“Wokeness” in Canada and elsewhere…

[Tecumsehsbones]

He's wrong, because they're not just writers, they're HIS writers, so they take his thoughts and make it into the monologue. And he still gets the final "say" as it were if it's used.

Maher was always controversial, before he was controversial to the right being he was "Liberal" or at least Libertarian.

Now he's the opposite.

It's not just ratings, he genuinely believes this stuff so it's beyond ratings.

People change, that's fine, but he's got this platform based on his previous "Liberal" beliefs that he's now giving the finger to and he's slowly heading to Crazy Town.

Maher was pretty good. He was an authentic political voice following no set script or party ideology.

He kinda reminded me of many of the people here. . . wanting non-Whites, women, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ people to be treated equally and fairly, but not above taking shots at them based on his late-70s perception of "normal," when bullying, harassing, stereotyping, and undervaluing such people was ordinary and part of White male hetero Christian dominated "culture." Basically "I don't have a problem with X, as long as they stay quiet and avoid coming to my attention."

 

[Serryah]

Me too. Though I wonder that this guy felt the need to take a shot at a brand-new justice on a supreme court in a different country. By the way, here's a hint: Justice Jackson's "ken" is significantly beyond M Oliver's, as demonstrated by the fact that he's a has-been minister of a second-rate country, and she's a highly respected jurist on the top court of the largest, richest, most powerful country on the planet. He also apparently doesn't have the "ken" to grasp that Justice Jackson was refusing to answer a set-up question from a hyper-right senator who had already declared her unalterable opposition to Justice Jackson, and was simply playing to the crowd to score points.

I further question what year you, Ron in Regina, would think of as "normalcy" (the word is "normality." "Normalcy" was a gaffe by Presidential candidate Warren Harding, not the sharpest tool in the shed (though definitely a tool) in 1920). Seriously, what's "normal" in your mind? What year is your touchstone for when Canada (or maybe the U.S. M Oliver doesn't seem to understand the difference) was "normal?"

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

Which, assuming M Oliver is a bit more au courant than most people, means he's dishonest as well as going WAAAAY the hell out there to take a gratuitous shot at Justice Jackson in, of all things, an essay allegedly about Canada.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

So to expand on this, not all humans have two arms, but generally humans have two arms, & not all people have ten toes but generally people have ten toes, etc…. And if somebody is born without a leg (or loses, one to cancer or an accident) they don’t stop being human. Maybe that’s where this Justice Jackson (sounds like a super hero and kind of has a nice ring to it like “Foxy Cleopatra”) was going with things.

So maybe generally woman have boobs & vag & a cervix & XX chromosomes & are capable of having children, etc…& that’s where “Action Jackson” was going with this, but a woman past menopause that can’t have children any longer doesn’t stop being a woman….Or a woman that has had a mastectomy for medical reasons doesn’t stop being a woman, etc…but she started as a woman?

Generally men have XY chromosomes & women have XX chromosomes, and occasionally weird shit happens like XYY or LMNOP or someone is born with an extra chromosome (Down Syndrome) or as a Hermaphrodite when there’s 8 billion of us wandering the planet…but we’re all still human….

People (Homo Sapien Sapien) are more than just their assemblage of parts, but “generally” each has two eyes & two ears & two thumbs & two kidneys & two lungs, and if they’re born with less or more of the above they’re still in the category of human. Humans are more than those bits and pieces….but usually they have those specific numbers of bits and pieces….

There are exceptions to the rules, but there are rules (let’s call them general guidelines) given by nature or evolution or the big guy in the sky or whatever floats your boat, or fills your boots, that people usually have one mouth and usually one belly button and usually one buttonhole.

 

[Serryah]

So to expand on this, not all humans have two arms, but generally humans have two arms, & not all people have ten toes but generally people have ten toes, etc…. And if somebody is born without a leg (or loses, one to cancer or an accident) they don’t stop being human. Maybe that’s where this Justice Jackson (sounds like a super hero and kind of has a nice ring to it like “Foxy Cleopatra”) was going with things.

