Ok, you lost me somewhere in there...
For me it’s just that Cruise, along with Miscavige, is an acknowledged leader behind this scam outfit that controls and hurts many people while enriching these two. That’s enough for me to form a negative opinion of Cruise as a person. I’ll still watch the new Top Gun when I get a chance. The other problem I have is that whenever I see him on screen I can’t suppress the image of him jumping up and down on that couch like a banshee on crack.
Woke means lots of different things mostly depending how much you the right to far right to extreme right your politics are....none of it good if your political leanings are to the fsr to extreme right...
Lol... yeah, I get the couch thing. He came off as more than a bit flaky there.
I thing we have general agreement on the subject. The main difference being that you have a more negative view of Cruise due to some reading and research and I've just never bothered to look into the matter with any conviction.
I only deleted your post bringing up you being accused of racism once again. That post was inappropriate, off topic and had no basis in fact. We don’t need to bring racism into today’s discussion and it hasn’t been and isn’t logically part of it.
Legislature with public plebicites that are enforced in code that the courts cannot remedy in any way .
I like them for many issues that are debated equally under strict laws by any social or Main stream media 6 months before any vote .
I think the last one here was for changing the constitution and was voted down .
I think we need more of those and the courts can be free to decide on stricter more specific individual asks under non plebiscites normal legislature proceedings .
They cannot create case law from a plebiscite vote but can still enforce the charter with legislature passed laws .
This way we vote and have a say on any contentious issue and can be revisited with another plebiscite during any election cycle .
The hardest part of a plebiscite is the question has to be clear .
That seems to be a problem .
I read it a little different, I guess. Though I imagine Jon can defend himself. But what I saw was:
You made a valid point that there is an active debate in law about Originalism vs. Living Document interpretations, and that conservative judges tend to be originalists whereas liberal judges tend to be on the living document side.
That point was not deleted, and in fact it was pointed out that you have the right to that opinion, though Jon appeared to disagree with your point.
You followed up with a statement that the left accuses any dissenter of being racist. This may be true at the extremes, and is certainly used in heated rhetoric by those who espouse "cancel culture", but the statement itself was a generalization and I could see how it would be viewed as inflammatory. Jon mentioned that your statement was also flagged, which meant he was required to look at it. He removed only the most controversial part of your statement, leaving the bulk (and the spirit) of your post intact. He could have pulled the whole thing.
Where you lost me was with the "general smear" comment. Jon's statement was that in his profession, he was trained to argue the facts of a case and be able to argue either side based on fact and not labels. I didn’t see that as a smear or a slight.
To be sure, reading his posts would indicate that Jon leans further to the left than I do, just as your posts lean further to the right. But I don’t think (or at least it certainly didn’t appear to me) that Jon was taking a swipe at you or the right. He's a mod, and he saw a flagged post, which he dealt with in good faith as he saw appropriately, and then had the courtesy to offer you an expanation when other mods might not have done.
My impression is that he meant nothing personally. This has the potential to be an explosive thread, and he's doing a pretty good job trying to walk a fine line.
At least, that's my perspective.
I'd love to respond but unfortunately cannot answer your questions as I'm not allowed to do so. Please feel free to PM me
I think part of the problem in general with any text-based communication is that there is no inflection or tone. Therefore, our own mood at the time of reading fills in the blanks and interprets intent for us, not always in the way the writer intended.
So, if a reader is feeling frustrated or in a negative space, he or she will read things with that intonation, and slights will appear where none are intended. Cue a response that seems appropriate to the original reader, but takes the original sender by surprise. This then leads to escalation, and the cycle continues.
Unfortunately, on the web, text, or social media, it's what we're stuck with.
So everyone is entitled to their own "definitions"?
Alert to racial prejudice and discrimination. Also has come to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism.
Right. Happens all the time on here.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being for social justice. It's generally the process to get there that's most hotly debated.
So when you hear "woke", generally you are talking things like reparations, cancel culture, etc. That's what comes to mind for me.
Generally, I would agree that using the word as an epithet conjures these thoughts.
Unfortunately, the term is used almost exclusively in the pejorative sense (meaning vastly different things depending mostly on the individuals' political bent) now instead of its original usage and intent.
hmm. Just wondering. This thread a flirted a lot with religion and politics. Are these topics now allowed here?
I like the term red pilled .
It also means being woken with the red pill but if you take the blue pill you are left in sleep mode .
taken from the matrix .
but it will too become something it wasn't meant to be .
For me it means today critical thinking past what MSM or social media is portraying and to dig deeper because you really want to find answers and not have someone maybe a corporation's answers fed to you .
So far both left and right like using it but it will be hijaked .
It would appear so , providing that we all play nice in the sandbox that is .
Just remember folks if you're on the right side or the left side or smack dab in the middle of the sandbox ? .............. "PLAY NICE"
I think we've all done a pretty good job of that today. Though the little reminder never goes amiss.
I've heard it used by people to indicate "you don't share my opinion and therefore you are not aware of the social issues and therefore I refuse to listen to your opinion". That, I think, is why others have co-opted the term to refer to empty/hypocritcial virtue signalling.
Some started using it in a divisive way, and then it got twisted back on them in another divisive way. Shame.
Check out Miriam Webster for a greater range of definitions:
1 aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
.... but also:
often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action
2. disapproving: politically liberal (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme
Topic closed for cleanup.