Doesn't have me itchy. Just very humored. Note that nobody, as yet, is willing to post a link to a definition that defines the newly minted context in which you are using the hijacked word. Your definition is only on wacko media web sites and right wing blogger websites. You should either align yourselves with those sites and post the links to the definition you are using or, find another word to describe what you mean.

I will continue to use the word in the way that most people understand it, but I do sympathize with your objection.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/0...pontiac-gto-discovers-he-previously-owned-it/
Florida Man Buys 1965 Pontiac GTO, Discovers He Previously Owned It

 

most people understand it

Maybe most people in your echo chamber. There was a whole population using the word for the past 50-years - most have stopped using it since a leader of lemmings changing the definition of word.

 

They started using "woke" so people wouldn't see how biased they are. Lets take america back to segregation and having a king, in other words maga.

 

Maybe most people in your echo chamber. There was a whole population using the word for the past 50-years - most have stopped using it since a leader of lemmings changing the definition of word.

No, I am a centrist and I intentionally avoid echo chambers. The definition has drifted. It has a negative connotation now, like it or not, and like "who's at fault" or not. Hardly anyone advertises themselves with the word "woke" anymore.

Here's a rather comprehensive recap of the recent evolution of the word if you want to get yourself all caught up. It's from a centrist source out of Florida (just to keep the thread at least adjacent to, if not strictly on topic).

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story...-evolved-and-where-its-going-next/7287343001/

 

No, I am a centrist and I intentionally avoid echo chambers.

90% of Americans think they are centrists - your language indicates otherwise. Your decision that "wokism" is negative is an example. Not everyone thinks so.

 

90% of Americans think they are centrists - your language indicates otherwise. Your decision that "wokism" is negative is an example. Not everyone thinks so.

90% of Americans probably ARE centrist. How would we ever know? Apparently it isn't up to us to decide where we are on the politcal spectrum; that is decided by those at the ends.
Stand all the way left and everyone to your right is on the right.
Stand all the way right and everyone to your left is on the left.
This is all very tiring for those of us who just want the circus to end.

 

90% of Americans probably ARE centrist. How would we ever know? Apparently it isn't up to us to decide where we are on the politcal spectrum; that is decided by those at the ends.

Apparently there is a basis for your “probably 90%” statement. I watched a segment on a news show (20/20?) recently on the effect social media has had on the US. They interviewed someone who had studied this and his research showed that 7% of both “ends” held extreme views. Which leaves 86% of us that hold centrist opinions.

Sorry I don’t have the exact citation at this time. But it could be found.

 

90% of Americans probably ARE centrist. How would we ever know?

Very easy, by the language they use and the actions they take. Most of the people invading the capital thought they were average Americans.

This is all very tiring for those of us who just want the circus to end.

I see that it's much harder work for use than me.
Also, im not sure there was even a definition in the link you provided, unless 'stop the "wrongs to our kids and employees"' is somehow a definition of woke.

 

Most of the people invading the capital thought they were average Americans.

You speak with authority on that, so I'll give you benefit of the doubt of knowing them or having otherwise verified that most of them did not fancy themselves as revolutionaries. So 2,000 of America's 336,106,718 residents, delusionally considering themselves normal, stormed the capital while the other 99.99941% of us watched on TV, shaking our heads.

How does this support your argument exactly?

 

What President Richard "Tricky Dickey" Milhouse Nixon called "The Great Silent Majority". That was before Walmart started selling computers to bubba and all of his in-laws and fellow thinkers (also known as the Great Unwashed Masses) who are all too happy to have a six-pack or two and spread their broom straw philosophy version of truth and politics as God's Gospel Truth to all the world on their favorite social media platforms...

 

@MrSalts I don't wish to "win" any sort of argument against you. I am not against you. I just think we would all benefit from a bit of perspective that isn't curated for us by the media. I think you would benefit from considering that 51% of the country are not your comrades and 49% are not your enemies. And I, along with the vast majority of Americans, would benefit from not being branded (mentally, if not verbally) a leftist snowflake for using the word "equality" or an alt-right racist for using the word "woke" outside its recently obsolete context.

