Is the BBC and other channels WOKE.

[wibble]

Can you at least try to explain how it’s mental gymnastics? :/ Come on, you clearly have a strong viewpoint you care about. Try to do it justice.

Quoting ethnic demographics is pointless because it ignores the obvious point, that not all people crammed into that bureaucratic box are alike.

However, television, and the media more generally, does force people into a box, in the name of "authenticity" (and quotas).
(The quotas being a new version of the production game from the Mary Whitehouse days of script editors haggling over whether "two bloodys can be traded for a bugger" but played with people)
As pointed to by linking to Amazon's casting requirements (all companies have them).

Ergo, (and this is something one hears often from "minority" (of all kinds) critics of "woke"), what is produced reflects not "authenticity": but a new stereotype.
And that stereotype is something both created by and reinforced by arguments such as Manchester has xx% whatever therefore y... particularly with the advent of "cultural sensitivity checkers" (or the "woke" version of Viewers and Listeners Association) - (the difference being that they are inside the building rather than sending letters in green ink from outside).

That said, I'm rather baffled as to why you quoted those figures for Manchester and Leeds.
Since the point is, and always has been, one of class not race.
As it is rather pointless decentralising to make television less Londoncentric, if the exact same type of person - regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc - is employed as would have been employed in London.

 

[BubbleDuck]

i don’t think mainstream channels are “ woke” , but I think they can be very clumsy in trying to be inclusive and ending up looking like it’s a box checking exercise. in general though , I can’t see why having representation of a wide range of people is seen as a bad thing. There’s plenty of choice of channels these days to cater for everyone- if people want to watch a program that’s got a predominately white straight cis cast they can, if people want to watch something that has people from the LGBTQ+ community they can . Not everything has to be for everyone

 

[vretch]

So do you think that would happen if the best person for playing Martin Luther King was white?

I think this is one of my biggest gripes about the present day “woke” culture. It’s the hiring of people based on their race or whatever just to tick the diversity box. The best person should be chosen for the job based on his or her credentials , not on their diversity factor. It is happening and its not fair.

I do believe the BBC is guilty of this type of hiring.

For example, I still cannot get over the hiring of a black actress to portray Anne Boleyn. In this case it was to tick the diversity box. No offence to the actress who portrayed her but there were many talented white actresses who at least looked like Anne Boleyn. As a Tudor buff that annoyed me. JMHO.

 

[wibble]

i don’t think mainstream channels are “ woke” , but I think they can be very clumsy in trying to be inclusive and ending up looking like it’s a box checking exercise. in general though , I can’t see why having representation of a wide range of people is seen as a bad thing. There’s plenty of choice of channels these days to cater for everyone- if people want to watch a program that’s got a predominately white straight cis cast they can, if people want to watch something that has people from the LGBTQ+ community they can . Not everything has to be for everyone

Indeed, and time in the schedule is finite.
And channels have staples - soaps, news programs, seasonal shows like strictly etc - on which the schedule is built.
And production have complicated issues involving agents and accountants and managers, and government targets etc.

But the issue is, are you watching television to be represented?

And if you feel it is...
And if you feel you aren't...
what mechanism exists to rectify that?

Within the constraints of...
... time in the schedule is finite.
And channels have staples - soaps, news programs, seasonal shows like strictly etc - on which the schedule is built.
And production have complicated issues involving agents and accountants and managers, and government targets etc.

And what if that mechanism doesn't work?

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

It's tricky to have a discussion about what is and isn't "woke" because there isn't one agreed definition of the word.

Some seem to think any time a minority is featured in anything (eg a TV show) it's automatically woke. Even though there are lots of minorities in this country and, therefore, it would seem logical that said minorities feature.

If gay relationships are featured in, say, a TV soap, some people will say "why do they have to have gay storylines? More of the woke agenda at play". Yet if me and my same sex partner moved in next door to someone like that, it's unlikely they'd say: "this street is becoming so woke", because it's real life - so there's clearly no perceived agenda. It's then just accepted that a minority exists nearby.

