Woke Fails

[Husker_Du]

A thread to document all the absolutely mind numbingly stupid moves and stances by woke ass idiots. I'll start

Whole Foods stops selling Maine Lobster because of threat to whales.

Except the last time there was an incident w/ a whale and lobster lines was...1994.

[Le duke]

A thread to document all the absolutely mind numbingly stupid moves and stances by woke ass idiots. I'll start
Whole Foods stops selling Maine Lobster because of threat to whales.
Except the last time there was an incident w/ a whale and lobster lines was...1994.

So, basically anything that Willie disagrees with = woke.

Got it.

Also, at least 6 right whales were entangled in lobster lines between 1997 and 2017, per NOAA Fisheries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Husker_Du]

1) no. anything that anyone on these boards considers 'woke'

2) that's not what i read, but if it's six, in the last 25 years than i agree. shut the whole industry down. (now do china who actually hunts them)

[Le duke]

1) no. anything that anyone on these boards considers 'woke'
2) that's not what i read, but if it's six, in the last 25 years than i agree. shut the whole industry down. (now do china who actually hunts them)

Unfortunately, it seems that the species is doomed. Between lobster lines, other fishing gear and ship collisions all along the Atlantic coast (a 2 month old got hit by a speeding 65ft charter fishing boat recently), their death vs fecundity ratio is too high.

I’m not arguing that the industry should be shut down. But, if a company like Whole Foods decides they don’t want to be involved in it, that’s their decision. And I wouldn’t blame them for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ban Basketball]

Anti-woke translation: "I'm opposed to equality,  equity,  and respect for others."

I'm old enough to remember all of this as being the new iteration of anti-PC. 

Now,  how about some disrespect for and jokes about  the disabled,  eh, anti-woke, folks?! 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Ban Basketball

[Nailbender]

[Husker_Du]

Biden just ordered 200 Maine Lobsters for his dinner with Macron lmfao. 

[headshuck]

.

[mspart]

20 hours ago, Ban Basketball said:

Anti-woke translation: "I'm opposed to equality,  equity,  and respect for others."

I'm old enough to remember all of this as being the new iteration of anti-PC. 

Now,  how about some disrespect for and jokes about  the disabled,  eh, anti-woke, folks?! 

I think you would have a hard time finding anyone, including Willie, who would be opposed to equality and respect for others.  Equity is a different animal.   Please define equity so that we are all on the same page. 

mspart

[Ban Basketball]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

I think you would have a hard time finding anyone, including Willie, who would be opposed to equality and respect for others.  Equity is a different animal.   Please define equity so that we are all on the same page. 

mspart

 

There are A LOT of people opposed to equality.  Don't kid yisself.

Equity is what you think it is.  Equity levels the playing field.  We don't always go into something with a level playing field.  Equity helps do that.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Ban Basketball

[mspart]

I don't believe you.  Who is against equality?   Please name some.

Please expound on equity and what it means.   Level the playing field is not a definition.    Do you want equity in sports or do you want the best there is in sports?  Does equity mean people with not as much skill should play on pro teams rather than those with the most skill?

mspart

[Ban Basketball]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

I don't believe you.  Who is against equality?   Please name some.

Please expound on equity and what it means.   Level the playing field is not a definition.    Do you want equity in sports or do you want the best there is in sports?  Does equity mean people with not as much skill should play on pro teams rather than those with the most skill?

mspart

Continue to consult the little green man in your salt shaker.

It's workin' so far, sir.  

[Ban Basketball]

14 hours ago, mspart said:

I don't believe you.  Who is against equality?   Please name some.

Please expound on equity and what it means.   Level the playing field is not a definition.    Do you want equity in sports or do you want the best there is in sports?  Does equity mean people with not as much skill should play on pro teams rather than those with the most skill?

mspart

If there's one thing that I've learned in my short life it's that ANYONE who says, "name me one..." or "give me one example..." it's always an embarrassing moment to follow for the asker.  Such will be the case this time too.  I am paid for this kind of thing, so you can thank me for the free lesson later.

So, who's against equality, you ask?  Here's a list of 36 people who voted against same sex marriage and interracial marriage equality, less than one week ago.

