The “Woke” thread (2 Viewers)

[Max Power]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

I highlighted what I think makes something "establishment news".

I don't believe the BBC, AP and AJ are partisan, have an agenda and are driven by corporate ties. Do you all? They are left leaning though.

Companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSN fall in the establishment.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.

Lol. Who is this "you"? I am not claiming the media is without bias.

This isn't a left only issue- how many on the other end present themselves as fair and balanced or being the real news?

Bias isn't bad in a vacuum, but imo the biggest shift we've seen in the last decade isn't to have decent news sites with right bias as a reaction to the largely left leaning bias, it's **** like OAN, etc.

So my question is- is there not a market for this? If there is, why haven't we seen those sites get popular? If there isn't a market for it, what does that say about us?

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

I highlighted what I think makes something "establishment news".

I don't believe the BBC, AP and AJ are partisan, have an agenda and are driven by corporate ties. Do you all? They are left leaning though.

Companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSN fall in the establishment.

It made sense after clarification and examples, got it.

 

[Boston]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.

Lol. Who is this "you"? I am not claiming the media is without bias.

This isn't a left only issue- how many on the other end present themselves as fair and balanced or being the real news?

Bias isn't bad in a vacuum, but imo the biggest shift we've seen in the last decade isn't to have decent news sites with right bias as a reaction to the largely left leaning bias, it's **** like OAN, etc.

So my question is- is there not a market for this? If there is, why haven't we seen those sites get popular? If there isn't a market for it, what does that say about us?

Of course there is a market...it is an echo chamber and people on both sides love to read/see stuff that they agree with...it has just gotten worse since the internet/social media became a reality and now it is easier to reach people...it also has come under more of a microscope because now narratives cannot be controlled like they once were because of the ability to get your message out by bypassing a newspaper, a magazine, TV or radio which had a lockdown on this (and many are now hurting on the business-side of things)...this can be very good or very bad as we have seen but under no condition do I want something like a Disinformation Governance Board having any say in this...that will be abused.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.

Lol. Who is this "you"? I am not claiming the media is without bias.

This isn't a left only issue- how many on the other end present themselves as fair and balanced or being the real news?

Bias isn't bad in a vacuum, but imo the biggest shift we've seen in the last decade isn't to have decent news sites with right bias as a reaction to the largely left leaning bias, it's **** like OAN, etc.

So my question is- is there not a market for this? If there is, why haven't we seen those sites get popular? If there isn't a market for it, what does that say about us?

Of course there is a market...it is an echo chamber and people on both sides love to read/see stuff that they agree with...it has just gotten worse since the internet/social media became a reality and now it is easier to reach people...it also has come under the more of a microscope because now narratives cannot be controlled like they once were because the ability to get your message out can bypass a newspaper, a magazine, TV or radio...which can be very good or very bad.

If there is a market for it, why were all the main new sources OAN type of crap? Why a right version of NPR, for example?

Again, IF we look at the chart, there seems to be way more options in the top green box on the left than on the right.

 

[djmich]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.

Lol. Who is this "you"? I am not claiming the media is without bias.

This isn't a left only issue- how many on the other end present themselves as fair and balanced or being the real news?

Bias isn't bad in a vacuum, but imo the biggest shift we've seen in the last decade isn't to have decent news sites with right bias as a reaction to the largely left leaning bias, it's **** like OAN, etc.

So my question is- is there not a market for this? If there is, why haven't we seen those sites get popular? If there isn't a market for it, what does that say about us?

Of course there is a market...it is an echo chamber and people on both sides love to read/see stuff that they agree with...it has just gotten worse since the internet/social media became a reality and now it is easier to reach people...it also has come under the more of a microscope because now narratives cannot be controlled like they once were because the ability to get your message out can bypass a newspaper, a magazine, TV or radio...which can be very good or very bad.

If there is a market for it, why were all the main new sources OAN type of crap? Why a right version of NPR, for example?

Again, IF we look at the chart, there seems to be way more options in the top green box on the left than on the right.