I do understand the arguments about 'positive discrimination' - eg when someone's protected characteristic plays a factor in being selected for a role. Clearly someone should get a job based solely on merit. However, I don't always have an issue with it because historically minorities have been disadvantaged and, therefore, it seems fair to level the playing field. At least in some circumstances.

I don't really see the BBC as being woke, though. I know Doctor Who and Strictly have been used as examples, but I don't personally care if Doctor Who is a woman or black because it's a fictional character who has always regenerated into different guises. I can't really take issue with fiction. With Strictly, why shouldn't there be disabled or gay contestants? They're still very much a minority in similar proportions to the real world.

Speaking as a minority, it's nice to see yourself represented on a large show when historically that representation just wasn't there. If I'd see two men dancing on TV when I was growing up, it would have helped me accept my sexuality more than I did. Of course it takes more than one appearance on a TV show, but when I was a teenager there was literally no representation - so I felt pretty much invisible.

It's a complex subject, but it's nice to discuss it civilly. We've all got voices to add to the subject and we should all listen to and respect each other. Otherwise we'll never move forward.

It is indeed a complex subject. I have nothing to disagree with in your post. However, and you may think that the end justifies the means, the point of my opening this thread was what goes on at the production stage of the process. I don’t like the thought of a group of people sitting with a list of prospective candidates, with pens, scoring people off the list purely on the basis of their demographic. Because they have another list with the criteria that have to be met. In other words, box ticking. This would not matter so much if there were not competition in the programme. But let me go back to Strictly, and move away from race. I hope you will agree that in possibly every area of the media, there are very few situations now where the participants are all white. Rightly so, we are in a multi cultural society now, so a random choice is likely to be multi cultural, no box ticking required. That is honest. Perhaps that goes for sexual orientation too, so I’ll highlight only the box ticking that makes me feel that I am being manipulated to cover the BBC’s arse. Ellie Simmonds. She did very well on her own merit, she worked very hard, and was good, so actually choosing her turned out fine. But let us imagine that she had been rubbish. Would the judges have given her a very low mark so that she was in danger of being sent home in the first week ? I doubt it. Then we have Jayde, who WAS utter rubbish. The judges gave her ridiculously high marks. Once again, the programme could not be seen to be sending the big girl home. How long would the judges have continued to mark her unfairly, if the public hadn’t scuppered their plans by deciding that no matter how much she looked like them, she really was just not good enough to vote for. When she was chosen at production level, someone else was rejected.

 

[LaBlonde]

It is indeed a complex subject. I have nothing to disagree with in your post. However, and you may think that the end justifies the means, the point of my opening this thread was what goes on at the production stage of the process. I don’t like the thought of a group of people sitting with a list of prospective candidates, with pens, scoring people off the list purely on the basis of their demographic. Because they have another list with the criteria that have to be met. In other words, box ticking. This would not matter so much if there were not competition in the programme. But let me go back to Strictly, and move away from race. I hope you will agree that in possibly every area of the media, there are very few situations now where the participants are all white. Rightly so, we are in a multi cultural society now, so a random choice is likely to be multi cultural, no box ticking required. That is honest. Perhaps that goes for sexual orientation too, so I’ll highlight only the box ticking that makes me feel that I am being manipulated to cover the BBC’s arse. Ellie Simmonds. She did very well on her own merit, she worked very hard, and was good, so actually choosing her turned out fine. But let us imagine that she had been rubbish. Would the judges have given her a very low mark so that she was in danger of being sent home in the first week ? I doubt it. Then we have Jayde, who WAS utter rubbish. The judges gave her ridiculously high marks. Once again, the programme could not be seen to be sending the big girl home. How long would the judges have continued to mark her unfairly, if the public hadn’t scuppered their plans by deciding that no matter how much she looked like them, she really was just not good enough to vote for. When she was chosen at production level, someone else was rejected.