The 36 Republicans who voted against the bill are: Senators John Barrasso; Marsha Blackburn; John Boozman; Mike Braun; Bill Cassidy; John Cornyn; Tom Cotton; Kevin Cramer; Mike Crapo; Rafael Edward Cruz; Steve Daines; Deb Fischer; Lindsey Lady G Graham; Chuck Grassley; Bill Hagerty; Josh Running Man Hawley; John Hoeven; Cindy Hyde-Smith; Jim Inhofe; Ron Johnson; John Neely Kennedy; James Lankford; Mike Lee; Roger Marshall; Mitch McConnell; Jerry Moran; Rand Give Me The Infrastructure Money Paul; Jim Risch; Mike Rounds; Marco Antonio Rubio; Rick Scott; Tim Scott; Richard Shelby; John Thune; Tommy Tuberville; and Roger Wicker.

We also have millions who support taking basic human rights away from felons.  Once convicted of a felony, you lose many basic rights as a citizen.

We also have the 30 percenters who wanted to nullify the votes of millions of Americans by insisting that Mike Pence, darling of the "tea party," overrule the election and award Deuce the "winner," thus nullifying millions of votes.

We also have the 30 percenters who want to make voting more difficult for people.  If it results in ONE PERSON not being able to vote, therefore, it supports voting inequality.

The 30 percenters also endorse inchum inequality, whereby millionaires and billionaires pay less of their inchum in taxes, as a percentage of their inchum.  This is due top capital gains, and why Elon Musk, darling of the "tea party," Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg (or whatever his name is), Jeff Bezos, etc., etc. pay single digits in taxes on their inchum.

I need to expound upon equity? Really?  As I said, it levels the playing field and/or gets someone at the starting gate.  All of the various means to provide accommodations to those with disabilities-I have two disabled people in my family who appreciate these efforts toward equity-attempts to make it an equitable, level playing field with which they can participate in society.

Got it now?  Of course you don't.

 

[Ban Basketball]

I'll also allow all of my friends on here to enjoy the irony of Lady G, enemy of the "tea party," voting against the same sex marriage equality bill.  

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Ban Basketball said:

I'll also allow all of my friends on here to enjoy the irony of Lady G, enemy of the "tea party," voting against the same sex marriage equality bill.  

His ladybugs must have outvoted him.

[Husker_Du]

i agree that Graham and others voting against it is bizarre. did any of them give a rationale? 

 

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

i agree that Graham and others voting against it is bizarre. did any of them give a rationale? 

 

They're feckless cowards who do what they're told lest the mean orange man mock them again.

[Ban Basketball]

7 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

They're feckless cowards who do what they're told lest the mean orange man mock them again.

You beat me to it. I'd also add that they don't really stand for anything,  other than opposing whatever Democrats support.

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Ban Basketball said:

You beat me to it. I'd also add that they don't really stand for anything,  other than opposing whatever Democrats support.

I fondly remember when Republicans were just Americans with weird ideas about what the tax rates should be.

[Ban Basketball]

16 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

I fondly remember when Republicans were just Americans with weird ideas about what the tax rates should be.

Yes,  as but one great example. 

Class warfare has now become librul elites out of touch with the working man. 

[Mike Parrish]

Election Is Over, So Florida May Decide It Loves Disney After All

DeSantis is Trump Jr.

[mspart]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:13 AM, Ban Basketball said:

If there's one thing that I've learned in my short life it's that ANYONE who says, "name me one..." or "give me one example..." it's always an embarrassing moment to follow for the asker.  Such will be the case this time too.  I am paid for this kind of thing, so you can thank me for the free lesson later.

So, who's against equality, you ask?  Here's a list of 36 people who voted against same sex marriage and interracial marriage equality, less than one week ago.

