Many of them are denouncing the trans insanity.

IowaBear said:

---

Honestly thought the comment would get way more flak on here. Hasn't gotten any which is a pleasant surprise haha

---

Those who were tempted thought the better of it. They don't want to look like even bigger fools than they already seem to be.

But was she able to pull off the double and also tie it back to race?

I don't think so, to her credit.

historian said:

---

I don't think so, to her credit.

---

Don't give her too much credit. If she would have been able to, she would have definitely done it.

Brownbw said:

---

Cp2310 said:

---

It's a serious question. Whenever someone calls someone woke I always ask them to define it. For some reason I never get a definition.

---

examples might be
California new age
Man can be a women if he thinks he is
Men can play women's sports if they feel kind of feminine
We need to close down the petroleum industry because of global warming
Airplanes need to be outlawed because they are too loud when they fly overhead
There are plenty more examples but not sure I know a good definition that doesn't involve the word stupid. Don't know if this helps but I tried

---

So you don't know what it is either!

BikerBear said:

---

Brownbw said:

---

Cp2310 said:

---

It's a serious question. Whenever someone calls someone woke I always ask them to define it. For some reason I never get a definition.

---

examples might be
California new age
Man can be a women if he thinks he is
Men can play women's sports if they feel kind of feminine
We need to close down the petroleum industry because of global warming
Airplanes need to be outlawed because they are too loud when they fly overhead
There are plenty more examples but not sure I know a good definition that doesn't involve the word stupid. Don't know if this helps but I tried

---

So you don't know what it is either!

---

How is this STUPID PEOPLE WITH NO COMMON SENSE

It's very wrong and quite possibly based upon woke sentiments.

ScottS said:

---

She'll change her tune when men on opposing teams are dunking and dominating her team.

---

She is just trying to get a jump on recruiting.

ScottS said:

---

She'll change her tune when men on opposing teams are dunking and dominating her team.

---

Someone's gotta give them a challenge

True, but if she is going to answer the question, she needs a much better response.

Absolutely.

historian said:

---

Absolutely.

---

but just maybe she is as woke as she sounds. They are out there!!

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Libs think that they're so clever when they ask people to define woke. It's kinda a trendy stupid thing they do which proves nothing but makes them feel smug.

Truth is most people have a hard time describing broad terms. If one were to ask anyone to define broad descriptive terms like masculine or feminine they couldn't do it effectively without looking to a dictionary. But most people could define/describe it by giving examples or characteristics of masculinity or femininity. Defining woke is no different, it is easier to define by examples and characteristics.

Now as for woke libs, they have a hard time even defining something as simple as what is a woman, but the wokies gonna get mad that others can't recite an official Websters dictionary definition of "woke". Whatever.

---

From the Websters dictionary (online):

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"


To be honest, I don't see a lot to be against that. Now, if you blow it up to mean everything you are against, I guess you can do that. On the other side, some are doing more than what the definition says.

Seems to me however that if when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s had we been a little "woke" back then there is a good chance we wouldn't be seeing the problems we see today, at least not to the extent we see them. Most people didn't care about such things then, unless they were ones that were on the short end of the stick.

I have seen a lot of injustice during my life. Laws have been changed over that time to "officially" level the playing field. But the problem as I see it is that people are still the ones who have to apply the law. Laws don't change people's internal feelings about something. I see plenty of people with the same biases and actions today as I saw back then. Unfortunately, I sometimes get trapped into that as well, despite how hard I try to avoid it. The laws don't mean anything if the people who have the power to apply them don't want to or can't apply them. Too many people's attitudes about themselves in relationship to others is no better now than before.

Bottom line, IMO, in how it is used today, it is a lame term that is a crutch to addressing the real issues that some want to avoid having to admit, address or discuss.

blackie said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Libs think that they're so clever when they ask people to define woke. It's kinda a trendy stupid thing they do which proves nothing but makes them feel smug.

Truth is most people have a hard time describing broad terms. If one were to ask anyone to define broad descriptive terms like masculine or feminine they couldn't do it effectively without looking to a dictionary. But most people could define/describe it by giving examples or characteristics of masculinity or femininity. Defining woke is no different, it is easier to define by examples and characteristics.

Now as for woke libs, they have a hard time even defining something as simple as what is a woman, but the wokies gonna get mad that others can't recite an official Websters dictionary definition of "woke". Whatever.