i agree with jayde but not really with ellie.

to focus on ellie is to ignore all of the other contestants with disabilities that strictly have had over the years - a lot of whom received criticism and went home early. jonny peacock got told to work on flexing his ankles, a thing that he physically cannot do! so i don’t entirely agree that they wouldn’t give a low mark to a less able bodied contestant, it’s happened before and they weren’t always glowing about ellie either. i give them credit for that. when jonny p left he specially said “thank you for judging me as an equal” to len.

however, i do agree with you on jayde. the borderline patronising praise she received for apparently even setting a toe on the dance floor was ridiculous. in terms of her casting, she was a competitive jazz dancer in her youth and so it is likely that they were expecting her to be better than she was when she was chosen. they’ve had “bigger” contestants previously who have been good and bad and always marked fairly. it did, i agree, feel very different with her though and her behaviour afterwards where she implied people were fatphobic did her no favours.

i think you and i (and most of us here!) are agreeing with each other, albeit in circles sometimes the bottom line for me though is that, historical accuracy or vital ness to the plot aside, the best person should always be cast. i agree with you that that doesn’t always happen. but i equally feel that it does mean that some castings get immediately criticised as having nefarious motives before people have even seen the end product.

there’s a big fuss in theatreland at the moment re the stage production of a little life. people who have read the book will know that the lead character is not white. this is vital to his story and the subject of many discussions between him and other characters. the stage production has cast james norton in this role. two other cast members in the main cast of four are black (in line with the book). people on twitter are saying this is woke casting, in an attempt to keep the cast diverse, but because norton is white it seems to have opened up a whole load of discussion that i find interesting in the context of this thread. like you and others have rightly pointed out, there’s a lot of focus on casting poc when we say “woke”. but it can work all ways.

 

[witchofwestbyfleet]

Dead Famous by Ben Elton is a novel about a murder on a reality show that's an obvious parody of Big Brother. There's a scene that describes how the TV execs decided who would be on the show based on various demographic criteria and then found that some of those choices backfired with the public anyway (eg they wanted gay representation so chose a very butch woman, but audiences found her offputting and would have preferred a "safe" stereotype of a campy gay man.) The book is quite old as it was published in 2001 but I think that scene is probably quite accurate lol

 

[soph30]

Oh fgs this is where it gets silly. I doubt any of the cast were chosen for their characteristics or lack of them and they were all so perfect for their roles- there are at least two characters of colour anyway without even trying, both perfect choices!

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

i agree with jayde but not really with ellie.

to focus on ellie is to ignore all of the other contestants with disabilities that strictly have had over the years - a lot of whom received criticism and went home early. jonny peacock got told to work on flexing his ankles, a thing that he physically cannot do! so i don’t entirely agree that they wouldn’t give a low mark to a less able bodied contestant, it’s happened before and they weren’t always glowing about ellie either. i give them credit for that. when jonny p left he specially said “thank you for judging me as an equal” to len.

however, i do agree with you on jayde. the borderline patronising praise she received for apparently even setting a toe on the dance floor was ridiculous. in terms of her casting, she was a competitive jazz dancer in her youth and so it is likely that they were expecting her to be better than she was when she was chosen. they’ve had “bigger” contestants previously who have been good and bad and always marked fairly. it did, i agree, feel very different with her though and her behaviour afterwards where she implied people were fatphobic did her no favours.

i think you and i (and most of us here!) are agreeing with each other, albeit in circles sometimes the bottom line for me though is that, historical accuracy or vital ness to the plot aside, the best person should always be cast. i agree with you that that doesn’t always happen. but i equally feel that it does mean that some castings get immediately criticised as having nefarious motives before people have even seen the end product.

there’s a big fuss in theatreland at the moment re the stage production of a little life. people who have read the book will know that the lead character is not white. this is vital to his story and the subject of many discussions between him and other characters. the stage production has cast james norton in this role. two other cast members in the main cast of four are black (in line with the book). people on twitter are saying this is woke casting, in an attempt to keep the cast diverse, but because norton is white it seems to have opened up a whole load of discussion that i find interesting in the context of this thread. like you and others have rightly pointed out, there’s a lot of focus on casting poc when we say “woke”. but it can work all ways.