So maybe generally woman have boobs & vag & a cervix & XX chromosomes & are capable of having children, etc…& that’s where “Action Jackson” was going with this,

Okay, I get you might not agree with Justice Jackson, but these snide comments are rude and unwarranted, Ron.

but a woman past menopause that can’t have children any longer doesn’t stop being a woman….Or a woman that has had a mastectomy for medical reasons doesn’t stop being a woman, etc…but she started as a woman?

Sure, she started as a woman.

We all start as "women" if you want to go that route.

Then shit changes as we develop in the womb.

And sometimes even if a body is born with certain body parts, that doesn't mean that they are not a 'woman'. Because there is more to a woman than body parts.

Generally men have XY chromosomes & women have XX chromosomes, and occasionally weird shit happens like XYY or LMNOP or someone is born with an extra chromosome (Down Syndrome) or as a Hermaphrodite when there’s 8 billion of us wandering the planet…but we’re all still human….

Sure.

But then you also have people who are certain that anyone GLBTQIA+ are NOT human, and treat them as such.

People (Homo Sapien Sapien) are more than just their assemblage of parts, but “generally” each has two eyes & two ears & two thumbs & two kidneys & two lungs, and if they’re born with less or more of the above they’re still in the category of human. Humans are more than those bits and pieces….but usually they have those specific numbers of bits and pieces….

Sure.

There are exceptions to the rules, but there are rules (let’s call them general guidelines) given by nature or evolution or the big guy in the sky or whatever floats your boat, or fills your boots, that people usually have one mouth and usually one belly button and usually one buttonhole.

Sure.

But when those guidelines end up coming up with "You might look male because of a penis but you're female because that's your gender", people freak the fuck out about it.

So what then?

We can deny that situation - as the anti-trans people want - and thus cause harm and trauma to people for something that isn't their fault.

Or we can accept that sometimes "nature" or "God" or whatever makes things happen sometimes we don't agree with, and since it has nothing to do with anyone but the person it effects, then get over it and just be fucking polite and not a rude asshole?

 

[Dixie Cup]

Pretty much how I see it .

I would venture to say most Canadians agree

 

[Dixie Cup]

"While entrenched cultural beliefs and ideological fads are resistant to facts and reason, there is hope for a return to normalcy."

Uh huh. And what, pray tell, is this "normalcy" that Mr. Oliver who served under Harper wants us to return to?

I might agree with some of what he said above, but then there's a lot that's just typical right wing fucking ignorance. Or unwillingness to admit that things just might be a certain way because if they did that, they'd lose the narrative and their excuse to be butthurt whiney bitches.

What about "left wing Ignorance?" It goes both ways. I'm sick of ppl stating it's always the Right wing! It's not!

 

[Dixie Cup]

Maher finally gets it! He's still a Democrat but finally gets how crazy things have become.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

OMG! Jackson was the idiot & the question showed exactly who she was. It was very illuminating as to who she is & she's not someone who should be on the SCOTUS. She was a horrible pick!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

OMG! Jackson was the idiot & the question showed exactly who she was. It was very illuminating as to who she is & she's not someone who should be on the SCOTUS. She was a horrible pick!

Yeah, and she is. For life. One hell of a lot longer'n Marsha Blackburn'll be in the Senate.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What about

There it is, folks!

 

[pgs]

Me too. Though I wonder that this guy felt the need to take a shot at a brand-new justice on a supreme court in a different country. By the way, here's a hint: Justice Jackson's "ken" is significantly beyond M Oliver's, as demonstrated by the fact that he's a has-been minister of a second-rate country, and she's a highly respected jurist on the top court of the largest, richest, most powerful country on the planet. He also apparently doesn't have the "ken" to grasp that Justice Jackson was refusing to answer a set-up question from a hyper-right senator who had already declared her unalterable opposition to Justice Jackson, and was simply playing to the crowd to score points.

I further question what year you, Ron in Regina, would think of as "normalcy" (the word is "normality." "Normalcy" was a gaffe by Presidential candidate Warren Harding, not the sharpest tool in the shed (though definitely a tool) in 1920). Seriously, what's "normal" in your mind? What year is your touchstone for when Canada (or maybe the U.S. M Oliver doesn't seem to understand the difference) was "normal?"

