Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 9:01:50 GMT
That's the trouble with history ... it's just one bloody thing after another.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 22, 2021 11:15:48 GMT
Discrimination is perfectly fine in the world of modern day social liberalism. However, it must be the 'right' type of discrimination. Please don't ask me for a list of the 'right' types of discrimination, and the 'wrong' types. Any such list will be available on request from anyone subscribing to modern day social liberalism. When you have this list, don't bother questioning the defiance of logic the lists highlight, nor the obvious hypocrisy they demonstrate. The devotee will have learned the list from other modern day social liberals, parrot like, he or she will not have given the lists any thought. The lists are the lists and that's then end of it. Furthermore, be warned, if you have the temerity to question the lists the devotee will not engage in conversation with you. Rather, simply by being prepared to question, you will be assumed by the devotee to be sympathetic towards the 'wrong' types of discrimination. You do protest quite a lot about this! Do you have a victim mentality? Anyway I see the latest one is from the Imperial War Graves Commission. ooops, I mean the renamed Commonwealth War Graves Commission who feel it necessary to apologise for their racism of 100 years ago whereby it was assumed that natives wouldn’t really understand the concept of a headstone. If I were in government I would make a law that it was illegal to apologise on behalf of dead people for something done many decades or centuries ago that didn’t meet the expectations of 21st century. Perhaps one day Africans will apologise for their racism whereby people not from their own tribe were sold to the whities as slaves. But I somehow doubt it! Careful, the social liberals will be on to you, they see apologising for things they had no control over as de riguer, the solution to any problem, enabling them to dismiss them without having to be drawn into difficult dialogue. You run the risk of being cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 22, 2021 11:28:27 GMT
Discrimination is perfectly fine in the world of modern day social liberalism. However, it must be the 'right' type of discrimination. Please don't ask me for a list of the 'right' types of discrimination, and the 'wrong' types. Any such list will be available on request from anyone subscribing to modern day social liberalism. When you have this list, don't bother questioning the defiance of logic the lists highlight, nor the obvious hypocrisy they demonstrate. The devotee will have learned the list from other modern day social liberals, parrot like, he or she will not have given the lists any thought. The lists are the lists and that's then end of it. Furthermore, be warned, if you have the temerity to question the lists the devotee will not engage in conversation with you. Rather, simply by being prepared to question, you will be assumed by the devotee to be sympathetic towards the 'wrong' types of discrimination. You do protest quite a lot about this! Do you have a victim mentality? Anyway I see the latest one is from the Imperial War Graves Commission. ooops, I mean the renamed Commonwealth War Graves Commission who feel it necessary to apologise for their racism of 100 years ago whereby it was assumed that natives wouldn’t really understand the concept of a headstone. If I were in government I would make a law that it was illegal to apologise on behalf of dead people for something done many decades or centuries ago that didn’t meet the expectations of 21st century. Perhaps one day Africans will apologise for their racism whereby people not from their own tribe were sold to the whities as slaves. But I somehow doubt it! Watching a fascinating program last night on PBS in a series about African civilizations, it was a very detailed and informative about the start of the Atlantic slave trade and it's development. Excellent program (one of a series) and the history of West Africa was extremely interesting and complicated. Some real surprises for me and I thought I was fairly knowledgeable about world history, I was much more eurocentric than I realised. I was aware of some odd bits of African history but the complexity and richness of the history of that area startled me ..... A kingdom in Angola actually had an embassy to the court of Portugal .... in the 15th century and an African Bishop ordained in Rome and an entirely Angolan priesthood during that period ....... there is another episode tonight which I am looking forward to watching
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 22, 2021 12:08:34 GMT
My list is rather short, try to be respectful of fellow humans. No subdivisions. Apart from those who don't want the so-called 'Covid vaccinations'! Jim's single item list is a good one. It matches mine and I suspect, the list of the majority. 'No subdivisions', I agree completely. It's odd to hear this from Jim though given that diving folk into groups and giving said groups different levels of worth is at the core of modern social liberalism. Let's pick a couple of examples: a/ A Muslim terrorist murders dozens of innocent concert goers. b/ A policeman murders one female. With a/ people are urged to 'remain calm' and 'don't look back in anger'. The terrorist committed a heinous crime but being a Muslim, a favoured group, there was no call for any change. Just suck it up, I guess. With b/ people are allowed to break lockdown rules to protest. Government responds and promises a review and changes in the law to try to prevent further occurrences. I guess this was because the perpetrator was a man, a less favoured group whereas the victim was from a more favoured group. No subdivisions, really?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 12:11:21 GMT
The good old days. You could call a spade a spade back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 12:19:38 GMT
Apart from those who don't want the so-called 'Covid vaccinations'! With a/ people are urged to 'remain calm' and 'don't look back in anger'. The terrorist committed a heinous crime but being a Muslim, a favoured group, there was no call for any change. Yeah, things would have been different if he was a Buddhist. Always going on about karma. Vegetarian bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2021 12:23:22 GMT