I had forgotten about Jonny Peacock, he was amazing, and I remember now thinking ffs. I have to admit, and you may be surprised, but I am terribly soft hearted, so get upset if someone receives criticism for something they cannot help. Like Ellie, when Craig took a mark from her for an illegal lift. He should have suggested that a different choreography should have been used to avoid such things. He has mentioned Hamza’s hen toes too, no-one chooses to walk like that, so it must be difficult for him. Yet, did he not give Jayde good marks for her clomping ? . I am realising I shouldn’t watch the programme now, some years I haven’t, but my daughter likes it. Apart from anything else, there aren’t enough pretty frocks for me. Oh dear, Will there ever be a man in a pretty frock like Harry Styles?

 

[Ensay]

i agree with jayde but not really with ellie.

to focus on ellie is to ignore all of the other contestants with disabilities that strictly have had over the years - a lot of whom received criticism and went home early. jonny peacock got told to work on flexing his ankles, a thing that he physically cannot do! so i don’t entirely agree that they wouldn’t give a low mark to a less able bodied contestant, it’s happened before and they weren’t always glowing about ellie either. i give them credit for that. when jonny p left he specially said “thank you for judging me as an equal” to len.

however, i do agree with you on jayde. the borderline patronising praise she received for apparently even setting a toe on the dance floor was ridiculous. in terms of her casting, she was a competitive jazz dancer in her youth and so it is likely that they were expecting her to be better than she was when she was chosen. they’ve had “bigger” contestants previously who have been good and bad and always marked fairly. it did, i agree, feel very different with her though and her behaviour afterwards where she implied people were fatphobic did her no favours.

i think you and i (and most of us here!) are agreeing with each other, albeit in circles sometimes the bottom line for me though is that, historical accuracy or vital ness to the plot aside, the best person should always be cast. i agree with you that that doesn’t always happen. but i equally feel that it does mean that some castings get immediately criticised as having nefarious motives before people have even seen the end product.

there’s a big fuss in theatreland at the moment re the stage production of a little life. people who have read the book will know that the lead character is not white. this is vital to his story and the subject of many discussions between him and other characters. the stage production has cast james norton in this role. two other cast members in the main cast of four are black (in line with the book). people on twitter are saying this is woke casting, in an attempt to keep the cast diverse, but because norton is white it seems to have opened up a whole load of discussion that i find interesting in the context of this thread. like you and others have rightly pointed out, there’s a lot of focus on casting poc when we say “woke”. but it can work all ways.

Agree with you here. I thought Ellie got judged fairly and wasn't pandered to at all. And I'm sure she appreciated that.

She wouldn't have wanted the judges to patronise her and treat her differently. After all, if she thought she might get upset by that kind of criticism she wouldn't have signed up to do the show in the first place.

I thought she was good, but it was right that she went when she did.

 

[JAR21]

I loved Luther and the main character is played by Idris Elba. They're now recording a film of the programme, and if they'd cast a white Luther, I wouldn't have been happy, because Luther is Idris.

Also, in the Alex Cross series of books by James Patterson, Alex is black. If they'd cast a white man to play him, that would also have been wrong.