---

From the Websters dictionary (online):

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"


To be honest, I don't see a lot to be against that. Now, if you blow it up to mean everything you are against, I guess you can do that. On the other side, some are doing more than what the definition says.

Seems to me however that if when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s had we been a little "woke" back then there is a good chance we wouldn't be seeing the problems we see today, at least not to the extent we see them. Most people didn't care about such things then, unless they were ones that were on the short end of the stick.

I have seen a lot of injustice during my life. Laws have been changed over that time to "officially" level the playing field. But the problem as I see it is that people are still the ones who have to apply the law. Laws don't change people's internal feelings about something. I see plenty of people with the same biases and actions today as I saw back then. Unfortunately, I sometimes get trapped into that as well, despite how hard I try to avoid it. The laws don't mean anything if the people who have the power to apply them don't want to or can't apply them. Too many people's attitudes about themselves in relationship to others is no better now than before.

Bottom line, IMO, in how it is used today, it is a lame term that is a crutch to addressing the real issues that some want to avoid having to admit, address or discuss.

---

While there's nothing on the surface that's wrong with that definition exactly, the fact of the matter is that it's actually just as nebulous as you (or the left) claim "woke" to be. That definition actually means and says nothing specific. So when a liberal in all their attempted cleverness asks someone to define woke, the truth is the definition is pretty much meaningless itself.

What's an important societal fact and issue? Pretty much everything in the political arena depending on who you ask. I think taxes are too extensive and burdensome, and that actually makes the poor poorer. That makes me woke right? Well, no, not according to a liberal, because they have a monopoly on the word. Conservative and many libertarian values can't be woke by the left's standards. And conservatives are glad to let them have the monopoly on "wokeness" because of all the craziness and lawlessness coming from the left that falls under their umbrella of social justice.

Also, when it comes to social justice, when you claim someone is a victim, you also make someone the victimizer. And when there isn't a victimizer exactly to be found, the left finds a way to create one and pass guilt on to that person or people group. That's how this plays out. In most cases, it's completely unfair and based on ridiculous logic.

So back to the original point, given that the definition of woke is completely unspecific, the only way to describe woke in any meaningful way is to provide examples. And the right has lots of stupid crazy examples of wokeness playing out by the left.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

blackie said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Libs think that they're so clever when they ask people to define woke. It's kinda a trendy stupid thing they do which proves nothing but makes them feel smug.

Truth is most people have a hard time describing broad terms. If one were to ask anyone to define broad descriptive terms like masculine or feminine they couldn't do it effectively without looking to a dictionary. But most people could define/describe it by giving examples or characteristics of masculinity or femininity. Defining woke is no different, it is easier to define by examples and characteristics.

Now as for woke libs, they have a hard time even defining something as simple as what is a woman, but the wokies gonna get mad that others can't recite an official Websters dictionary definition of "woke". Whatever.

---

From the Websters dictionary (online):

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"


To be honest, I don't see a lot to be against that. Now, if you blow it up to mean everything you are against, I guess you can do that. On the other side, some are doing more than what the definition says.

Seems to me however that if when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s had we been a little "woke" back then there is a good chance we wouldn't be seeing the problems we see today, at least not to the extent we see them. Most people didn't care about such things then, unless they were ones that were on the short end of the stick.

I have seen a lot of injustice during my life. Laws have been changed over that time to "officially" level the playing field. But the problem as I see it is that people are still the ones who have to apply the law. Laws don't change people's internal feelings about something. I see plenty of people with the same biases and actions today as I saw back then. Unfortunately, I sometimes get trapped into that as well, despite how hard I try to avoid it. The laws don't mean anything if the people who have the power to apply them don't want to or can't apply them. Too many people's attitudes about themselves in relationship to others is no better now than before.

Bottom line, IMO, in how it is used today, it is a lame term that is a crutch to addressing the real issues that some want to avoid having to admit, address or discuss.

---

While there's nothing on the surface that's wrong with that definition exactly, the fact of the matter is that it's actually just as nebulous as you (or the left) claim "woke" to be. That definition actually means and says nothing specific. So when a liberal in all their attempted cleverness asks someone to define woke, the truth is the definition is pretty much meaningless itself.

