Is cycling ‘woke’? Cycling and culture wars discussed with a Conservative aide, plus Lucinda Brand and Eli Iserbyt on the future of cyclocross

No, I am not happy to support discrimination and injustice. But people can be against discrimination and injustice without having name calling and insults hurled at them. As I have stated, if someone doesn't agree with a woke persons views they are insulted and cancelled. It is the wokes who are the most intolerant people. As adults, we should all be able to air our differing views in, yes, an adult manner. 

You have inferred that anti wokes are racist, homophobic, violent abusers and sexists. I am none of the above, I have very close friends who are black, a very good friend who I think the world of is gay, I have never been violent to anyone in my life nor am I a sexist.

You have proved my point 100% about what is wrong with wokes, and I thank you for proving me correct.

Your final point, why is it that your views are so objectionable, they're not. It is the manner in which wokes behave like petulant children towards those who have different views which is objectionable. OK, let's turn your question around, why is it that MY views are so objectionable, when I have told you that I am none of the above?

I am what some would term as a grumpy old man, sick to the back teeth of some people making out that there are issues where there are not, looking for things to be angry about. I'm sick of the wokes glueing themselves to the road, telling others that we are murdering the planet whilst they are happy to use cars, mobile phones, central heating in their houses and all the other double standards whilst stopping decent hardworking people going about their daily lives. Not all wokes are activists, but all the activists are woke.

Woke literally means awareness of discrimination and societal injustices, that's all. If you're anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, then congratulations - you're woke. 
 

if you've decided to invent your own (incorrect) definition of the word to describe a certain type of uncompromising left-winger (and let me assure you; the qualities you describe are far from unique to the left), then that's on you. 

What defines discrimination and societal injustice is up for interpretation; essentially, socialists have discovered a new way to attack those on the right and because those on the left now dominate educational and public service institutions, they control the narrative.

Biker Phil wrote:

No, I am not happy to support discrimination and injustice. But people can be against discrimination and injustice without having name calling and insults hurled at them. As I have stated, if someone doesn't agree with a woke persons views they are insulted and cancelled.

Nobody is cancelled, that is plainly untrue. Perhaps if you didn't complain so vociferously about 'woke people' supposedly cancelling like trains in winter then you'd not be considered a dickhead. Or at least the term dickhead wouldn't be used (I'm not sure you're a dickhead at all but you do come across as a reactionary and these are polarised times and it's easy to make snap judgements from some words online).

If you're genuinely against discrimination and injustice then you're more woke than you might want to admit. People who are woke (i.e. against discrimination and injustice)  are not a single entity operating together so you can't generalise that they are "the most intolerant people". The people I know that I'd describe as woke are generally more tolerant than average, though maybe not of discriminatory opinions or prejudice.

I agree with "As adults, we should all be able to air our differing views in, yes, an adult manner." but racists, sexist wife-beaters and Tory ministers do not come over as normal, rational people with whom you can disagree in an adult manner. That's why they get labelled dickheads. But I don't see any of them unable to express their views; in fact they seem to manage just fine, in a way that maximises the impact of their hateful comments. Media outlets seem to like hosting them and airing their views.

Biker Phil wrote:

OK, let's turn your question around, why is it that MY views are so objectionable?

I don't really know what your views are but you seem to have a real problem with the word 'woke'. It's as if you're fighting some imagined evil force when it's really people who, apparently like you, are against discrimination and injustice. You can't fight injustice without making some noise, which will inevitably offend some racists/sexist/prejudiced people. Tough shit, let's make some noise.

I think the issue with our 'free market of ideas' is that it's not really compatible with the economics of privatised news and 'infotainment.'
There's no money in resolving issues, but a lot of money in making sure they go unresolved.
You'll get a lot more clicks and shares by having opponents make claims that the other isn't properly equipped to challenge, leaving it up to the audience to resolve the issues.
I'm sure we've seen the classic of a right wing influencer inviting a random woke lefty with blue hair onto the show, instead of an academic, to debate a woke issue.

.

Very well put, BP. I'm going to copy / paste what you've written and use it myself at other appropriate times (if you don't mind!).

.

Well it saves thinking for yourself I suppose.

I agree

Keep in mind the only reason we're having this discussion is because people can't even ride a bike without being labelled woke.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because Biker Phil has no fucking idea what "woke" means. By his own admission ("against discrimination and injustice") he's woke. 

Biker Phil wrote:

You have inferred that anti wokes are racist, homophobic, violent abusers and sexists. I am none of the above, I have very close friends who are black...

I genuinely spat my tea out laughing.

No disrespect to the poster, but that's such a great line; "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend".

Unintended comedy gold.

Biker Phil wrote:

That is the thing about wokes, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a dickhead. There is only one viewpoint. Theirs. 

Enough said really.

The irony of someone defining woke that way and then demonstrating those very traits themselves is literally off the scale.

Biker Phil wrote:

That is the thing about wokes, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a dickhead. There is only one viewpoint. Theirs. 