The 36 Republicans who voted against the bill are: Senators John Barrasso; Marsha Blackburn; John Boozman; Mike Braun; Bill Cassidy; John Cornyn; Tom Cotton; Kevin Cramer; Mike Crapo; Rafael Edward Cruz; Steve Daines; Deb Fischer; Lindsey Lady G Graham; Chuck Grassley; Bill Hagerty; Josh Running Man Hawley; John Hoeven; Cindy Hyde-Smith; Jim Inhofe; Ron Johnson; John Neely Kennedy; James Lankford; Mike Lee; Roger Marshall; Mitch McConnell; Jerry Moran; Rand Give Me The Infrastructure Money Paul; Jim Risch; Mike Rounds; Marco Antonio Rubio; Rick Scott; Tim Scott; Richard Shelby; John Thune; Tommy Tuberville; and Roger Wicker.

The R's that voted against the bill did so on religious freedom grounds, that the bill did not adequately protect religious freedoms.  You are running  roughshod aver this topic because it suits your purpose.   Did you look at why such horrible Rs would have the gall to vote against the bill?  No.  Because that is not part of what you provided.  You have claimed you want factual reporting yet you are happy to label people based on a vote you assume is one topic.   It is not one topic, and I'll let Tim Scott and Marco Rubio describe what happened here per https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/11/30/rubio-scott-explain-votes-against-bill-protecting-same-sex-marriage/

“Unfortunately, this bill did not adequately protect the religious liberties of all Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and Democrats rejected critical amendments proposed to both codify protections for same-sex marriage into law AND maintain ironclad protections for religious liberty,” Scott said.  Rubio said he fears that “(r)eligious organizations, including orphanages, women’s shelters, and schools, would likely be subject to crippling lawsuits if the so-called Respect for Marriage Act becomes law.”  So there were reasons why a second topic within the bill caused people to vote against it.   So a similar simple characterization of this is that the Ds and 10 Rs were against religious liberty else why did they vote down amendments aimed at protecting religious liberty.   So in effect the same argument you hold for these people that are against equality is the same argument that can be made that the Ds and 10 Rs are against equality.  Your explanation is simplistic at best for a situation that is not that simple.   The Inflation reduction act is anything but an inflation reduction act and when it is described by adherents, it is descri9bed as a environmental bill aimed at curbing global warming.   But in a time of inflation, who could be against inflation reduction?  The bill does nothing to reduce inflation so it is not properly named.   The same is true for the Same Sex Marriage bill.   It has more to it than just same sex marriage.  If you had read up on this, you would know that and not put out a simplistic explanation on who is against equality. 

We also have millions who support taking basic human rights away from felons.  Once convicted of a felony, you lose many basic rights as a citizen.

This is a cause celebre of those on the left.   The felon made the decision to be a felon knowing he/she was putting his/her freedom at risk.  So there is more than one party to blame here.    Do you generally agree that violent felons after serving time should be able to purchase guns legally just like any citizen?  I think there are certain safeguards that need to be placed on convicted violent felons, but employment is not one of them, and neither is banking.  They should be able to get back to a normal existence without any threats hanging over them.  But there are folks with differing opinions on both sides of the aisle so this is not a necessarily strong argument for you. 

We also have the 30 percenters who wanted to nullify the votes of millions of Americans by insisting that Mike Pence, darling of the "tea party," overrule the election and award Deuce the "winner," thus nullifying millions of votes.

There were some who wanted Trump to win no matter what, thinking that vote fraud happened.   How is this any different from the Ds denying the 2016 election that made Trump President and going after him on specious arguments and impeaching and trying to convict him out of office.  All because he won and Hillary didn't.  You can't use this argument credibly because the D's did everything they could to overturn the "will of the people" after the fact.  The D's used false reporting and false information in the Steele dossier as a pretense to impeach and try Trump.   The FBI used that same info that they knew was false to get FISA warrants to look at people's activities.   It was all false, yet the force of law came down on innocent people it never should have.  The above is a weak argument on your part. 

We also have the 30 percenters who want to make voting more difficult for people.  If it results in ONE PERSON not being able to vote, therefore, it supports voting inequality.

