Woke is a Joke

[JoeWeber 3,019]

Just now, nigel99 said:

I wholeheartedly agree with people needing due process. 

The need for cheap labour is fairly universal across western countries and there are legitimate ways to do this without compromising our social services. I don’t know if the US has the equivalent but we have a visa that encourages back packers to work for a limited period of time and it is easy to get a visa. I don’t see a problem with the US having a similar visa that would allow people to work on the farms and other jobs that “we” won’t do. 

Those visa don’t need to provide a route to permanent residence (ours don’t). The great thing about facilitating temporary work is that these people help to pay into our tax systems and social security funds effectively subsidising us. For example back packers here don’t get the free healthcare we do, no subsidies on education and no welfare benefits.

I’d honestly take a job as a packer or picking grapes to help subsidise a 6-12 month holiday in the US. I have always wanted to do the Appalachian trail or explore the 29 states I haven’t been to. 

Can you fly a Caravan?

[nigel99 680]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Can you fly a Caravan?

No, I can barely tow a caravan never mind fly one 

[JoeWeber 3,019]

Just now, nigel99 said:

No, I can barely tow a caravan never mind fly one 

Well, I can use a good Caravan driver for next year. It's an 850HP Shorty that I put together for myself. Glass, Traffic, etc. Hauls ass, super fun to fly and I own the airport so no traffic pattern issues. 4 loads to 14K AGL an hour, 2 minutes and 11 seconds until all three wheels on the runway after jumpers away. 

[nigel99 680]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Can you fly a Caravan?

No, I can barely tow a caravan never mind fly one 

[JoeWeber 3,019]

Just now, nigel99 said:

No, I can barely tow a caravan never mind fly one 

As you said. Take the rest of the night off. 

[nigel99 680]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Well, I can use a good Caravan driver for next year. It's an 850HP Shorty that I put together for myself. Glass, Traffic, etc. Hauls ass, super fun to fly and I own the airport so no traffic pattern issues. 4 loads to 14K AGL an hour, 2 minutes and 11 seconds until all three wheels on the runway after jumpers away. 

Sounds like a great jump plane. There was a fast caravan at Fitz last year. I’m not used to quick climbs as I started off in a Trog (20 minutes to 8k) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_AL-60 Although it was luxury as being underpowered we had plenty of space to spread out or lie down on the way up.

[richravizza 30]

On 9/26/2025 at 2:11 AM, jakee said:

You’re against DEI but you choose who to pay attention to based on their race? Fascinating.

Not really, that would only be fascinating to identitarians. It's an old expression lost to the manipulated, Ideas over identity.

I think you should go back there is a prerequisite you're missing and probably why we're on different planes of reality.It's run time is 30 minutes,let me know what you think.

 

Edited September 28 by richravizza

[jakee 1,643]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

Not really, that would only be fascinating to identitarians. It's an old expression lost to the manipulated, Ideas over identity.

I see, you personally find that almost no white academics have ideas worth listening to, only black academics are any good?

Why do you think that is?

[richravizza 30]

46 minutes ago, jakee said:

I see, you personally find that almost no white academics have ideas worth listening to, only black academics are any good?

Why do you think that is?

I gave you the run time of 30 min., and this is what you come up with?

I think you're stuck in that anti racist loop again,poor thing you must be getting dizzy. Stop! get your bearings.

The main adjective was {racial} Identitarianism. I told you before I am Immune from gilt or any words that paint me in your new original white sin.

For those that keep up John & Glen an additional man of sound mind. Clifton Duncan 

The guy in the middle is not Clifton,but if you were to bet is he white or black....  you see it doen't *ucken matter.That's color blind.

 

[jakee 1,643]

48 minutes ago, richravizza said:

The guy in the middle is not Clifton,but if you were to bet is he white or black....  you see it doen't *ucken matter.That's color blind.

Right - I will happily concede that it is an entirely colourblind approach that leads to you only quoting black academics, because it just so happens to be the case that only black academics have ideas worth quoting. I’m not arguing with you on that. 

Im just wondering why you think that is the case right now. What do you think has lead to black academics dominating the arena of ideas and white academics having nothing interesting to say?

Edited September 28 by jakee

[richravizza 30]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Right - I will happily concede that it is an entirely colourblind approach that leads to you only quoting black academics, 

Im just wondering why you think that is the case right now. What do you think has lead to black academics dominating the arena of ideas and white academics having nothing interesting to say?

