“Woke” is a word Rupert Murdoch uses to yank his viewers . He yanks. They bark. Ka-Ching.
Latest example: collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. Murdoch’s employees—which he admits under oath lie about everything— claim the bank failed because it was “woke”. And his viewers smoke the outrage meth.
Reality: collapse would not have happened had SVB had the stringent asset protections required for larger banks. It did at one time. But then in 2018 P45 rolled back these protections so his banker friends could roll the dice with public money. Just like in 2008.
The bill rolling back these protections was introduced by a Republican. The votes in Congress for it were overwhelmingly Republican. And P45 couldn’t say enough good things about it
At the time Bernie Sanders and others predicted rollback would lead to bank failures. And they were right.
Are the people who voted for it, on both sides of the aisle, manning up and admitting they screwed up? Of course not.
Instead, Murdoch protects his banker buddies, by spreading a smoke screen of “wokeness”.
This again? Everybody’s got an opinion. What makes you think anyone wants to be subjected to yours? Maybe you and Steamer and anyone else suffering from outrage meth (to use your pet phrase) can form a club where grumpy old men can rant at each other until they turn purple.
People of that ilk either don’t realize or don’t care that the stories being reported and categorized as ‘anti-woke’ actually ARE outrageous to a large part of the population. I don’t need a news organization to tell me what to be outraged about but offering reporting on the fact these things are happening is required.
Except of course when the stories being “reported” never happened. Like the New York Post story about the USAF supposedly ordering all airmen to stop calling their parents mom and dad. Never happened. A complete and utter fabrication. No facts. But heaps of outrage.
Good advice for you to follow when you spot certain infuriating ‘news’ outlet logos. When you’re not getting stuck on your repetitious rants, you make valuable contributions.
This was actually the example I was thinking of. The USAFA took the time to create a PowerPoint, muster up the cadets and present said PowerPoint, and said PowerPoint included the slides shown in the story (which I personally find ridiculous/outrageous/bad). Story breaks and it’s ‘uh uh weelllll, it wasn’t technically an ORDER, so, yeah’.
Riiiiiiiigghhhtttttt… Nothing to see here, move on…
You ain’t Obi one bro… You can’t say ‘these are not the stories you think they are’ and then say we’re on meth when we don’t buy your BS.
(Edit: I mean… you CAN say that but you can’t expect to be taken seriously)
And once again the backers of this fantasy, this fever dream, fail to show any such orders.
Orders aren’t rumors. They are written down, as per military procedure. So show me the written order. There are 328,000 officers and airmen in the USAF. 328,000 opportunities for one of them to publicly display the written order forbidding airmen to use the terms “mom-and-dad”.
328,000 chances and yet evidence of the order has not been presented. Where are the stories of airmen saying they are somehow being covertly influenced never to use the words mom-and-dad? No one is saying it. Not those in the USAF. Not the ones who have left the USAF.
On this slide, it states “Parents/Caregivers/Guardian instead of Mom and Dad” (emphasis mine).
Also, as anyone who has ever been in the military can attest, commands don’t sit down the troops for training to offer ‘suggestions’. We covered this the thread on this back when it happened. Starts on post #25 or so:
Poor try on your part. That’s not a written order and you know it. That’s part of a power point, the rest of which has been conveniently left out. Why not show the whole power point presentation? Because Rupert Murdoch never allowed you to see it.
Not that it matters because power points are not orders.
Just look at the title of the slide. “What can I do now?” Have you ever heard a military order couched in loosey-goosey neutral language? Can do? Military orders are MUST Do. WILL do. SHALL do. No doubt implied. No agency allowed.
Outrage meth erodes the reasoning centers of the mind first.
Short answer: I don’t know because I wasn’t there during the presentation.
Long answer: I don’t know if you’ve been in the military or not (if so, you know all this already), but for the benefit of those who haven’t, a training presentation is not created, and the troops aren’t mustered up for presentation of the training for shits and giggles. SOMEBODY up the chain directed that to happen. Also, the military isn’t real big on the concept of ‘you folks can do the things listed here if only if you like’.
The people saying "it’s not in black and white in the regs, so it’s not an order/directive/other synonym are either ignorant of the reality of being in the military, delusional, or trying to be intentionally misleading. (or some combination of all those traits).
My understanding is what the AF is saying is that slide was part of a larger presentation, and many of the news stories is using it out of context.
From the Academy:
"An informational slide on “inclusive language,” included as part of a recent employee diversity seminar, was intended to demonstrate how “respect for others should be used to build inclusive teams.”
“It is the diversity of Airmen and Guardians coming from all corners of our nation who perform the Department of the Air Force’s hundreds of critical mission sets that make us the best, most innovative Air and Space Forces the world has ever known,” according to a statement from the Academy.
My understanding that the training was to highlight that not all come from the same background - not all have 2 parents, some maybe gay, or have gay parents, and to be sensetive to this in your comunications.
Not sure if that is woke or not, not 100 pct sure I even know what woke is. But is certainly reality, and I don’t see any issue in being aware of it in your comunications.
But it certainly did not prohibed Mom and Dad or Girl friend from being used - again it was just an awareness thing that all may not fit in those catagories.
Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that some Fox News commentators endorsed the false allegations by former President Donald Trump and his allies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that he didn’t step in to stop them from promoting the claims, according to excerpts of a deposition unsealed Monday.
The claims and the company’s handling of them are at the heart of a defamation lawsuit against the cable news giant by Dominion Voting Systems.
The recently unsealed documents include excerpts from a deposition in which Murdoch was asked about whether he was aware that some of the network’s commentators — Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity — at times endorsed the false election claims. Murdoch replied, “Yes. They endorsed.”
My point is you have no evidence that the order was given. Is that concept so difficult to understand? Whereas I have given you evidence that Murdoch’s employee lie. Do you dispute that?
ahhhhhhh, ok, so SOME employees (not all) lied about a SPECIFIC event (not about everything), i.e, (shortened and emphasis mine):
whereas before I thought you said:
ok, ok…I accept your retraction, nobody’s perfect.
Nor have I ever said an order was given (that I’m aware of, I’ll own it if I did somewhere in that old thread)…is that concept so difficult to understand?
I also said that not all orders/directives/initiatives are written down in the UCMJ or any of the other documents that outline how military members are to act. You’ve already demonstrated that is a concept you can’t understand.
From my time in, just about everything about how I was supposed to act was written down somewhere !! Except how to find the galley - I just followed the crowd at chow time
Hyperreality can be thought of as several layers away from reality. Hyperreality refers to a situation where our perception of reality is no longer based on direct experience but is instead constructed by media, simulations, and other cultural artifacts. In this sense, hyperreality is a kind of simulation or representation of reality that is generated by our own culture and media, and which can become more real to us than the actual reality we experience.
In hyperreality, the boundaries between reality and representation become blurred or even disappear entirely, so that we can no longer distinguish between what is real and what is not. This can lead to a sense of disorientation or alienation from the world around us, as we begin to live more in the world of representations than in the world of direct experience.
