I see. Not worth conversing with you, my bad for bothering to engage.

No, I'm genuinely curious if you're actually defining woke as "support for picking people by the color of their skin and by their sex"?

LoL @ Eliza, haven't heard that in a while ...

Are you defining woke as "support for picking people by the color of their skin and by their sex"?

> Ask your brilliant orator Mrs Harris to define it for you.
Not interested in Harris' definition of woke. Want to understand what it means in your mind.

> Here, the woke Democrats' support of DEI is what is relevant.
> Specifically, support for picking people by the color of their skin and by their sex.

Not interested in democrats' positions. Looking for your definition of woke, but not seeing one.

Do you not actually know what it is or even have a definition in your own mind for what it is? You seem to feel so strongly about it - asking for "NON WOKE" (your emphasis) - that I figured you must have some kind of definition for it?

> We wouldn't have to care what the crazy rightwingers did, if a decent, centrist, NON WOKE left had picked their candidate based on their ability to win and not on their vagina-possession or skin color.
What's your definition of "woke"?

>> I thought all the stupid shit they said they would do were bluffs. Part of a bigger game they were playing.

> WHY THE FUCK DID YOU THINK THAT!?

Because they're not smart, not educated, in denial, wanted to be cruel to the 'out' group [1], or any combination or all of those reasons, and most likely not savvy that to billionaires, *they* are in the 'out' group.

[1] Frank Wilhoit's definition of conservatism: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrookedtimber.org%2F2018...

As I read through the responses, I see so many of the people comment on the futility of pacifism in the context of reality.

Examples:
"The simple fact is that in this world there are certain questions which can only be answered with violence."

"Counterproductive. If restriction this has any effect whatsoever, it's going to be to kill people. War has gotten steadily less destructive as technology has advanced, because fewer people are needed to fight. Lately, this has accelerated as more accurate weapons have cut down on civilian casualties."

"Just try to imagine a scenario where deadly force may need to be used to prevent more harm, i.e., there is a distinctly net positive effect. It's all well and good to talk about doing no harm. Just keep in mind that it's sometimes necessary to 'do harm' to prevent more of the same.

That's not a warmongering view, an American view, nor a Republican view. That's just a very simple fact of reality that would be discovered by an application of common sense. Anyone who might fall back on the refrain of "but we don't know what really would have happened otherwise, do we?" when presented with an example event is quite frankly choosing to delude themselves, and has chosen the path of willful ignorance under a very thin veil of righteousness."

"I believe it is a fallacy to try and strive for a world without war, however we should control it better to prevent unnecessary loss of life and resources."



And I can't help thinking as I read these 'reality' and 'greater good' comments: That, my friend, is why you are no Gautam Buddha or Jesus Christ, or even a Mohandas Gandhi.



------