 

[BubbleDuck]

It is indeed a complex subject. I have nothing to disagree with in your post. However, and you may think that the end justifies the means, the point of my opening this thread was what goes on at the production stage of the process. I don’t like the thought of a group of people sitting with a list of prospective candidates, with pens, scoring people off the list purely on the basis of their demographic. Because they have another list with the criteria that have to be met. In other words, box ticking. This would not matter so much if there were not competition in the programme. But let me go back to Strictly, and move away from race. I hope you will agree that in possibly every area of the media, there are very few situations now where the participants are all white. Rightly so, we are in a multi cultural society now, so a random choice is likely to be multi cultural, no box ticking required. That is honest. Perhaps that goes for sexual orientation too, so I’ll highlight only the box ticking that makes me feel that I am being manipulated to cover the BBC’s arse. Ellie Simmonds. She did very well on her own merit, she worked very hard, and was good, so actually choosing her turned out fine. But let us imagine that she had been rubbish. Would the judges have given her a very low mark so that she was in danger of being sent home in the first week ? I doubt it. Then we have Jayde, who WAS utter rubbish. The judges gave her ridiculously high marks. Once again, the programme could not be seen to be sending the big girl home. How long would the judges have continued to mark her unfairly, if the public hadn’t scuppered their plans by deciding that no matter how much she looked like them, she really was just not good enough to vote for. When she was chosen at production level, someone else was rejected.

So if you are saying that Jayde was only booked to be the big girl so was taking that space away from a better dancer , is that the same for Tony ? was he only booked to fill the role of older sportsman with a redemption story/comedy act ? he stayed in despite being a terrible dancer at the expense of better dancers because the public voted for him despite the judges marking him low . Was that viewers sticking a finger up to the judges and the BBc or was it part of the woke BBC’s plan to keep him in as long as possible ?after all the optics of sending home a “ legend” who was there to raise awareness of mens mental health wouldnt be great. Was Hamza only booked because of his size or ethnicity? Was Kaye only booked because she’s an older women ? If the bookings have been predominantly box ticking a woke agenda , where was the lesbian contestant this year ? Or the trans contestant?

. Like Ellie, when Craig took a mark from her for an illegal lift. He should have suggested that a different choreography should have been used to avoid such things.

he did point out how it should have been choreographed to avoid being a legal lift , and was booed by the audience for daring to be critical as he is every week . The issue was not the lift , it was the added flair that made it a stylistic choice.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

So if you are saying that Jayde was only booked to be the big girl so was taking that space away from a better dancer , is that the same for Tony ? was he only booked to fill the role of older sportsman with a redemption story/comedy act ? he stayed in despite being a terrible dancer at the expense of better dancers because the public voted for him despite the judges marking him low . Was that viewers sticking a finger up to the judges and the BBc or was it part of the woke BBC’s plan to keep him in as long as possible ?after all the optics of sending home a “ legend” who was there to raise awareness of mens mental health wouldnt be great. Was Hamza only booked because of his size or ethnicity? Was Kaye only booked because she’s an older women ? If the bookings have been predominantly box ticking a woke agenda , where was the lesbian contestant this year ? Or the trans contestant? he did point out how it should have been choreographed to avoid being a legal lift , and was booed by the audience for daring to be critical as he is every week . The issue was not the lift , it was the added flair that made it a stylistic choice.

Oh dear, if all those boxes have to be ticked, they will need a bigger list of contestants . If you have read the whole thread, you should be aware by now that I don’t care about the colour of the contestants skin, nor their sexuality, nor their hair colour or anything else. My gripe is purely that I believe that the BBC, along with most of the media tick boxes. If you disagree, it makes no difference to me, believe what you like.I think that a good percentage of the population agree with me. Try entering “Is the BBC woke ?” into a search engine. You might see that they do.
I certainly believe that Jayde was chosen because of her weight that she is so proud of. Does she not make a thing of it? I certainly think that Kaye was chosen because she is representing the older woman. I thought Tony was the one who is there for the laughs, there is usually one. like Ann Widdecombe. And he may be a legend in your neck of the woods, but he is nothing where I come from. He was there to highlight men’s mental health ? That went over my head I am afraid. I help to raise money for two mens mental health charities , because my brother committed suicide, so if Tony is raising money for that, good. Hamza? He doesn’t seem to be overly heavy to me, I was too busy thinking what a delightful beautiful man he was to notice it. Perhaps because he works for the BBC ? To narrow it down, if there was an all white, able bodied, straight line-up on Strictly, do you not believe that the woke police would complain ? Would the BBC risk that ?

