WokeSpeak

chevyontheriver said:

Well, I didn't grow up evangelical nor attend such schools. But I did read 1984 in 1970 and it's all coming true in 2020.

Click to expand...

It’s been true in evangelical communities all along. Free speech and expression is not permitted. Questioning doctrine causes one to be accused of not having a true relationship with Christ. Certain language and words are prohibited. Virtue signaling abounds.

Arc F1 said:

Other countries are already getting on board with these types of discussions. We are already seeing right here in the US where while not yet calling out the bible they are making those values we hold as being hate speech. Right now it's just an indirect attack but as things move along some politicians will undoubtedly come out and say directly that the Bible is hate speech. China is doing it, other countries are attacking Christians and although we will probably be the last hold out public sentiment will eventually change.

Bishops: Scottish Bill Threatens Bible

Click to expand...

here is a copy of the proposed legislation. as you can see the claim that it would outlaw the bible is a complete lie.

Nevada Smith said:

If someone is preaching out against sin is that hate speech?
Pastor Arrested for Preaching Against Homosexuality
"Pastor David Lynn of Christ Forgiveness Ministries was arrested on June 4, 2019, for preaching the gospel publicly in Toronto, Canada."

Click to expand...

if this man had been "preaching" the same thing about black people it would be called hate
If he had been "preaching" the same thing about Jews it would be called hate
If he had been "preaching" the same thing about the handicapped it would be called hate

Bigotry doesn't become acceptable just because it's directed at someone you don't happen to like. and it doesn't become something other than evil if you are holding a bible while you preach it.

Nevada Smith said:

In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell introduced the term NewSpeak as a means of government thought control. "The intellectual purpose of Newspeak is to make Ingsoc - Wikipedia (English Socialism)-approved thoughts the only expressible thoughts."
Newspeak - Wikipedia

Today we have a modern updated version of NewSpeak for thought control called Wokespeak. When Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono criticized Amy Barrett for using the term sexual preference instead of sexual orientation. It was a dog whistle to the left to swing into action. Within hours Merriam-Webster had redefined the term 'sexual preference' as offensive wokespeak. Anything the left finds offensive they considered hate speech.

Merriam-Webster changes 'sexual preference' to an 'offensive' term following SCOTUS hearing | Daily Mail Online

Click to expand...

I agree with Sen. Hirono. Calling sexual orientation a "sexual preference" is at best outdated or archaic. At worst, it's a dog-whistle for homophobia, since it's delegitimizing an intrinsic characteristic of a person. No gay person I know says their orientation is merely a preference, most would find that highly offensive.

You can ridicule the notion of being "woke" all you want, but it won't change the fact that some of us have friends or family who are LGBT and we would appreciate it if the highest courts in the land aren't full of people with prejudices.

Nevada Smith said:

Here is the actual bill as introduced.

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill [AS INTRODUCED]
An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the aggravation of offences by prejudice; to make provision about offences relating to stirring up hatred against a group of persons; to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy; and for connected purposes.
https://beta.parliament.scot/-/medi...troduced-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill.pdf

Click to expand...

and the claim that it woudl outlaw the bible is still just a lie

The law of unintended consequences. Title IX was written to promote and protect women's sports. Who would have thought the Democrats would use Title IX to allow grown men to shower with little girls?

Click to expand...

who would think that? nobody honest

"The Department of Education under President Barack Obama instructed colleges to treat transgender students as the gender with which they identify or face sanctions for violating Title IX, said Audrey Anderson, counsel at the law firm Bass, Barry & Sims and former general counsel for Vanderbilt University."

Click to expand...

Yep, even schools can't discriminate against minorities. How horrible is that?

Landmark Supreme Court ruling could redefine Title IX

Click to expand...

yeah the court said you can't fire someone just because they are a member of a minority you choose to hate.

Colleen Francis: Outrage over transgendered woman permitted to use college women's locker room 'exposing himself' | Daily Mail Online

Any bill only means what some judge says it means, not what it was written to say. Even our Constitution only means what 9 people wearing black robes says it means.

Click to expand...

you know my favorite part about the whole Colleen Francis story?

It's a lie. it didn't happen.


no little girls were exposed to male genitalia.

schools and youth groups may use the colleges pool but they use a separate locker room.

the sauna is restricted to Evergreen students only.

The only way to observe who is in the sauna is to actually go in.

Nudity isn't allowed in the Sauna.

Colleen was in the sauna with five other women at the time of the alleged exposure.

The Alliance Defending Freedom for Faith and Justice is a hate group that has been caught multiple times lying about transgender individuals and bathrooms.

Arc F1 said:

What is hate? What you see and I see are two completely different things.

Click to expand...

in post #25 Nevada Smith linked to the fake story about the transsexual who supposedly was exposing her male genitalia to little girls in a locker room. The story is a lie. That is the hate i'm talking about. Or is false witness one of your values that you think is being threatened.?

Sparagmos said:

My speech has never been so controlled and criticized as it was growing up in an evangelical household and attending conservative Christian schools.

Click to expand...

See also the rules about what we can and can't say about certain topics in this very forum.

Quartermaine said:

yeah the court said you can't fire someone just because they are a member of a minority you choose to hate.

Click to expand...