So the poster child for this is the Georgia election law.   You remember the law that was "Jim Crow on steroids" law?  This what you are talking about.   Voter participation in the Nov election was greater than previous non presidential elections.   Currently, the early voter turnout in Georgia for the Senate runoff is greater than it ever has been.   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/georgia-breaks-early-voting-record-senate-runoff/story?id=94395537  Yes its true, but that didn't stop people from trying to disenfranchise GA citizens from MLB taking the All Star game from Atlanta, to politicians trying to make GA a pariah for it.  As it turns out, the law is not "Jim Crow on steroids", nor is it the end of the world.   More people are voting than ever.   Do we hear much about that?  No.  Why?   Because those against the election law don't want equality in voting.   They want to keep the inequality so they can complain about it.   Pure and simple.   If not, another explanation would be nice. 

The 30 percenters also endorse inchum inequality, whereby millionaires and billionaires pay less of their inchum in taxes, as a percentage of their inchum.  This is due top capital gains, and why Elon Musk, darling of the "tea party," Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg (or whatever his name is), Jeff Bezos, etc., etc. pay single digits in taxes on their inchum.

You certainly lump a group as if they are one behemoth with only one thought.   Where has the D House, the D Senate, and the D White House been on this particular subject.   Silent, why?  Because some of the richest donate  to the Ds.   Don't want to upset the apple cart on the D side now do we.    This is like the pot calling the kettle black.  Certainly this is one of your weaker arguments.   This chart shows how much the uber rich pay vs how much the really rich pay etc.  Turns out top 1% pay 40% of the US Income Tax collections.   1-5% pay another 20%.   So top 5% pay 60% of the US income tax.  Want to change this?  Do it.   Obama had the majorities, Clinton had the majorities, and Biden has the majorities.   Why didn't/don't they do it?   They depend on the rich for donations and special favors like any corrupt politician in DC. 

I need to expound upon equity? Really?  As I said, it levels the playing field and/or gets someone at the starting gate.  All of the various means to provide accommodations to those with disabilities-I have two disabled people in my family who appreciate these efforts toward equity-attempts to make it an equitable, level playing field with which they can participate in society.

This is a bogus argument, unless you are not informed.   This is a thread on woke.   In Woke-speak, equity is not for those with disabilities alone.   It is for every disadvantaged group that can be come up with.   Women, gays, LGBTQs, blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, dis-abled,  everyone but white males.  Equity is a forcing function to create equal outcomes on disparate people, usually against white males and for the above named minorities that are "under-represented".  I notice you did not address the example I provided.   Why is it that only the best athletes rise to the level of pro sports.   If it was equitable, there would be equal numbers of white, hispanics, blacks, and asians among the pro ranks.   Why is there not a push to make this more equitable?   I'll answer the question for you.  Because as a society, we want to see the best be their best, and do their best on the court or pitch or field.  Would you pay money to watch semi-pro baseballers playing in MLB?  The effect would be to bring the level of play down.   Would you want anyone not deserving of a medical degree to get a medical degree based on equity?  If so, how much would you want that individual doing your open heart surgery?  I'm guessing you will want the top of the field do your surgery or the surgery on those you love.  That is natural and normal, no one wants the worst.   That is why equity does not work.   Equal outcomes for disparate people is not sustainable.   Equality of opportunity is what is needed and I don't know anyone that is against that.  Equality of opportunity will separate those that can from those that can't.   Those that can't need to do something that they can.  I knew an engineer who was the top in his field and was paralyzed in both legs.   He was disadvantaged by his circumstances.   He trained his mind to become the top in his field, even so much as to advise folks in DC about regulations etc.  Engineering doesn't need physical specimens and sports doesn't need genius's.   Each profession has its own needs and those that don't measure up should not be artificially given that opportunity when there is someone more deserving.  Don't go telling anyone you want equity when you won't accept a subpar physician working on you, or watch subpar entertainment be it acting or sports or music.   Don't even go there.  There is a reason why I am not a rich guitar player.   I am not good  enough to play at that level.   If I was to be put in a guitar band, the audience would boo us off stage until I was replaced.   Equity doesn't work and it doesn't serve the individual nor the community at large. 

Got it now?  Of course you don't. 

Got it now?  Of course you don't.

My response is above in RED (for my commentary) and blue (for quotations and web links).

mspart

 

[Mike Parrish]

Oh yes, the poor Christians are being oppressed.

