And the name calling continues…
Childish is an adjective, not a name.
And besides, “People need to stop reading into everything that’s said and written”. Not saying you are a child. I’m saying that, in this moment, you are acting childishly.
Ok, I can see you think you’re of superior intellect, so we’ll leave it there.
1 Like
I can certainly be childish at times too. And I’m sure that you aren’t childish all the time either. But when someone speaks up about a concern–something reasonable like ‘could this thing in the world be harmful in some way’–and when they state it in a reasonable way (not demanding change, but reasonably asking)…to respond with “Woke world gone mad!” is childish. It’s dismissive.
If you want to read that as me attacking you as a person, you can read it that way. You’ve already seemingly read OP’s original post as attacking you in some way. But I’m pointing to your specific actions here. We’d probably get along fine if we met IRL. But not if you started yelling about wokeness. 
If anyone is coming to this late allow me to explain.
Someone raised concerns about a route name that loosely references some mass shootings.
there was a brief back and forth.
Someone saids it was “woke” getting offended.
Someone got offended about someone saying “woke”
insults were exchanged and noi progress was made to anything.
A nice summary of most discussions on the internet, especially social media.
Now if someone can mention the Nazis we can all move on!
[insert non-serious sarcasm emoji here as funnily enough i am genuinely not trying to offend anyone!]
1 Like
I’d say “someone got irritated about someone being dismissive of other people”, but otherwise, in general, yeah 
you say irritated, I say offended
irritated, offended, irritated, offended
Let’s call the whole thing off
Indeed. I have to go take care of a hangnail that’s offending me anyway. Or is it irritating me? 
Am I missing something or is the suggestion, coastal rhythms with Postal?
Therefore, one of those sayings has a suggestive meaning therefore the other one must be bad or poor taste aswell?
i thought it was pretty wild of them to float that one out. nothing against it personally, but thats the kind of stuff i wouldnt dare say in zwift chat myself since i’m not trying to get muted or banned over some crap joke
The idea is that it’s a play on a phrase that would be pretty problematic, yeah. It’s hard to come up with another example that also wouldn’t be problematic to post here, lol. Like if the route name was a play on the term ‘mass shooting’. Like a ski run or bobsled run named ‘Mass Chuting’ or something. Wouldn’t be in good taste, right?
I disagree that it’s problematic myself, as ‘going coastal’ seems to have a life of its own. But it is a matter of perception, not like one POV is the ‘right one’ here.
1 Like
you are never gonna convince me that you didn’t just quietly enjoy coming up with that banger
2 Likes
Some cognitive thought of those trying to jump to a conclusion shouldn’t go amiss.
I’m certainly not woke bashing, but sometimes people need to be told to move on as nothing to see in a fairly blunt way so things are put to bed quickly.
1 Like
I guess I’m less willing to proclaim that my perception of this is ‘right’ and OP’s (and the others agreeing with OP) is wrong. There are people here who are saying that they thought the same thing, so why should it be automatically assumed that there is nothing to see? Having a discussion about whether there is anything to see seems reasonable. OP didn’t come in guns blazing, I don’t see a need to ‘shut it down’ myself. Earnest question, why do you think it needs to be shut down?
Ah it’s one of those threads.
6 Likes
As I’m willing to consider not all things are a conspiracy or have a second meaning.
If you are happy to indulge offence out of a possible word that rhymes with something else, we could spend the next 6 months questioning 1000’s of other statements.
I’m fully on board with, where direct offence is present challenge it (I’m also of the opinion people don’t have a right to not be offended but that’s a different discussion), but secondary offence…
This isn’t where there are multiple meanings of a term and this could be mistaken, soneone has seen one word, jumped to another term and taken offence.
I don’t agree it’s the same as the previous example you provided, as that’s a direct play on the words - this has 2 different meanings.
Going postal - to lose one’s temper or worse
Going coastal - going to the coast (especially in the terms of a bike ride around the coast)
Person a) where did you ride today?
Person b) we went coastal - views were lovely.
2 Likes
good point
1 Like
That’s my take on it too, as I said. The coastal phrase has established its own meaning. But why is our perception of it correct? What if this phrase did originate as a play on the postal phrase? If that’s true (and I don’t know if it is), then how ‘separate’ does it have to be? That sounds like a judgment call to me, whether two phrases are ‘separate enough’. And why is the judgment you and I have automatically the right judgment, such that other people’s opinions shouldn’t be considered?
I’m not arguing for OP’s position. Because I disagree. I’m only saying that positions like this, when approached calmly and reasonably as OP did, shouldn’t be dismissed by handwaving by the first person who comes along and says “Ah, I don’t think that’s a problem”. Or by the first two or three people. Particularly when there are other people saying “yeah, I thought it was a problem too”.
Nah, not anymore.