That is the boss' decision. And that right should be respected. You don't get to come into someone's company , behave like you own the place and then tell him/her who they can and cannot fire. If I found out that my boss didn't like a certain trait of mine,or even my ethnicity, he/she doesn't need to fire me. I'd resign myself. Who wants to remain in a company and have a cold shoulder relationship with a boss who doesn't like you every single day anyway? If somebody was fired just because someone overheard they said that they don't agree with homosexuality, you would be okay with it wouldn't you? Yup,that's what I thought. Shows your double standard.
And before you start saying "what if it was a Black or Jew who got fired" which you like to say so much,all I can say is no Black or Jew would want to remain in the company even if the boss had a change of heart. The relationship is already strained.

Nevada Smith said:

In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell introduced the term NewSpeak as a means of government thought control. "The intellectual purpose of Newspeak is to make Ingsoc - Wikipedia (English Socialism)-approved thoughts the only expressible thoughts."
Newspeak - Wikipedia

Today we have a modern updated version of NewSpeak for thought control called Wokespeak. When Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono criticized Amy Barrett for using the term sexual preference instead of sexual orientation. It was a dog whistle to the left to swing into action. Within hours Merriam-Webster had redefined the term 'sexual preference' as offensive wokespeak. Anything the left finds offensive they considered hate speech.

Merriam-Webster changes 'sexual preference' to an 'offensive' term following SCOTUS hearing | Daily Mail Online

Click to expand...

Imagine if one of the senators had referred to Judge Barrett’s husband as her “baby daddy”. Do you think anybody in the room would have been bothered by the inaccurate impression that phrase implied?

Well, it works in both directions. It’s not “wokespeak” to expect accuracy, especially from a candidate for such a high office.

Arc F1 said:

They aren't here in the US yet. I said it won't be long. If you stand out in the middle of one of these riots and preach the word of God you would find out what's coming.

Click to expand...

To be fair, if one stood out in the middle of any gathering of people behaving as though they were media-manipulated zombie-puppets, one would likely find themselves in a heap of trouble even without preaching anything.

It's not so much WokeSpeak or Newspeak... it's more like News Speak. #stopwatchingthenews

Scann said:

That is the boss' decision. And that right should be respected.

Click to expand...

i should respect individuals who fire or refuse to hire some just because of their skin color?

You don't get to come into someone's company , behave like you own the place and then tell him/her who they can and cannot fire. If I found out that my boss didn't like a certain trait of mine,or even my ethnicity, he/she doesn't need to fire me. I'd resign myself. Who wants to remain in a company and have a cold shoulder relationship with a boss who doesn't like you every single day anyway? If somebody was fired just because someone overheard they said that they don't agree with homosexuality, you would be okay with it wouldn't you? Yup,that's what I thought. Shows your double standard.

Click to expand...

what do they disagree with? That gays are people? that they shouldn't have to live in fear about being attacked on the streets just because they are gay? Do they disagree that they shouldn't live in fear of loosing their careers, their homes, their retirement because their new boss chooses to hate them?

And before you start saying "what if it was a Black or Jew who got fired" which you like to say so much,all I can say is no Black or Jew would want to remain in the company even if the boss had a change of heart. The relationship is already strained.

Click to expand...

are you a minority?

Desk trauma said:

Even if that happens, so what? Christianity would still have the same protections under the first amendment.

Click to expand...

What happens to that protection under a court that has been packed?

durangodawood said:

It makes sense not to call homosexuality "sexual preference" if you think its innate to a person rather than a mere choice. And Sen Hirono and Judge Coney both said they thought it was innate.

Click to expand...

It is a preference that is innate. I have an innate sexual preference for those of the opposite sex.

Scann said:

That is the boss' decision. And that right should be respected. You don't get to come into someone's company , behave like you own the place and then tell him/her who they can and cannot fire. If I found out that my boss didn't like a certain trait of mine,or even my ethnicity, he/she doesn't need to fire me. I'd resign myself. Who wants to remain in a company and have a cold shoulder relationship with a boss who doesn't like you every single day anyway? If somebody was fired just because someone overheard they said that they don't agree with homosexuality, you would be okay with it wouldn't you? .

Click to expand...

There's nothing to "disagree" with, since homosexuality is an orientation, not a choice. If you "disagree" with a person based on sexual orientation, that's something that violates their civil rights if it creates a hostile work environment. This is settled law in the United States.

grasping the after wind said:

What happens to that protection under a court that has been packed?

Click to expand...

The right to practice Christian religion in its institutional forms is not up for debate in this country, that's a red herring.

grasping the after wind said:

It is a preference that is innate. I have an innate sexual preference for those of the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

A red herring. No heterosexual talks like that about their sexual orientation in the real world.

FireDragon76 said:

The right to practice Christian religion in its institutional forms is not up for debate in this country, that's a red herring.

Click to expand...

Please point out the phrase "institutional forms" in the following. I do not happen to see it there but I do see the part I bolded


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

FireDragon76 said:

There's nothing to "disagree" with, since homosexuality is an orientation, not a choice. If you "disagree" with a person based on sexual orientation, that's something that violates their civil rights if it creates a hostile work environment. This is settled law in the United States.

Click to expand...

Translation:Force someone to agree and use the law if possible.