parts, but seeing as those quotes are not relevant to the specific point that you previously made, I did not quote them. I will now return your attention to my previous post: Please don't interpret this as my having any interest in further engaging with you on trans issues.

[shaffe]

My post was actually about politics and the close Governor races in blue states and how social, progressive and woke culture may be impacting that much like the Virginia race that was flipped red. Sorry you skipped past the substance of the conversation to take the bait and lose your mind over the wokeness. Since we can just make our own definitions these days, here’s mine. Woke = A once championed social position that has gone too far and is now having a serious impact on elections.

What Governor races are you referencing here? Oregon? The one Governor race where a third party is garnering a significant share of the vote? I think assigning that to fatigue from "woke culture" is probably a reach. Outside of Oregon Nevada is polling close but Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll and while it has reliably voted Democrat in the last decade plus there hasn't been many blowouts there. Meanwhile Oklahoma and Texas, two absolute Republican strongholds, see incumbent Governors polling with single digit leads. Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia are all polling extremely close but I wouldn't categorize any of those states as "blue" at all.

[DColeKC]

My post was actually about politics and the close Governor races in blue states and how social, progressive and woke culture may be impacting that much like the Virginia race that was flipped red. Sorry you skipped past the substance of the conversation to take the bait and lose your mind over the wokeness. Since we can just make our own definitions these days, here’s mine. Woke = A once championed social position that has gone too far and is now having a serious impact on elections.

What Governor races are you referencing here? Oregon? The one Governor race where a third party is garnering a significant share of the vote? I think assigning that to fatigue from "woke culture" is probably a reach. Outside of Oregon Nevada is polling close but Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll and while it has reliably voted Democrat in the last decade plus there hasn't been many blowouts there. Meanwhile Oklahoma and Texas, two absolute Republican strongholds, see incumbent Governors polling with single digit leads. Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia are all polling extremely close but I wouldn't categorize any of those states as "blue" at all.

The most interesting one to me is New York where there hasn't been a republican governor in 40 years I believe? The incumbent was running on a major social issue the democrats planned to use, abortion. She has now shifted to crime and inflation to combat the republican challengers policies.

My woke comment was about the PC nature some on the left have gotten into. A good example is late-night show TV ratings, which is why I used it. How is a late-night comedy show on Fox News beating out the likes of Jimmy Fallon, Kimmel etc. Especially considering Fox News core demographic is fast asleep by the time that show comes on? It has to be due to the content of those shows.

I do think people are sick of all the focus on social issues instead of the issues that impact all Americans. That's not to say social issues are not important by any means. Hard to care about those when you can't afford gas and your money doesn't go as far as it used to.

[TheUrbanRoo]

Meanwhile Oklahoma and Texas, two absolute Republican strongholds, see incumbent Governors polling with single digit leads. Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia are all polling extremely close but I wouldn't categorize any of those states as "blue" at all.

Okay...let's be clear here. The polling shows it close for Dems every single cycle and it's usually always over-polling Dem voters. With the exception of a few rare states, the GOP is always getting shafted in the polling.

I recall in 2020 they Arkansas only having Trump up by 2. Everyone laughed that "Trump is only up 2 in Arkansas!" but the real joke was people who believed the poll.

[shaffe]

Meanwhile Oklahoma and Texas, two absolute Republican strongholds, see incumbent Governors polling with single digit leads. Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia are all polling extremely close but I wouldn't categorize any of those states as "blue" at all.

Okay...let's be clear here. The polling shows it close for Dems every single cycle and it's usually always over-polling Dem voters. With the exception of a few rare states, the GOP is always getting shafted in the polling.

I recall in 2020 they Arkansas only having Trump up by 2. Everyone laughed that "Trump is only up 2 in Arkansas!" but the real joke was people who believed the poll.

To be clear propping up a single outlier poll from June 2020 (according to Wikipedia) as a strawman isn't remotely the same as a race that's been heavily polled on a deeply polarizing Greg Abbot. I don't think either race will break in favor of Democrats but it should be really damn concerning to the GOP that either one is remotely close. If (when?) the GOP loses Texas on a federal level that'll probably be the end of their electoral chances - but that's a completely different discussion. I have no idea what the heck is happening in Oklahoma or even if the recent polling is legitimate but let's also be clear about how every single election the last 6 months has gone. Until actual results start coming in it's all speculation but it wouldn't shock me at all if Abbot fails to clear even 53%.