What's an important societal fact and issue? Pretty much everything in the political arena depending on who you ask. I think taxes are too extensive and burdensome, and that actually makes the poor poorer. That makes me woke right? Well, no, not according to a liberal, because they have a monopoly on the word. Conservative and many libertarian values can't be woke by the left's standards. And conservatives are glad to let them have the monopoly on "wokeness" because of all the craziness and lawlessness coming from the left that falls under their umbrella of social justice.

Also, when it comes to social justice, when you claim someone is a victim, you also make someone the victimizer. And when there isn't a victimizer exactly to be found, the left finds a way to create one and pass guilt on to that person or people group. That's how this plays out. In most cases, it's completely unfair and based on ridiculous logic.

So back to the original point, given that the definition of woke is completely unspecific, the only way to describe woke in any meaningful way is to provide examples. And the right has lots of stupid crazy examples of wokeness playing out by the left.

---

Weirdness:

Folks purposefully create a politicized buzzword that has no objective meaning.
Opponents turn that meaningless word back on them.
They then demand a definition of their meaningless word being used against them.
They act all uptight & righteous when their opponents cannot give them a tight definition of the meaningless word that they created.

In no rational world would anyone behave this way.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

blackie said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Libs think that they're so clever when they ask people to define woke. It's kinda a trendy stupid thing they do which proves nothing but makes them feel smug.

Truth is most people have a hard time describing broad terms. If one were to ask anyone to define broad descriptive terms like masculine or feminine they couldn't do it effectively without looking to a dictionary. But most people could define/describe it by giving examples or characteristics of masculinity or femininity. Defining woke is no different, it is easier to define by examples and characteristics.

Now as for woke libs, they have a hard time even defining something as simple as what is a woman, but the wokies gonna get mad that others can't recite an official Websters dictionary definition of "woke". Whatever.

---

From the Websters dictionary (online):

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"


To be honest, I don't see a lot to be against that. Now, if you blow it up to mean everything you are against, I guess you can do that. On the other side, some are doing more than what the definition says.

Seems to me however that if when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s had we been a little "woke" back then there is a good chance we wouldn't be seeing the problems we see today, at least not to the extent we see them. Most people didn't care about such things then, unless they were ones that were on the short end of the stick.

I have seen a lot of injustice during my life. Laws have been changed over that time to "officially" level the playing field. But the problem as I see it is that people are still the ones who have to apply the law. Laws don't change people's internal feelings about something. I see plenty of people with the same biases and actions today as I saw back then. Unfortunately, I sometimes get trapped into that as well, despite how hard I try to avoid it. The laws don't mean anything if the people who have the power to apply them don't want to or can't apply them. Too many people's attitudes about themselves in relationship to others is no better now than before.

Bottom line, IMO, in how it is used today, it is a lame term that is a crutch to addressing the real issues that some want to avoid having to admit, address or discuss.

---

While there's nothing on the surface that's wrong with that definition exactly, the fact of the matter is that it's actually just as nebulous as you (or the left) claim "woke" to be. That definition actually means and says nothing specific. So when a liberal in all their attempted cleverness asks someone to define woke, the truth is the definition is pretty much meaningless itself.

What's an important societal fact and issue? Pretty much everything in the political arena depending on who you ask. I think taxes are too extensive and burdensome, and that actually makes the poor poorer. That makes me woke right? Well, no, not according to a liberal, because they have a monopoly on the word. Conservative and many libertarian values can't be woke by the left's standards. And conservatives are glad to let them have the monopoly on "wokeness" because of all the craziness and lawlessness coming from the left that falls under their umbrella of social justice.

Also, when it comes to social justice, when you claim someone is a victim, you also make someone the victimizer. And when there isn't a victimizer exactly to be found, the left finds a way to create one and pass guilt on to that person or people group. That's how this plays out. In most cases, it's completely unfair and based on ridiculous logic.

So back to the original point, given that the definition of woke is completely unspecific, the only way to describe woke in any meaningful way is to provide examples. And the right has lots of stupid crazy examples of wokeness playing out by the left.

---

Weirdness:

Folks purposefully create a politicized buzzword that has no objective meaning.
Opponents turn that meaningless word back on them.
They then demand a definition of their meaningless word being used against them.
They act all uptight & righteous when their opponents cannot give them a tight definition of the meaningless word that they created.

In no rational world would anyone behave this way.

---

Yep, that's the world the woke have created. They created a world in which they can't lose because logic isn't important or even considered. One of the best examples of wokeness - They can't even define what a man or woman is, yet they ask you to define a word that even Webster's can't define specifically.