 

[LaBlonde]

I had forgotten about Jonny Peacock, he was amazing, and I remember now thinking ffs. I have to admit, and you may be surprised, but I am terribly soft hearted, so get upset if someone receives criticism for something they cannot help. Like Ellie, when Craig took a mark from her for an illegal lift. He should have suggested that a different choreography should have been used to avoid such things. He has mentioned Hamza’s hen toes too, no-one chooses to walk like that, so it must be difficult for him. Yet, did he not give Jayde good marks for her clomping ? . I am realising I shouldn’t watch the programme now, some years I haven’t, but my daughter likes it. Apart from anything else, there aren’t enough pretty frocks for me. Oh dear, Will there ever be a man in a pretty frock like Harry Styles?

jonny was wonderful! as said, i do give strictly
credit for how they judge their disabled/less able bodied contestants. the comments are always fair imo, even if sometimes they DO criticise things that aren’t possible (and got will to jump off a table when he didn’t have ankle joints and so injure himself). agree completely re ellie’s lift and hamza’s pigeon toes! i’m slightly pigeon toed myself so i sympathise like we said above, all of that did seem different with jayde though. they’ve had big ladies before and never spoken to them in that way. i still do think they were hoping she would be good (with her dance background) but that doesn’t excuse the way they judged her.

the standard of frocks has sadly declined over the years

 

[Ensay]

Oh dear, if all those boxes have to be ticked, they will need a bigger list of contestants . If you have read the whole thread, you should be aware by now that I don’t care about the colour of the contestants skin, nor their sexuality, nor their hair colour or anything else. My gripe is purely that I believe that the BBC, along with most of the media tick boxes. If you disagree, it makes no difference to me, believe what you like.I think that a good percentage of the population agree with me. Try entering “Is the BBC woke ?” into a search engine. You might see that they do.
I certainly believe that Jayde was chosen because of her weight that she is so proud of. Does she not make a thing of it? I certainly think that Kaye was chosen because she is representing the older woman. I thought Tony was the one who is there for the laughs, there is usually one. like Ann Widdecombe. And he may be a legend in your neck of the woods, but he is nothing where I come from. He was there to highlight men’s mental health ? That went over my head I am afraid. I help to raise money for two mens mental health charities , because my brother committed suicide, so if Tony is raising money for that, good. Hamza? He doesn’t seem to be overly heavy to me, I was too busy thinking what a delightful beautiful man he was to notice it. Perhaps because he works for the BBC ? To narrow it down, if there was an all white, able bodied, straight line-up on Strictly, do you not believe that the woke police would complain ? Would the BBC risk that ?

To be honest, I don't think the variety of contestants on Strictly is down to the BBC being woke. I think it's done to be appealing to the widest audience.

If it was an all-white, able-bodied, straight line up that'd be pretty boring. Just as it'd be boring if all the contestants were either brilliant or bad.

They want to get as many people watching the show as possible, so I think that's why there's a large range of people and abilities.

 

[LaBlonde]

To be honest, I don't think the variety of contestants on Strictly is down to the BBC being woke. I think it's done to be appealing to the widest audience.

If it was an all-white, able-bodied, straight line up that'd be pretty boring. Just as it'd be boring if all the contestants were either brilliant or bad.

They want to get as many people watching the show as possible, so I think that's why there's a large range of people and abilities.

exactly. and i think it’s really the same on any of these reality competition shows - there has to be variety, because they want each contestant to be individual and have their own journey, and to have someone for everyone. strictly in particular follows the same pattern: there’s always an older man and woman, maybe two or three young pop star styles, a soap actor or two, an athlete… they want someone for each member of the audience to get attached to and for the show to not be boring. if the line-up is all white then it’s dull, but i think that’s true if the line- up is all anything.

