“Woke”

[wareyin]

"Win" is a bit strong, since there's no prize. But it would provide some support for your claim.

woosh

It's potentially relevant to that specific court case (but not automatically so). But so what? I don't think you understand what that court case was about. What it's not about is the "Woke" bill, or even a claim of illegal behavior on the part of Warren, which makes the definition of "woke" completely irrelevant to pgwenthold's claim.

The definition of "woke" is relevant to the court case in which it was given, and is relevant in this thread titled "woke". The fact that "woke" isn't in the text of the "anti-woke" bill is what's irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

The definition of "woke" is relevant to the court case in which it was given, and is relevant in this thread titled "woke". The fact that "woke" isn't in the text of the "anti-woke" bill is what's irrelevant.

It's very relevant to pgwenthold's claim, which (in case you forgot) is where this particular tangent came from. Have you forgotten? Yes, apparently you did.

 

[wareyin]

It's very relevant to pgwenthold's claim, which (in case you forgot) is where this particular tangent came from. Have you forgotten? Yes, apparently you did.

This particular tangent began with your claim that: "woke" doesn't appear in the text of relevant legislation, so neither of those quotes is even legally relevant.

Which I made fun of.

Because the sheer obliviousness of claiming that since "woke" isn't in the text of the bill, the definition of "woke" isn't relevant in a court case about the anti-woke bill is just....<chef's kiss>


eta: or are you unaware of DeSantis claiming Warren was "basically woke" when DeSantis fired him, and how the definition of "woke" is clearly ******* relevant to the trial over that firing? Because that's even more on point for you!

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the sheer obliviousness of claiming that since "woke" isn't in the text of the bill, the definition of "woke" isn't relevant in a court case about the anti-woke bill is just....<chef's kiss>

I was right, you don't know what that case is about. The anti-woke bill has nothing to do with it. That law isn't involved in the case in any way, shape, or form. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claim it is.

 

[d4m10n]

If you don't think that attempts are made to lower workplace deaths, then I don't know what to tell you.

If those attempts have been framed in terms of systemic injustice between groups (e.g. "gender gap") then they are arguably "woke," after all.

 

[wareyin]

I was right, you don't know what that case is about. The anti-woke bill has nothing to do with it. That law isn't involved in the case in any way, shape, or form. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claim it is.

Missed my ETA that was made 40 minutes before your post, eh?

 

[Ziggurat]

Missed my ETA that was made 40 minutes before your post, eh?

No, I didn't miss it. Your ETA just isn't relevant. The law pgwenthold referred to still doesn't apply, and still isn't involved in the case.

 

[wareyin]

No, I didn't miss it. Your ETA just isn't relevant. The law pgwenthold referred to still doesn't apply, and still isn't involved in the case.

To be clear, you're saying that the anti-woke law which DeSantis pushed to prohibit government employees taking what he personally called woke actions has no relationship with DeSantis firing a government employee for what DeSantis personally called woke actions, and as such the definition DeSantis and his minions us for "woke" should be ignored in this thread about "woke"?

 

[Ziggurat]

To be clear, you're saying that the anti-woke law which DeSantis pushed to prohibit government employees taking what he personally called woke actions has no relationship with DeSantis firing a government employee for what DeSantis personally called woke actions, and as such the definition DeSantis and his minions us for "woke" should be ignored in this thread about "woke"?

This is what happens when you only pay attention to headlines, and don't actually take time to understand what's going on. Go read the text of the law. It doesn't prohibit "woke actions" in general, whatever that even means. It's primarily about teaching, and that doesn't apply here. Nobody involved in the Warren case is claiming it's part of the case.

If you really want, you can even look through the actual court documents. Of particular relevance are the Complaint and Exhibit 1: Executive Order. Neither contain any reference to the "Stop WOKE" act, because it's not part of the case.

But of course, you never actually looked into this. You just made an assumption, because you saw the word "woke" in both places, that they must be related. That's as deep as your thinking on the issue goes. And so it's inconceivable to you that not only are they not related, someone else might have looked at this more carefully than you did and figured out what you couldn't because you didn't look closely.

How embarrassing for you.