Wow . Highly respected is a stretch . Even when you try to answer truthfully your bias shows .

 

[pgs]

Yeah, and she is. For life. One hell of a lot longer'n Marsha Blackburn'll be in the Senate.

So . She is still a lightweight political hack and always will be , for life .

 

[pgs]

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

So all this woman’s movement , you’ve come a long way baby was just b.s. best tell Sheila because she was nobody’s baby .

 

[Ron in Regina]

I posted what I did when I was out for a quick sanity smoke break, so In all honesty I’m going to actually have to google Justice Jackson…call it 2 minutes max for that break.

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

OMG! Jackson was the idiot & the question showed exactly who she was. It was very illuminating as to who she is & she's not someone who should be on the SCOTUS. She was a horrible pick!

Fuck Action Jackson then. I was just working off of:

Thing is most people don't realize it was a set up question from an idiot to Justice Jackson.

Because "what" a woman is, isn't what society used to think it was.

Because not all women can give birth.

Not all women have a uterus/cervix/vagina.

Not all women have breasts.

Not all women are "breed only".

Not all women should be defined by the fact they HAVE specific body parts, because that's fucking demeaning. Women are more than body parts.

So I ran with that concept. Woman & men & humans in general are more than just body parts, but they’re also composed of body parts…but if generally a person is expected to have eight fingers and two thumbs (or pick your body parts and number) does that mean they’re not a person? Or a man? Or a woman? If they have seven or nine fingers, are they a person that’s just different, but still a person?

Okay, I get you might not agree with Justice Jackson, but these snide comments are rude and unwarranted, Ron.

Wasn’t intentionally snide, or rude, but was trying to run with the same theme. I’m still going to have to Google “Justice Jackson” ‘cuz I’m not sure if that’s a man or a woman or if that’s even relevant…but maybe not tonight.

Sure, she started as a woman.

We all start as "women" if you want to go that route.

Then shit changes as we develop in the womb.

And sometimes even if a body is born with certain body parts, that doesn't mean that they are not a 'woman'. Because there is more to a woman than body parts.

We do all start as women, & then, in vitro, something happens…& poof…generally… usually…something happens in one of two directions generally. Sometimes shit happens but usually one of two two things happens. Occasionally something else happens, but that’s the exception. It is what it is….

Sure.

But then you also have people who are certain that anyone GLBTQIA+ are NOT human, and treat them as such.

That’s on them then, bigots all or not at all, but to each their own. Treat others as you want to be treated and expect back what you put out for the most part.

Sure.
Sure.

But when those guidelines end up coming up with "You might look male because of a penis but you're female because that's your gender", people freak the fuck out about it.

Treat people as you expect to be treated, and each to their own….but you can’t force anyone to believe anything they don’t want to believe in. Acceptance & tolerance willingly are one thing, but forced it’s just not going to happen…not in any real way.

So what then?

We can deny that situation - as the anti-trans people want - and thus cause harm and trauma to people for something that isn't their fault.

We can’t MAKE anyone accept anything they don’t want to or aren’t ready to, or we’d have no homeless or addiction issues.

Given time, shit’ll sort itself out, not in a “Budget balances itself” way but on a “time makes familiar” sort’a way.

Or we can accept that sometimes "nature" or "God" or whatever makes things happen sometimes we don't agree with, and since it has nothing to do with anyone but the person it effects, then get over it and just be fucking polite and not a rude asshole?

Isn’t that what I was saying? Generally one outcome happens but there’s exceptions. Call it a law of averages with a big enough population base to pull the exceptions from.

Treat others as you want to be treated, but if there’s a big push, expect a big push back from both directions, & here we are. If you wish to take offence, that’s your prerogative. There’s probably some theoretical physical law or formula that applies to the above, but who gives a shit. Baby steps & familiarity in this situation will go further than a great big hammer by a very small minority onto a majority in a certain motion that can change direction with several nudges better that one big slam. Is this making any sense at all?