 

[BubbleDuck]

Oh dear, if all those boxes have to be ticked, they will need a bigger list of contestants . If you have read the whole thread, you should be aware by now that I don’t care about the colour of the contestants skin, nor their sexuality, nor their hair colour or anything else. My gripe is purely that I believe that the BBC, along with most of the media tick boxes. If you disagree, it makes no difference to me, believe what you like.I think that a good percentage of the population agree with me. Try entering “Is the BBC woke ?” into a search engine. You might see that they do.
I certainly believe that Jayde was chosen because of her weight that she is so proud of. Does she not make a thing of it? I certainly think that Kaye was chosen because she is representing the older woman. I thought Tony was the one who is there for the laughs, there is usually one. like Ann Widdecombe. And he may be a legend in your neck of the woods, but he is nothing where I come from. He was there to highlight men’s mental health ? That went over my head I am afraid. I help to raise money for two mens mental health charities , because my brother committed suicide, so if Tony is raising money for that, good. Hamza? He doesn’t seem to be overly heavy to me, I was too busy thinking what a delightful beautiful man he was to notice it. Perhaps because he works for the BBC ? To narrow it down, if there was an all white, able bodied, straight line-up on Strictly, do you not believe that the woke police would complain ? Would the BBC risk that ?

I have read the entire thread , and I post regularly on the strictly come dancing thread so i am aware of your views. Yes I do think that people would complain of there were a completely white able bodied straight line up on strictly because as I have said , representation matters . Is that what you would like to see as someone who is anti-wokeness?


Tony mentioned his motivations in his leaving speech . Hamza’s weight loss and the fact he could be light footed as a big lad when Jayde was so heavy footed was discussed at length on the strictly thread, as was people voting for Tony because of his perceived legend status.
Fwiw , I don’t see him as a legend as I don’t particularly follow football , and I’m not sure what you mean by my neck of the woods because I’m pretty sure you have no idea where I am from

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

I have read the entire thread , and I post regularly on the strictly come dancing thread so i am aware of your views. Yes I do think that people would complain of there were a completely white able bodied straight line up on strictly because as I have said , representation matters . Is that what you would like to see as someone who is anti-wokeness?


Tony mentioned his motivations in his leaving speech . Hamza’s weight loss and the fact he could be light footed as a big lad when Jayde was so heavy footed was discussed at length on the strictly thread, as was people voting for Tony because of his perceived legend status.
Fwiw , I don’t see him as a legend as I don’t particularly follow football , and I’m not sure what you mean by my neck of the woods because I’m pretty sure you have no idea where I am from

By your neck of the woods, I meant nowhere near me, or I would have heard of him. Nothing more than that. Of course I would not want to see an all white ,straight, able bodied line up. I am against being manipulated by the media, not a fascist.
Oh, I am going to do something I complained about when others did it to me on the Strictly thread, it is so patronising and rude. But you have given me little choice.

 

[soph30]

To be honest though people are individuals, they’re not defined because they’re not white or not able bodied. It would probably be more ‘diverse’ in some ways for me to hear from an older white man from a different part of England than me than it would to hear from a black woman my age who lives in my community and uses a wheelchair

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

To be honest though people are individuals, they’re not defined because they’re not white or not able bodied. It would probably be more ‘diverse’ in some ways for me to hear from an older white man from a different part of England than me than it would to hear from a black woman my age who lives in my community and uses a wheelchair

I couldn’t agree with you more. I am pretty sure there are many who do not want to be chosen because they are black, gay or disabled. I know I wouldn’t want to be. To be fair, the only demographic I represent are the the decrepit wrinklies. I know I may come across a bit strong, but some years ago I refused to go to a keep fit class because it was named ‘Nifty at Fifty’ . Boxes, hate them. Unless they’re a nice box, I keep them in the attic, cannot throw them away
Every person is different and should be viewed and respected as who they are, not what they are. I could never be against the original meaning of woke. But it has been watered down so much now, that I think it may do more damage than good.