 

[Ban Basketball]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

My response is above in RED (for my commentary) and blue (for quotations and web links).

mspart

 

Keep in mind:  you asked, "who opposes equality?"  Keep that thought in mind-you didn't earlier-and it will all reveal itself to you (I can only hope).

You can say that they opposed it on any grounds that you or they wish to, but the fact of the matter is that you asked who's opposed to equality.  Those 36 are, religious reasons or not.  So, when do they start advocating killing people on the Sabbath?

Say all you want about felons "making the choice" (plea bargains, actual cases of innocence be damned), but the fact of the matter is that one loses significant rights in the U.S., once convicted of a felony.  Hence, if you support it, you don't support equality for all, as you're still a citizen with a felony.

Say all you want about Deuce and his minions, but if you wanted to see millions of votes thrown out, you didn't support equality in voting.  

Say all you want about elections laws, but the fact of the matter is that the 30 percenters-you included-want to actually make voting MORE restrictive and MORE difficult by the various acts of legislation limiting the opportunities to vote.  So, when ONE PERSON is not able to vote in this country and you support the reason(s) why that happened, you support inequality in voting, just like the 30 percenters.

Still waiting for one conservative/30 percenter/Republican to understand the inequity in the taxation system.  You fall into EXACTLY the same foolish, deliberately misinformed trap as them all.  Sorry to do it in bold, but it's a must:  DUE TO CAPITAL GAINS RATES AND ENDLESS OTHER LOOPHOLES DISPROPORTINATELY BENEFITTING MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES, THOSE INDIVIDUALS, ON AVERAGE PAY A LESSER PERCENTAGE OF THEIIR INCHUM IN TAXES THAN DO MIDDLE INCHUM FOLKS.  Do you pay single digits or less on your inchum taxes?  The folks listed above do. So, yes, you and the 30 percenters support tax/inchum inequality by being fooled by Tattletale "News" and AM radio.

If you don't support equity for those with disabilities, well, I don't know what to say, but I feel sorry for the folks who suffer the consequences of those of you who feel your able-bodyism should give you privilege over my niece and my aunt.  Shall we re-visit this gem, which you must have found so endearing?

 

[mspart]

On 12/5/2022 at 4:19 PM, Ban Basketball said:

Keep in mind:  you asked, "who opposes equality?"  Keep that thought in mind-you didn't earlier-and it will all reveal itself to you (I can only hope).

You can say that they opposed it on any grounds that you or they wish to, but the fact of the matter is that you asked who's opposed to equality.  Those 36 are, religious reasons or not.  So, when do they start advocating killing people on the Sabbath?  So your  mind is closed to what they are saying and why they are saying it.  You don't want the news, you don't want the story.   You want to make it a one argument law where there were lots of other arguments being made.  That is on you, not on me.

Say all you want about felons "making the choice" (plea bargains, actual cases of innocence be damned), but the fact of the matter is that one loses significant rights in the U.S., once convicted of a felony.  Hence, if you support it, you don't support equality for all, as you're still a citizen with a felony.  Not sure where you are going here.  I am a citizen and don't have a felony.   Equality is equality of opportunity obviously.   Peoples decisions will deprive them of certain opportunities.   My friend was very smart in HS, but couldn't stand college.   Therefore his decision to quit college ended his further academic and job opportunites.   Should he have had equal opportunities to get a degree when he chose not to go to college?   Of course not.   That was his decision.   Same with the felon.  If he want's equality of opportunity, he probably should not commit a felony.   Because that decision has long lasting repercussions on his ability to be a fully functioning citizen.  You want equality but no responsibility is what I hear you saying.  

Say all you want about Deuce and his minions, but if you wanted to see millions of votes thrown out, you didn't support equality in voting.   Now you are projecting.  in 2016, you wanted millions of votes thrown out (I'm guessing by your current attitude) and had no problem with a false report being the basis for impeachment proceedings  when admittedly the Ds could not stand the fact that their heir apparent lost the election.   Don't start lecturing anyone about wanting votes not counted when you yourself are already there.  For the record, I want all votes counted.   I do not want late votes counted, I do not want illegal votes counted, I do not want double votes counted, I do not want ballot harvesters throwing out ballots they feel don't go their way, I don't want voting situations that can be easily defrauded.   (In this screed, you say nothing about the Georgia election law that I highlighted.   You can't because it doesn't do what you been spoon fed that it does.   It is the reason for higher voter turnouts in Georgia ever since it was passed.  But I'm sure you still think it is Jim Crow on steroids because that's all you were willing to read. 