 

[wareyin]

This is what happens when you only pay attention to headlines, and don't actually take time to understand what's going on. Go read the text of the law. It doesn't prohibit "woke actions" in general, whatever that even means. It's primarily about teaching, and that doesn't apply here. Nobody involved in the Warren case is claiming it's part of the case.

If you really want, you can even look through the actual court documents. Of particular relevance are the Complaint and Exhibit 1: Executive Order. Neither contain any reference to the "Stop WOKE" act, because it's not part of the case.

But of course, you never actually looked into this. You just made an assumption, because you saw the word "woke" in both places, that they must be related. That's as deep as your thinking on the issue goes. And so it's inconceivable to you that not only are they not related, someone else might have looked at this more carefully than you did and figured out what you couldn't because you didn't look closely.

How embarrassing for you.

And you're back to ignoring what the FL politicians who wrote and passed the law said about it to claim that because "woke" wasn't in the text then it doesn't matter? Man, if I were so clueless that I thought such interconnected things didn't relate to each other I sure as hell wouldn't be bragging about it!

 

[Ziggurat]

And you're back to ignoring what the FL politicians who wrote and passed the law said about it

Yes I'm ignoring it, because it's not part of the case. Again, NOBODY involved in the case thinks it's part of the case. Not DeSantis, and not Warren. Only you, because you saw the work "woke" in two places and thought that must mean they're related.

But they aren't.

Which you'd know if you understood the law or the case, but you don't understand either. Because you haven't read the law, and you haven't read anything about the case beyond headlines, tweets, and out-of-context quotes.

 

[wareyin]

Yes I'm ignoring it, because it's not part of the case. Again, NOBODY involved in the case thinks it's part of the case. Not DeSantis, and not Warren. Only you, because you saw the work "woke" in two places and thought that must mean they're related.

Nobody except me, and the lawyers involved in the case, and several posters in this thread, you mean? Why the actual **** do you think testimony on the definition of "woke" was asked for and given if it's not part of the case, genius?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody except me, and the lawyers involved in the case, and several posters in this thread, you mean? Why the actual **** do you think testimony on the definition of "woke" was asked for and given if it's not part of the case, genius?

To try to establish motive for the firing, not because it involves a law which never even uses the word "woke". And the lawyers involved DON'T think that law is part of the case, which you would know if you had read the complaint. Which I know you didn't.

 

[wareyin]

To try to establish motive for the firing, not because it involves a law which never even uses the word "woke". And the lawyers involved DON'T think that law is part of the case, which you would know if you had read the complaint. Which I know you didn't.

Oh jebus. The motive for the firing (woke) relates to the anti-woke law promoted by the guy that did the firing for being woke. Which you would understand if supporting this nonsense didn't require stubborn obtuseness.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes I'm ignoring it, because it's not part of the case. Again, NOBODY involved in the case thinks it's part of the case. Not DeSantis, and not Warren. Only you, because you saw the work "woke" in two places and thought that must mean they're related.

But they aren't.

Which you'd know if you understood the law or the case, but you don't understand either. Because you haven't read the law, and you haven't read anything about the case beyond headlines, tweets, and out-of-context quotes.

And yet the term "woke" has been used several times in by both prosecution and defense, in questioning witnesses, particularly, DeSantis' staff. They were asked by the defense to define "woke"

https://floridapolitics.com/archive...esantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/

During the three-day trial this week challenging Gov. Ron DeSantis’ suspension of Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren, attorneys for Warren were able to put that question to aides for DeSantis, who called Florida the place where “woke goes to die” in his victory speech after being reelected last month.

Jean-Jacques Cabou - Warren’s attorney, noted DeSantis referred to Warren in his announcement of the suspension as a “woke ideologue” who “masqueraded” as a prosecutor. Then he asked some DeSantis officials what “woke” means to them.

Taryn Fenske - DeSantis’ Communications Director said “woke” was a “slang term for activism … progressive activism” and a general belief in systemic injustices in the country.

Ryan Newman - DeSantis’ General Counsel, echoed the part about systemic injustices, specifically regarding the criminal justice system.

“To me it means someone who believes that there are systemic injustices in the criminal justice system and on that basis they can decline to fully enforce and uphold the law,” Newman said.