Its a good question. I think there are a lot of potential answers. But has there been a recently developed left news source. It seems like they basically took overall all the legacy ones vs created a new one. If you're going to create new today, you're not going to do it like the NYT or WaPo, that model is discontinued. So I think part of the answer is most of the conservate outlets are going to be more non traditional. For example Rush Limbaugh vs legacy NPR.

Probably explains why Foxnews viewing rates are consistently so high, a large amount of concentration in less outlets.

Also there is the fact that I think in aggregate republicans are less educated and less likely to want to read a long form article vs listening to a podcast (like Rush) or something like that.

 

[cockroach]

There have been lots of gay side characters or stories, but I can't think of a major release of this genre with gay main characters.

Birdcage, To Wong Foo..., Call me by your Name

 

[KarmaPolice]

There have been lots of gay side characters or stories, but I can't think of a major release of this genre with gay main characters.

Birdcage, To Wong Foo..., Call me by your Name

I think only one of those are main gay characters (imo it's debatable that the dads are the main characters over the couple getting married in The Birdcage), and it's telling only one of those movies is from the last 25 years (and it's not a comedy)

 

[KarmaPolice]

What I meant is those Wedding Crasher, Apatow, Hangover type big comedy movies.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

Bias is an issue when you pretend to not be biased!

Lol. Just about all of them do this though. It's an issue when the readers can't tell the difference or if people only use a highly biased source.

The issue is when you pretend to be non-biased but aren't...I guess when your side has controlled the news media for the past 50 years or so you may not realize it goes on.

Lol. Who is this "you"? I am not claiming the media is without bias.

This isn't a left only issue- how many on the other end present themselves as fair and balanced or being the real news?

Bias isn't bad in a vacuum, but imo the biggest shift we've seen in the last decade isn't to have decent news sites with right bias as a reaction to the largely left leaning bias, it's **** like OAN, etc.

So my question is- is there not a market for this? If there is, why haven't we seen those sites get popular? If there isn't a market for it, what does that say about us?

Of course there is a market...it is an echo chamber and people on both sides love to read/see stuff that they agree with...it has just gotten worse since the internet/social media became a reality and now it is easier to reach people...it also has come under the more of a microscope because now narratives cannot be controlled like they once were because the ability to get your message out can bypass a newspaper, a magazine, TV or radio...which can be very good or very bad.

If there is a market for it, why were all the main new sources OAN type of crap? Why a right version of NPR, for example?

Again, IF we look at the chart, there seems to be way more options in the top green box on the left than on the right.

Its a good question. I think there are a lot of potential answers. But has there been a recently developed left news source. It seems like they basically took overall all the legacy ones vs created a new one. If you're going to create new today, you're not going to do it like the NYT or WaPo, that model is discontinued. So I think part of the answer is most of the conservate outlets are going to be more non traditional. For example Rush Limbaugh vs legacy NPR.

Probably explains why Foxnews viewing rates are consistently so high, a large amount of concentration in less outlets.

Also there is the fact that I think in aggregate republicans are less educated and less likely to want to read a long form article vs listening to a podcast (like Rush) or something like that.

To the bolded, I don't know either. Vox was one that I thought would be newer - I think a decade or so?

Yes, I think what largely happened is that the media was largely left leaning (with varying degree of left lean). Then in the last decade instead of balancing some of that with similar right leaning outlets (ie my question of why isn't there a right version of NPR), we decided that anything currently out there is bad/left propaganda and the way to balance that is with right propaganda. IMO that's why sources like OAN pop up instead. There wasn't a need for as many left leaning sources to pop up because the market was already fairly saturated. It probably just morphed a bit as to what they were covering.

ETA: and to your point at the end, another thing those types of sites did was mimic what was popular for conservatives - ie outrage journalism like Rush mastered. Why in the world wouldn't you play it safe and use that as a model for how to draw ratings?

 

[Philo Beddoe]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

I highlighted what I think makes something "establishment news".

I don't believe the BBC, AP and AJ are partisan, have an agenda and are driven by corporate ties. Do you all? They are left leaning though.

Companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSN fall in the establishment.

AP is deeply partisan. The bridge to Pine Island was operational 24 hours before this tweet went out -

https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1578101940235292672?s=20&t=z9lahjjkDadFVREvtoS7xg

They falsely fact checked Harris’ comment about hurricane funds equity distribution.

They never disclosed Nina Totenberg’s close relationship with Ruth Ginsberg while writing numerous articles about her.

There’s countless examples

 

[quick-hands]

These terms, much like the older “political correctness”, are being applied to individual situations in order to suggest a larger, insidious purpose which is usually non-existent. They are also mostly used to complain about an effort to prevent rude or bigoted behavior that some of us believe should no longer be tolerated in a civil society,

“I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.” – Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Senator Joe Biden, in June 1982, who threatened to cut off US aid to Israel​

 

[quick-hands]

These terms, much like the older “political correctness”, are being applied to individual situations in order to suggest a larger, insidious purpose which is usually non-existent. They are also mostly used to complain about an effort to prevent rude or bigoted behavior that some of us believe should no longer be tolerated in a civil society,

“I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.” – Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Senator Joe Biden, in June 1982, who threatened to cut off US aid to Israel​

Menachem Begin/Golda Meir those are leaders to be proud of.

 

[knowledge dropper]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

 

[(HULK)]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

You realize that's propaganda right? And nowhere near accurate.

 

[knowledge dropper]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

You realize that's propaganda right? And nowhere near accurate.

I don’t believe Russians are jumping out of airplanes if that is what you are asking.

 

[(HULK)]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

You realize that's propaganda right? And nowhere near accurate.

I don’t believe Russians are jumping out of airplanes if that is what you are asking.

Right, but do they think we award bathroom line skips as reparations?

 

[knowledge dropper]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

You realize that's propaganda right? And nowhere near accurate.

I don’t believe Russians are jumping out of airplanes if that is what you are asking.

Right, but do they think we award bathroom line skips as reparations?

Who knows. It seems like a Russian. SNL skit if SNL had better writers and actors.

 

[djmich]

They aren’t laughing with us.

Russian view of woke

You realize that's propaganda right? And nowhere near accurate.

I don’t believe Russians are jumping out of airplanes if that is what you are asking.

Right, but do they think we award bathroom line skips as reparations?

Thanks for clarifying, I thought most peoples experience was similar to that skit

 

[rustycolts]

And see...I would not consider AP and BBC or even Al Jazeera outside the establishment media. They aren't the MSM...but outside the establishment to me is stuff like OAN, Breitbart, Redstate, American Thinker, Daily Kos, Vox, GatewayPundit...

Which are we more often to see from the right or left...seems far more often we see those far right sources than we do the far left. Bias is one thing...being that far to either side and have a terrible track record for factual accuracy is another.
Bias on its own isn't a huge issue IMO in either direction. But when you get into just being dead wrong and often knowing you aren't reporting facts...that is another story.

I wouldn't use those terms for those sites either, which I why I asked Max to clarify with examples.

I think too much focus is on bias, and not enough on facts in these discussions.

I highlighted what I think makes something "establishment news".

I don't believe the BBC, AP and AJ are partisan, have an agenda and are driven by corporate ties. Do you all? They are left leaning though.

Companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSN fall in the establishment.

AP is deeply partisan. The bridge to Pine Island was operational 24 hours before this tweet went out -

https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1578101940235292672?s=20&t=z9lahjjkDadFVREvtoS7xg

They falsely fact checked Harris’ comment about hurricane funds equity distribution.

They never disclosed Nina Totenberg’s close relationship with Ruth Ginsberg while writing numerous articles about her.

There’s countless examples

I heard DeSantis say something about that article the other day. I tried to find it but couldn't, also the tweets gone now.

It's funny the mm keep trying to get him on something, anything even if they have to make it up. It keeps biting them on the butt though. DeSantis loves it.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[Boston]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

 

[supermike80]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

 

[Captain Cranks]

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree. It's a level of crazy equal to what we're used to seeing from the fringe right. Bill Maher said recently that comedians didn't go after liberals historically because they aren't normally that crazy, but that's changed. Maher spends a good bit of time attacking the Woke culture. Chappelle, Gervais, and Carolla are other examples.