Say all you want about elections laws, but the fact of the matter is that the 30 percenters-you included-want to actually make voting MORE restrictive and MORE difficult by the various acts of legislation limiting the opportunities to vote.  So, when ONE PERSON is not able to vote in this country and you support the reason(s) why that happened, you support inequality in voting, just like the 30 percenters.   If  following current laws  as set forth by the legislature of each state is a problem, you have a bigger problem.  What I don't like is judges and local officials creating new rules that allow for mail in ballots, mail in ballots to be counted without a signature, for ballots to be counted that come in late, to count ballots that under normal circumstances would be tossed because they do not follow the very clear rules and guidelines. 

Still waiting for one conservative/30 percenter/Republican to understand the inequity in the taxation system.  You fall into EXACTLY the same foolish, deliberately misinformed trap as them all.  Sorry to do it in bold, but it's a must:  DUE TO CAPITAL GAINS RATES AND ENDLESS OTHER LOOPHOLES DISPROPORTINATELY BENEFITTING MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES, THOSE INDIVIDUALS, ON AVERAGE PAY A LESSER PERCENTAGE OF THEIIR INCHUM IN TAXES THAN DO MIDDLE INCHUM FOLKS.  Do you pay single digits or less on your inchum taxes?  The folks listed above do. So, yes, you and the 30 percenters support tax/inchum inequality by being fooled by Tattletale "News" and AM radio.  Warren Buffet famously said he pays less %  than his secretary while Obama was in office.  He recognized the inequity and if an altruistic man right?  Does he pay "his full share" regardless of the law?  Of course not.   He pays what is lawful, nothing more.   Neither do you or I.   Beware posing this as an R vs D question because there are just as many rich D supporters and donors that don't want the tax laws changed as there are on the R side.   Again, during Obama and Clinton years, they had the opportunity to rape the rich.  They did not.   During the first two years of Biden they had that same opportunity.  They did not.   Look in the mirror first before you start railing on that this is only an R issue. 

If you don't support equity for those with disabilities, well, I don't know what to say, but I feel sorry for the folks who suffer the consequences of those of you who feel your able-bodyism should give you privilege over my niece and my aunt.  Shall we re-visit this gem, which you must have found so endearing?  When did I ever say I don't support equity for those with disabilities?    Those are your words not mine.   I only said that that equity in our woke world casts a net around more groups of "disavantaged" groups of people than those with disabilities.   Should dis-advantaged people have equity in opportunity?  You never answered my  question about the sports analogy because you can't.   You would not pay money to see me do pro baseball, basketball, or anything else.   I am not proficient at any of those, but there are plenty that are more proficient than I, but not pro level.  I play guitar fairly well, good enough for my house and to have been in a band in college.  But you wouldn't pay money to see me play.   Are you not for equity?   Apparently not as you can't even respond to real life examples where equity could be done but isn't because you don't support it.   Again, you need to look in the mirror before you start projecting your own characteristics on others.  Equity is defined as equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.  By that definition, equity is obviously not a sustainable path. 

 

BB, you just want to put people in buckets.  But there are no real buckets.   All Black people do not think alike.   All Asians do not think alike.   All gays do not think alike.  All whites do not think alike.  All Ds do not think alike.  All Rs do not think alike.   All posters on a wrestling chat board don't think alike.  The real racial antipathy is putting minorities in buckets and saying they are all the same and all need the same help.  That is pure racism. 

Regarding equality, no one that I know is against equal opportunity.   Very few people that I know are actually for equal results.  If you are for equity, why aren't you for everyone being a congressperson that wants to be?  Why are elections held?  So we can hopefully discern who is best for that role.   You practice inequity whenever you vote sir.    You practice inequity whenever you buy this cereal over that cereal.  You practice inequity whenever you have the plumber to fix something and not call some other plumber.   You practice inequity all the time and probably never stop to think about it. 

mspart