 

[pgs]

I posted what I did when I was out for a quick sanity smoke break, so In all honesty I’m going to actually have to google Justice Jackson…call it 2 minutes max for that break.


Fuck Action Jackson then. I was just working off of:

So I ran with that concept. Woman & men & humans in general are more than just body parts, but they’re also composed of body parts…but if generally a person is expected to have eight fingers and two thumbs (or pick your body parts and number) does that mean they’re not a person? Or a man? Or a woman? If they have seven or nine fingers, are they a person that’s just different, but still a person?

Wasn’t intentionally snide, or rude, but was trying to run with the same theme. I’m still going to have to Google “Justice Jackson” ‘cuz I’m not sure if that’s a man or a woman or if that’s even relevant…but maybe not tonight.

We do all start as women, & then, in vitro, something happens…& poof…generally… usually…something happens in one of two directions generally. Sometimes shit happens but usually one of two two things happens. Occasionally something else happens, but that’s the exception. It is what it is….

That’s on them then, bigots all or not at all, but to each their own. Treat others as you want to be treated and expect back what you put out for the most part.

Treat people as you expect to be treated, and each to their own….but you can’t force anyone to believe anything they don’t want to believe in. Acceptance & tolerance willingly are one thing, but forced it’s just not going to happen…not in any real way.

We can’t MAKE anyone accept anything they don’t want to or aren’t ready to, or we’d have no homeless or addiction issues.

Given time, shit’ll sort itself out, not in a “Budget balances itself” way but on a “time makes familiar” sort’a way.

Isn’t that what I was saying? Generally one outcome happens but there’s exceptions. Call it a law of averages with a big enough population base to pull the exceptions from.

Treat others as you want to be treated, but if there’s a big push, expect a big push back from both directions, & here we are. If you wish to take offence, that’s your prerogative. There’s probably some theoretical physical law or formula that applies to the above, but who gives a shit. Baby steps & familiarity in this situation will go further than a great bill hammer by a very small minority onto a majority in a certain motion that can change direction with several nudges better that one big slam. Is this making any sense at all?

Probably not , but you are engaging in a civilized manner so she has yet to put you on ignore .

 

[Ron in Regina]

Apparently, this is Justice Jackson:

America’s First Black Female Justice….to the Supreme Court, under the auspicious selection of Joe Biden.

She’s a woman, and she’s black, & a judge, and quite celebrated… a year ago anyway.

 

[petros]

Sure, she started as a woman.

And will end as a woman.

Its impossible to change your sex and gender.

 

[petros]

Your key to victory in the oppression Olympics.

Your key to victory in the oppression Olympics.

youtube.com

 

[Ron in Regina]

Toronto school principal Richard Bilkszto was bullied by an anti-racism trainer over “his whiteness” — his questioning of her assertion that Canada is a more racist place than the United States. In July, he took his own life. The victim here is easy to spot. It’s the dead man….you’d think?

Jamie Sarkonak: DEI trainers can’t play victim after building careers on race shaming — National Post

Their abrasive approach to education made public outcry only a matter of time

apple.news

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) enthusiasts and anti-racism advocates, however, disagree. DEI advocates now argue that the “true” victim of Bilkszto’s ordeal is their industry and the demographic groups it claims to uplift. To the DEI camp, the dead man is just collateral damage. Seriously.

Instead of reflecting on the harsh, struggle-session-like methodology of anti-racism and DEI training that can harm the mental health of students, activists and advocacy organizations have demanded officials in public education to re-affirm their commitment to DEI.

In media, DEI enthusiasts have downplayed documentary evidence of bullying (namely, The Star, which received training from the firm that bullied Bilkszto). Industry publication J-Source contended that the story of Bilkszto’s death “arguably shouldn’t have been published.”

How Bill C-11 of them!! Very Woke!!

“It’s evident that the publication and proliferation of this story cements support for politically motivated discourse against foundational equity work and provides fodder for those who are opposed to challenging the status quo when it comes to racism and injustice,” wrote three Carleton journalism school professors.

Overall, the response from progressive media: This story shouldn’t have been told, the document-supported instance of bullying is questionable and journalists shouldn’t question the church of DEI. The rest at the above link.