 

[Boston]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

The PC world was traveling this path for awhile but wokeness has sped the process up to supersonic speed…unfortunately it is a religion/cult and they will not go away quietly.

 

[whoknew]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I'm pretty sure nobody has said this. At least not on this board.

 

[rockaction]

I'm pretty sure nobody has said this. At least not on this board.

We're coming close to it in the Tuberville thread. Surprisingly, I almost agree with the position that college coaches are exploiting athletes by their complicity in the economic system that exists in most collegiate sports.

 

[BladeRunner]

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree. It's a level of crazy equal to what we're used to seeing from the fringe right. Bill Maher said recently that comedians didn't go after liberals historically because they aren't normally that crazy, but that's changed. Maher spends a good bit of time attacking the Woke culture. Chappelle, Gervais, and Carolla are other examples.

You see where you went wrong here, right?

 

[whoknew]

I'm pretty sure nobody has said this. At least not on this board.

We're coming close to it in the Tuberville thread. Surprisingly, I almost agree with the position that college coaches are exploiting athletes by their complicity in the economic system that exists in most collegiate sports.

Right.

I think people are saying he was part of a system that exploits athletes - many of whom are black. Not because they are black.

 

[bigbottom]

I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t continue that discussion here given that the other thread has been pruned (twice now). Clearly best to drop it.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I'm pretty sure nobody has said this. At least not on this board.

I’ve always enjoyed Tony and Michael on PTI. It’s the only show I’ll watch on espn.
Last night Wilbon was freaking about the Brady roughing call from Sunday.

He must’ve yelled “brotha can’t touch Tom Brady!” a dozen times. He gets a pass from me because I love the show, but I hope he doesn’t continue with the nonsense. It’s becoming more prevalent dont kid yourself

 

[rockaction]

I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t continue that discussion here given that the other thread has been pruned (twice now). Clearly best to drop it.

Oh, my apologies. I didn't know it had gotten pruned.

 

[rockaction]

Oh, the whole thread is gone. Welp. Weird. I guess not, given that there's a new emphasis on CFB at FBG. Can't have that as the forum's debate du jour, I guess.

 

[(HULK)]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree that it has hurt the democratic party.

I also think Tuberville said something that was unambiguously racist and the republicans NOT outright condemning him for it will hurt their party.

There exists a space between full blown woke craziness and hardcore anti-wokeness that should be a place we're all striving to arrive at IMO

 

[supermike80]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree that it has hurt the democratic party.

I also think Tuberville said something that was unambiguously racist and the republicans NOT outright condemning him for it will hurt their party.

There exists a space between full blown woke craziness and hardcore anti-wokeness that should be a place we're all striving to arrive at IMO

Oh Im not sure there is any striving for the middle. On either side actually

 

[(HULK)]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree that it has hurt the democratic party.

I also think Tuberville said something that was unambiguously racist and the republicans NOT outright condemning him for it will hurt their party.

There exists a space between full blown woke craziness and hardcore anti-wokeness that should be a place we're all striving to arrive at IMO

Oh Im not sure there is any striving for the middle. On either side actually

I'm not saying there exists much of it, but rather that there should be from all of us. Or we can keep hanging in our corners throwing shade at each other like children.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is funny, and contains

VERY NSFW LANGUAGE

I agree with pretty much everything this man has to say about the “woke” culture

TikTok - Make Your Day

Magnificent!!!

Wokeness is going to hurt the democratic party. It already is. I mean we have people saying coaches exploit their football players now...cause, you know, they are black and stuff. It's amazing

I agree that it has hurt the democratic party.

I also think Tuberville said something that was unambiguously racist and the republicans NOT outright condemning him for it will hurt their party.

There exists a space between full blown woke craziness and hardcore anti-wokeness that should be a place we're all striving to arrive at IMO

Not sure I agree as much with that middle part.