Oh no, not again, stop with the 360's. Now I'm getting dizzy.lol 

You're sooo close but you  just can't let go.Race is not essential, it's insidental,if you had realized it we would be on the ideas.

"because it just so happens to be the case that only black academics have ideas worth quoting. I’m not arguing with you on that."that's great but it is not what I meant,no domination. Ideas not identities means race is incidental, not essential to reason and logic. These men are the outliers.The Ralph Waldo Emerson's of our time. 

Take only one RWE  quote daily and revisits it during the day, you will find.. " "The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions," 

To my imagination; I suppose the leftist utopia of our future would be to DNA us all.Then we could use the consensus to determine the amount of benefit or discrimination appropriately received for us and our posterities to ordain and establish this...lol

 

Edited Monday at 12:13 AM by richravizza

[jakee 1,643]

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

that's great but it is not what I meant,no domination. 

That’s what you said. You only quote academics based on their ideas, not their race, and you almost exclusively quote black academics. 

So how do you explain the fact that black academics have all the good ideas at the moment? How come white profs can’t come up with anything worth repeating? 

[billvon 3,169]

On 9/21/2025 at 5:44 PM, richravizza said:

You truly are Orwellian  . . .

So Trump just banned the words "emissions" and "climate change" from any government publication.

Orwell, 1984: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Orwell, 1984: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well.  . . .  Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston?”

Orwell would be proud of you.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/energy-department-climate-change-emissions-banned-words-00583649

[richravizza 30]

On 9/29/2025 at 1:05 AM, jakee said:

That’s what you said. You only quote academics based on their ideas, not their race, and you almost exclusively quote black academics. 

So how do you explain the fact that black academics have all the good ideas at the moment? How come white profs can’t come up with anything worth repeating? 

Perhaps one day you'll realize nearly all your [habit of thought] perspective is that of a rascal essentialist. The facismism in academia has purged any outspoken critic of the progressive project,without that criticism, it's gone off the rails,ie anti-racism IXK ,Deangelo,CRT,and Kimberly's 1619 pulitzer. 

I asked Wendy what is the Left's corrective mechanism,when do you say this is Too far or do you just capitulate.  

Peter Boghossian and the Evergreen canoe incident was like a neomaxist retreat,where the students,teach the faculty what they taught them.Then the cascade of the true liberal professors were vacated for just questioning the orthodoxy. Bret Weinstein Heather Heying and down the list to the high schools in Warren Smith, or anyone that Quoted "To Kill a Mockingbird" in a soft cage.

[wmw999 2,638]

32 minutes ago, richravizza said:

I asked Wendy what is the Left's corrective mechanism,when do you say this is Too far or do you just capitulate.

The question wasn’t clear to me at all. Maybe it was hidden in a video. 
And to me it’s to some degree an individual decision, and to some degree a pendulum. Too far in one direction, then the other (“hey babe” with a pat on the ass to “microagression”). After all, a conservative value was to limit the number of Jews severely, and to largely confine women in the domestic arena, and men to the work one. Do you agree with that one? Or should it be up to each person?

Wendy P. 

[richravizza 30]

21 hours ago, billvon said:

So Trump just banned the words "emissions" and "climate change" from any government publication.

Orwell, 1984: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Orwell, 1984: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well.  . . .  Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston?”

Orwell would be proud of you.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/energy-department-climate-change-emissions-banned-words-00583649

 LOL a left's that uses pravda...No that's politio for ya. The beauty of words you can reintroduce them at a later date.Some lose their meanings for political expediency and are assigned different meaning for the political purpose you know like calling your opponents nazis, and fascists that support a Dictator.

To Paraphrase, a deep thinking man

While Academias linguistically controls the masses,what to think,how not to think outside of their set boundaries,hence Speech is Violence.Repeat the right terms, systemic racism, diversity, equity privilege, progress harm and safety but don't you dare question them,where fascism begins. Orwell realized,tried to show us those moral sounding word were just decoys diversions to prevent honest debate.If we attack those moral sounding words ,we will be seen attacking the values they represent.But he warned us of this trap,where words become moral weapons.Any disagreements become the words of the heretic.