Enough said really.

I don't think you have a clear conception of what "woke" means and there's a very good reason that racist and bigotted views (which is by definition what anti-woke means) are not tolerated in a tolerant society. It's known as the paradox of tolerance: "Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance".

There was a significant war last century that was made necessary when a lot of German people "tolerated" the vile behaviour of the Nazis and allowed their society to be infiltrated and then dominated by them. We don't want that to happen again and thus to promote a safe and non-violent society, it may be necessary to punch any Nazis that you may come across to let them know that their views are not welcome.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation around and the right-wing seems to be using "woke" as a perjorative against center/left-wing people in a ridiculous "culture war". It's a way to gather together people with different beliefs so that the racists can hide behind the more sensible right-wingers under the banner of "anti-woke", but don't get fooled by that tactic as it's just a white supremacist trick.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation around and the right-wing seems to be using "woke" as a perjorative against center/left-wing people in a ridiculous "culture war". It's a way to gather together people with different beliefs so that the racists can hide behind the more sensible right-wingers under the banner of "anti-woke", but don't get fooled by that tactic as it's just a white supremacist trick.

There is an interesting video on the Alt Right Playbook about the death of a euphamism. Right now they need to say "he's woke so he hates us, cancel culture etc etc" because saying "He isn't racist so he finds our racism detestable" isn't going to go down well. They won't always need the euphamism, enjoy it while it lasts but call it out when you see it. 

Although Popper was a Social-Libertarian, exactly the sort of person that most Woke people would self-identity with and a philosophy that has got us into this situation in the first place.

The plural of bigot is bigoted; the plural of woke is idiots..

grOg wrote:

The plural of bigot is bigoted; the plural of woke is idiots.

Want to go and have a little think about that first clause? And indeed the second, given that woke is an adjective, not a noun, and so can't have a plural.

Isn't the plural of woke tofu eating wokerati? Maybe inserting Guardian reading too?

https://www.podcastmerch.co.uk/exploding-heads-hoodies/exploding-heads-d...

ktache wrote:

Isn't the plural of woke tofu eating wokerati?

As the unlamented former Home Secretary chose to latinize her plural, technically the singular of wokerati would have to be wokeratus. Which would be a great name for a shop selling the Guardian and tofu.

Biker Phil wrote:

That is the thing about wokes, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a dickhead. There is only one viewpoint. Theirs. 

Enough said really.

I hope you see the irony in making such a claim. If this is your definition of woke then you are woke.

Trouble is the meaning of words changes once common usage warps them.

Internet trolls - started out based on a reference to fishing rather than monsters under bridges, in early days a "troll" was someone who posted inoffensive messages aimed at triggering "flamers" into responsing with angry/offensive responses, i.e akin to trolling for fish with a lure. 

Once media got hold of the term it was warped so that the "flamers" i.e. the angry offensive posters became known as trolls (the under bridge monsters).

I think whilst woke may originally have just meant "awareness of discrimination and societal injustices" I think that the media and mainstream are turning this into a term to mean extremist cancel culture types, and this latter meaning is becoming more widespread

makadu wrote:

Trouble is the meaning of words changes once common usage warps them.

Internet trolls - started out based on a reference to fishing rather than monsters under bridges, in early days a "troll" was someone who posted inoffensive messages aimed at triggering "flamers" into responsing with angry/offensive responses, i.e akin to trolling for fish with a lure. 

Once media got hold of the term it was warped so that the "flamers" i.e. the angry offensive posters became known as trolls (the under bridge monsters).

I think whilst woke may originally have just meant "awareness of discrimination and societal injustices" I think that the media and mainstream are turning this into a term to mean extremist cancel culture types, and this latter meaning is becoming more widespread

The problem with trying to allow for a word's meaning to drift is that the "anti-woke" people aren't able to define what they mean by "woke" and so it tends to lose any specific meaning and instead becomes a right-wing dog whistle - they don't know what they're angry about, but they know that they're angry.

In the meantime, the rest of us can just keep repeating that it's a simple word with a simple meaning and if they want to use it differently, then they should at least be able to define it clearly and concisely or else people will understandably consider them to be idiots.

I think the books cover has just proved itself true with your ridiculous comment. You use a catch-all term to look down your nose on people you disagree with, but don't appear to be capable of articulating why you disagree with them, they are simply "wokes".

I would consider myself to be woke, in the worst right wing use of the word, and proud of it. My upbringing, life and work have moulded me into someone who gives a shit about others and our world, and not be selfish, short-sighted and caring.

Problem is I don't think that people who disagree with me are always dickheads. Some are misguided, some are ignorant, some are intolerant, some are prejudiced, some are self centred, some are c**ts, some are twats, some are stupid, some are just wrong, and sometimes I'm wrong and will admit it.

I very much doubt you would ever admit to being wrong, given your disparagement of anyone that disagrees with your worldview.

Unlike you of course.....

Welcome back by the way