Asked what “woke” means more generally, Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”

Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S. He also emphasized he believed Warren’s “wokeism” led him to sign the pledge not to prosecute abortion crimes, the primary factor that led to his suspension.​

Which means…. they do have an accurate understanding of the word! And the real world! DeSantis is just fine with it. He’s not dumb, just evil, and it is indisputable that he fired Warren for being "woke".... he said so, himself.... in . his . own . words !!
.
.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which means…. they do have an accurate understanding of the word! And the real world! DeSantis is just fine with it. He’s not dumb, just evil, and it is indisputable that he fired Warren for being "woke".... he said so, himself.... in . his . own . words !!

Let me remind you what pgwenthold claimed, and which I disputed, and which is the predecessor to the current exchange:

To bring this back to my previous comment, what Florida has done is to make a law that says that promoting the belief that the gap is unacceptable is illegal.

So, what does your post have to do with his claim? Nothing. Nothing at all. You can get fired for things which aren't illegal, and the firing was not based on the "Stop WOKE" law (which also does not use the word "woke" anywhere within the law).

 

[wareyin]

Let me remind you what pgwenthold claimed, and which I disputed, and which is the predecessor to the current exchange:



So, what does your post have to do with his claim? Nothing. Nothing at all. You can get fired for things which aren't illegal, and the firing was not based on the "Stop WOKE" law (which also does not use the word "woke" anywhere within the law).

And someone with at least a 6th grade reading level should note that in pgwenthold's post there was not one word about the firing being based on the stop woke law.

And your continued 'the word isn't in the text, so the ******* TITLE of the bill and the way the authors explained the bill is totally irrelevant' is just doubling down on a really, really poor understanding of how "woke" and the definition of "woke" matters here.

 

[Ziggurat]

And someone with at least a 6th grade reading level should note that in pgwenthold's post there was not one word about the firing being based on the stop woke law.

Also true. But he still seems to think that the definition of "woke" given at that trial is relevant to a law which isn't part of that trial and doesn't contain the word "woke". And you seem to think so too. And it's wrong.

And your continued 'the word isn't in the text, so the ******* TITLE of the bill

The title of a bill isn't actually part of the law. It has no legal weight. Didn't you know that?

and the way the authors explained the bill is totally irrelevant'

What the authors say can be relevant to interpreting ambiguities. But it can't make the law say something it plainly doesn't say. The definition of "woke" doesn't matter if the statute never uses (and therefore cannot depend upon the definition of) the word "woke". Hell, even in the title it's technically an acronym for something else.

 

[wareyin]

Also true. But he still seems to think that the definition of "woke" given at that trial is relevant to a law which isn't part of that trial and doesn't contain the word "woke". And you seem to think so too. And it's wrong.

The point is still wooshing over your head, isn't it?

The definition of "woke" used by the people who fired Warren for being "woke" in the trial over said firing of Warren is so obviously relevant that your failure to grok it must be an act.

The same people who wrote/promoted/signed into law the "Stop Woke" act defining "woke" under oath means their definition of "woke" is relevant to the law they wrote to stop "woke". And your simple-minded word search for "woke" in the text of the law misses the spirit and even the letter of the law by such a wide margin that either it's an act, or my opinion of your reading comprehension (such as it was) was still far too high.

The title of a bill isn't actually part of the law. It has no legal weight. Didn't you know that?

What the authors say can be relevant to interpreting ambiguities. But it can't make the law say something it plainly doesn't say. The definition of "woke" doesn't matter if the statute never uses (and therefore cannot depend upon the definition of) the word "woke". Hell, even in the title it's technically an acronym for something else.

Zig now demonstrates that he has no concept that people title things in the way they mean them to be taken, and that contrived acronyms to make titles demonstrate even more so how they intend for the work to be perceived.

 

[smartcooky]

Let me remind you what pgwenthold claimed, and which I disputed, and which is the predecessor to the current exchange:

So, what does your post have to do with his claim? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Whoosh... right over your head... again

I was addressing YOUR bull-**** claim that the trial has nothing to do with "woke" accusations...

Yes I'm ignoring it, because it's not part of the case. Again, NOBODY involved in the case thinks it's part of the case. Not DeSantis, and not Warren.

If its "not part of the case" why are the defense asking about it, and the prosecution not objecting for relevance?

Your gaslighting tactics won't work here! Both wareyin and I are way too savvy to fall for your bull-****, or to grant it any credence!