Here is where hopefully  we agree,but in the different context of past and present.When those in power controls our language it controls our conversations.It controls culture and the culture controls me and you, often unconsciously. Adjusting our language to fit norns. A phrase like "all lives matter" is self sensored,not because we fear they are wrong but because they are risky.It is then,Our thoughts begin to shrink to fit the cages of social approval,a "thought crime" not a crime or fear of the state,but fear from one other. Fear of being misunderstood like CK.

This is where some of us choose safety over clarity,acceptance over honesty,silence over truth.This is how those beautiful words become chains we wear, we aren't forced to wear them, we choose them,perhaps because of the golden shimmer handed to us in velvet boxes. They sound good they feel right and once we surrender to them, we lose something deeper than speech, we surrender our ability to think.

 To Our counter-revolution,  A Velvet Revolution! 

Edited Thursday at 12:02 AM by richravizza

[billvon 3,169]

26 minutes ago, richravizza said:

The beauty of words you can reintroduce them at a later date.

So you support banning words.  

Well, I guess if you can't argue against certain concepts, just banning the words might work for you.  It worked in 1984.

Quote

Repeat the right terms, systemic racism, diversity, equity privilege, progress harm and safety but don't you dare question them,where fascism begins. 

Hey, why argue against them when you can just ban that speech, right?  That's your approach.  I prefer a more free-speech approach, but I understand why that would not work for you.

Quote

When those in power controls our language it controls our conversations.

That's the goal, yes.

Quote

A phrase like "all lives matter" is self sensored,not because we fear they are wrong but because they are risky.

But, see, that's the thing.  The government did not ban the term "all lives matter."  It DID ban the term "climate change."  Because, as you mention, their goal is control of our conversations.  They do not want anyone talking about anything other than what they approve.  Trump's latest National Security Memorandum instructs the FBI to investigate and target anyone who is anti-capitalism or anti-Christianity, for example - and they now have the power to do that via Palantir.  Not people who plan violence.  Not people who threaten to shoot someone.  Just people who are anti-Christian.  Muslims, for example.

Quote

They sound good they feel right and once we surrender to them, we lose something deeper than speech, we surrender our ability to think.

Indeed. Sad that you are on the side of suppressing not only the freedom to speak of what we want, but even the freedom to think what we want.  But again, I can understand why you need to do that.  Your side cannot survive in a free marketplace of ideas; it needs to be able to suppress independent thought, so that no one questions political maxims like "immigrants eat all our cats and dogs" "windmills cause cancer" "the democrats want to give free healthcare to illegals" "Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania."   Once indepdendent thought is suppressed, everyone will accept the new lies without question.

 

[richravizza 30]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

The question wasn’t clear to me at all. Maybe it was hidden in a video. 
And to me it’s to some degree an individual decision, and to some degree a pendulum. Too far in one direction, then the other (“hey babe” with a pat on the ass to “microagression”). After all, a conservative value was to limit the number of Jews severely, and to largely confine women in the domestic arena, and men to the work one. Do you agree with that one? Or should it be up to each person?

Wendy P. 

My apologies,

 the question was on another thread and I'm sure between a video. I agree in individualism completely.But  I don't think limiting Jews or confining women is a Conservative Values but like most issues the political language  goes to the extreme. I can tell you what I'm for, I'm ok with jews and ok with women that want a career and or want to run their families household,most women I've know would cry at the fact of having to leave their newborn with a strangers.The day my wife left the workforce to be a full time Mom was one of those happiest days of her life.Happy Wife happy life. But Family is a conservative value. 

To answer directly no, and absolutely.

  Which do you feel most sacred, the individual or the collective?

 

[wmw999 2,638]

43 minutes ago, richravizza said:

Which do you feel most sacred, the individual or the collective?

Depends on the situation, of course. Individual rights are extremely important. But they don't always matter in the military, in school, in a TSA line, or even in a movie theater.

Wendy P.

[richravizza 30]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

So you support banning words.  

Well, I guess if you can't argue against certain concepts, just banning the words might work for you.  It worked in 1984.

Hey, why argue against them when you can just ban that speech, right?  That's your approach.  I prefer a more free-speech approach, but I understand why that would not work for you.

That's the goal, yes.

But, see, that's the thing.  The government did not ban the term "all lives matter."  It DID ban the term "climate change."  Because, as you mention, their goal is control of our conversations.  They do not want anyone talking about anything other than what they approve.  Trump's latest National Security Memorandum instructs the FBI to investigate and target anyone who is anti-capitalism or anti-Christianity, for example - and they now have the power to do that via Palantir.  Not people who plan violence.  Not people who threaten to shoot someone.  Just people who are anti-Christian.  Muslims, for example.