It would be cool if we all could talk about things that bring us closer rather than grow the chasm that the majority is lost inside of. We can even discuss differences of opinion if the topics are approached from a place of honest desire for better understanding rather than a barely-contained dumpster fire of adversarial tension (although, not on this forum unfortunately- PM if you'd like, I'd be happy to provide the contemporary definition of "woke" for you there).

I have no beef with you, please don't look for beef with me.

 

You speak with authority on that, so I'll give you benefit of the doubt of knowing them or having otherwise verified that most of them did not fancy themselves as revolutionaries. So 2,000 of America's 336,106,718 residents, delusionally considering themselves normal, stormed the capital while the other 99.99941% of us watched on TV, shaking our heads.

How does this support your argument exactly?

It supports it in that nobody wants to consider them selves left-wing OR right wing extremists. You missed my point completely. Think hard - when I way the middle 90% consider themselves centrists, I'm not saying the middle 90% are not in the middle. That wouldn't make any sense, right. So, what am I saying? The last 5% would have to consider themselves extremeists left and 5% would have to consider themselves extreme right. The fact is, almost nobody announces themselves as an extremist (left or right). Right? So, my point is, your declaration of being a centrist is like saying, "I'm a human". Because claiming you're a centrist doesn't marry you down from the general population.

 

It's always been my understanding that the meaning of a word comes from the context of which it's being used.

The right tends to use "woke" as a pejorative and the left tends to imply something positive.

Debating its "definition" seem kinda pointless.

 

Hardly anyone advertises themselves with the word "woke" anymore.

Nobody ever did advertise them selves that way. It's a made up use of the word, because of the disenfranchised people finally getting smart and voting or organizing. It's not just something in Floida it's happening all across the united states and the world at large, and it scares those that want to be the ones that hold all of the power.

 

Nobody ever did advertise them selves that way. It's a made up use of the word, because of the disenfranchised people finally getting smart and voting or organizing. It's not just something in Floida it's happening all across the united states and the world at large, and it scares those that want to be the ones that hold all of the power.

When politicians hijack words to redefine them, it's just a form NewSpeak. "Wokism" is an example of NewSpeak - the lemmings who follow need to reread (read) the novel. Quite a grim story. It seems the key players who are defining our NewSpeak have studied the novel snd using social media to make possible what wasn't possible when the novel was first published.

 

It's always been my understanding that the meaning of a word comes from the context of which it's being used.

The right tends to use "woke" as a pejorative and the left tends to imply something positive.

Debating its "definition" seem kinda pointless.

There is only one side allowed to alter definitions -- after which we are all supposed to subscribe.

Again, what is a woman?

 

There is only one side allowed to alter definitions -- after which we are all supposed to subscribe.

Again, what is a woman?

No, I believe that is a conservative side claiming the definition of woman has changed. It's called fear mongering. Or, specific people on the conservative side.

Notice that most conservatives pulled those lines from their talking points lately, it wasn't polling well with focus groups.

 

There is only one side allowed to alter definitions -- after which we are all supposed to subscribe.

Again, what is a woman?

At some point in the past gender was directly aligned with biological sex and there were people who called themselves trans-sexual, when science proved a person cannot change their sex they started to use the term trans-gender and gender became a societal construct.

So now a "woman" is either a female or someone who "identifies" as female.

 

At some point in the past gender was directly aligned with biological sex and there were people who called themselves trans-sexual, when science proved a person cannot change their sex they started to use the term trans-gender and gender became a societal construct.

So now a "woman" is either a female or someone who "identifies" as female.

You're right, It's really quite simple and Joey and his Governor know it, but they are either trying to create outrage and fear about the concept to get more "points" (voters) for their team, or, they are afraid of turning into a woman.