So he only somewhat hates homosexuals?
He hates them, but thinks throwing them off of buildings is a skosh too far.
2 Likes
The whole point is saying they hate them more than us. I’m not sure if thought that was good or bad but it certainly implied that “we” also hate them, just not as much as “they”.
It’s just not a good look.
1 Like
Trump on record in a deposition when asked by E Jean Carol’s attorneys about his recorded comments to Billy Bush about women letting you grab them by the p*****
“ Historically, that’s true, with stars… if you look over the last million years,"
1 Like
Wow, it’s rare to hear someone talking so honestly. It’s actually preferable to hear it said “I hate homosexuals” rather than all the fake “family values” laws.
Holding themselves up as the next worst thing to terrorists 
1 Like
Something weird with mobile, maybe? This should work.
1 Like
Oh, here is the bill that FL was debating when Jeff Holcomb made that remark. They actually used the word “woke,” in quotations, in the bill.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1382/BillText/er/PDF
Can anyone define what “woke” is. It seems like a feeling republicans have whenever they come across something they don’t like…
3 Likes
No, they can’t. Several news reporters have asked, with no adequate reply.
Your definition, though, is perfectly cromulent.
IMO, recognizant of racial and other social injustices, especially as related to institutional oppression of women and racial and other minorities such as LGBTQIA+.
Or maybe it’s trans people wanting to groom your kids by reading a book, I don’t know.
It’s all about caring too much about other people. Usually those people aren’t like you in some way.
I’m not always a fan of wokeism. Some recognition of social inequality is plainly necessary, but others see institutional oppression in places where I do not.
Which would almost put me on the side of Republicans. But then they legislate against it, and then I’m right back with the libs.
Huh. Wouldn’t this, by definition, be considered institutional oppression?
2 Likes
lol. I mean, it’s institutional oppression of wokeism (depending on the law).
Which yes, bothers me.
I’m kinda surprised no Republican has defined it as “apologetic toward African-American grievances”. Perhaps they really do need it to be more vague so they can use it as a boogeyman.
That sounds like something worth exploring, honestly.
Who are the “others” here? Are they the people claiming to be oppressed, or are they white knights making a big deal out of things that minorities say are not the real issue to focus on?
Some wokeness can be performative. But if groups of people say they are oppressed and I don’t see it, the problem likely doesn’t lie with them.
4 Likes
So, being anti-woke would mean “ignoring African American (and other minority) grievances”?
2 Likes
Are you then going to define wokeism?
Both generally as a term and specifically examples that you think are too far and align you overall with the “un-legislatively active anti-woke” brigade.
Isn’t the current de facto definition of “woke”: “being supportive of a group or a cause that social conservatives disagree with”?
2 Likes