Indeed. Sad that you are on the side of suppressing not only the freedom to speak of what we want, but even the freedom to think what we want.  But again, I can understand why you need to do that.  Your side cannot survive in a free marketplace of ideas; it needs to be able to suppress independent thought, so that no one questions political maxims like "immigrants eat all our cats and dogs" "windmills cause cancer" "the democrats want to give free healthcare to illegals" "Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania."   Once indepdendent thought is suppressed, everyone will accept the new lies without question.

 

 I'm not in favor of using rhetoric and hyperbolic language like existential threats, extinction like threats as our norm."the sky is falling" ESG schemes an old paradigm now extinct,maxims lol

"A cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear.

And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.

To overcome these challenges – to restore the soul and to secure the future of America – requires more than words."jb

No words have been banned the language is simply changing.You can use climate change as much as you want,nobody is going to dox you. 

"Once indepdendent thought is suppressed, everyone will accept the new lies without question." I think you're in front of your skies,as our old lies need to be outed,first.

"political maxims like "immigrants eat all our cats and dogs" "windmills cause cancer" "the democrats want to give free healthcare to illegals" Those aren't political maximum they are yours, It does seem like they work in preventing us from having that deeper conversation,just a couple links in that cage. Don't dems want free healthcare for everyone, It's a right,right.

[billvon 3,169]

3 hours ago, richravizza said:

 I'm not in favor of using rhetoric and hyperbolic language like existential threats, extinction like threats as our norm."the sky is falling" ESG schemes an old paradigm now extinct,maxims lol

Yes, I know.  You'd rather ban that language.  I would rather people be allowed to say whatever they like (outside of the yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater direct-harm examples) so they can be convinced they are wrong (or prove they are right.)

I understand how you can't permit that sort of freedom, since it would undermine your position.

Quote

 . . . requires more than words." jb

I agree.  Right wing terrorism is at an all time high.  A record number of republicans think violence is the right way to solve the country's problems.

Quote

No words have been banned the language is simply changing.

Trump has LITERALLY BANNED WORDS from all government communications.  I am sorry you don't understand this; I suspect it's your steady diet of Breitbart, OAN and FOX News that results in your ignorance on topics like this.

List below:

https://pen.org/banned-words-list/

Quote

"Once indepdendent thought is suppressed, everyone will accept the new lies without question." I think you're in front of your skies,as our old lies need to be outed,first.

Anyone can out them all they like.  But your side knows it will lose that challenge, so you ban them instead,

Quote

"political maxims like "immigrants eat all our cats and dogs" "windmills cause cancer" "the democrats want to give free healthcare to illegals" Those aren't political maximum they are yours

Nope.  Specifically they are Trump's.  Again, if you got outside your OAN/Breitbart/FOX bubble you'd see that.

[jakee 1,643]

9 hours ago, richravizza said:

The facismism in academia has purged any outspoken critic of the progressive project,

Where do the academics you quote who criticise the progressive movement come from then?

[jakee 1,643]

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

 A phrase like "all lives matter" is self sensored,not because we fear they are wrong but because they are risky.

When were you too scared to say “all lives matter”?

[JerryBaumchen 1,486]

13 hours ago, billvon said:

Yes, I know.  You'd rather ban that language.  I would rather people be allowed to say whatever they like (outside of the yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater direct-harm examples) so they can be convinced they are wrong (or prove they are right.)

I understand how you can't permit that sort of freedom, since it would undermine your position.

I agree.  Right wing terrorism is at an all time high.  A record number of republicans think violence is the right way to solve the country's problems.

Trump has LITERALLY BANNED WORDS from all government communications.  I am sorry you don't understand this; I suspect it's your steady diet of Breitbart, OAN and FOX News that results in your ignorance on topics like this.

List below:

https://pen.org/banned-words-list/

Anyone can out them all they like.  But your side knows it will lose that challenge, so you ban them instead,

Nope.  Specifically they are Trump's.  Again, if you got outside your OAN/Breitbart/FOX bubble you'd see that.

Hi Bill,

But, that would upset his bubble.

Can't have that; might just learn something he does not want to know.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 3,169]

14 hours ago, jakee said:

Where do the academics you quote who criticise the progressive movement come from then?

Apparently from the "facismism" movement.