 Apart from those who don't want the so-called 'Covid vaccinations'! Jim's single item list is a good one. It matches mine and I suspect, the list of the majority. 'No subdivisions', I agree completely. It's odd to hear this from Jim though given that diving folk into groups and giving said groups different levels of worth is at the core of modern social liberalism. Let's pick a couple of examples: a/ A Muslim terrorist murders dozens of innocent concert goers. b/ A policeman murders one female. With a/ people are urged to 'remain calm' and 'don't look back in anger'. The terrorist committed a heinous crime but being a Muslim, a favoured group, there was no call for any change. Just suck it up, I guess. With b/ people are allowed to break lockdown rules to protest. Government responds and promises a review and changes in the law to try to prevent further occurrences. I guess this was because the perpetrator was a man, a less favoured group whereas the victim was from a more favoured group. No subdivisions, really?        Yet I see you then immediately label and divide, one happens to be muslim, the other, his religion is unknown but he was a policeman. They both have a common factor, nutter. Not all Muslims or policemen are murderers, indeed the vast majority of both groups are normal people with different beliefs. You still haven't said whether you are for or against discrimination, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Kill the bees kill the bees, oh no we can't bees are nice. What a dilemma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 13:01:45 GMT
Jim's single item list is a good one. It matches mine and I suspect, the list of the majority. 'No subdivisions', I agree completely. It's odd to hear this from Jim though given that diving folk into groups and giving said groups different levels of worth is at the core of modern social liberalism. Let's pick a couple of examples: a/ A Muslim terrorist murders dozens of innocent concert goers. b/ A policeman murders one female. With a/ people are urged to 'remain calm' and 'don't look back in anger'. The terrorist committed a heinous crime but being a Muslim, a favoured group, there was no call for any change. Just suck it up, I guess. With b/ people are allowed to break lockdown rules to protest. Government responds and promises a review and changes in the law to try to prevent further occurrences. I guess this was because the perpetrator was a man, a less favoured group whereas the victim was from a more favoured group. No subdivisions, really? Yet I see you then immediately label and divide, one happens to be muslim, the other, his religion is unknown but he was a policeman. They both have a common factor, nutter. Not all Muslims or policemen are murderers, indeed the vast majority of both groups are normal people with different beliefs. You still haven't said whether you are for or against discrimination, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Kill the bees kill the bees, oh no we can't bees are nice. What a dilemma. Hmm. The policeman was faced with a situation where one person was definitely trying to stab another with a knife and these things often have tragic endings. (it wouldn't have happened in Britain because most police officers don't carry guns and those that do are positively trained not to shoot to kill). In a society where gun ownership is as commonplace as owning a car I imagine the likelihood of using such a device is a tad higher. Calling the officer in question a nutter seems a bit rough. And remember kids - guns don't kill people. People with guns do so fairly often though.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 22, 2021 13:05:26 GMT
Jim's single item list is a good one. It matches mine and I suspect, the list of the majority. 'No subdivisions', I agree completely. It's odd to hear this from Jim though given that diving folk into groups and giving said groups different levels of worth is at the core of modern social liberalism. Let's pick a couple of examples: a/ A Muslim terrorist murders dozens of innocent concert goers. b/ A policeman murders one female. With a/ people are urged to 'remain calm' and 'don't look back in anger'. The terrorist committed a heinous crime but being a Muslim, a favoured group, there was no call for any change. Just suck it up, I guess. With b/ people are allowed to break lockdown rules to protest. Government responds and promises a review and changes in the law to try to prevent further occurrences. I guess this was because the perpetrator was a man, a less favoured group whereas the victim was from a more favoured group. No subdivisions, really? Yet I see you then immediately label and divide, one happens to be muslim, the other, his religion is unknown but he was a policeman. They both have a common factor, nutter. Not all Muslims or policemen are murderers, indeed the vast majority of both groups are normal people with different beliefs. You still haven't said whether you are for or against discrimination, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Kill the bees kill the bees, oh no we can't bees are nice. What a dilemma. It's a difficult question. The problem is that the word discrimination has negative connotations, this complicates my answer. Many government initiatives are discriminatory but are incepted in order to attempt to correct a perceived power imbalance between two or more groups. For example, a benefit only available to one group, other groups are denied from applying for it, is discriminatory. You might explain this away by saying something along the lines of 'this group needs it'. That's fine, but it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. I'm for less discrimination in all areas of life, not just areas that those from the left of politics decide may be labelled with a word with negative connotations.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2021 15:29:44 GMT
Yet I see you then immediately label and divide, one happens to be muslim, the other, his religion is unknown but he was a policeman. They both have a common factor, nutter. Not all Muslims or policemen are murderers, indeed the vast majority of both groups are normal people with different beliefs. You still haven't said whether you are for or against discrimination, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Kill the bees kill the bees, oh no we can't bees are nice. What a dilemma. Hmm. The policeman was faced with a situation where one person was definitely trying to stab another with a knife and these things often have tragic endings. (it wouldn't have happened in Britain because most police officers don't carry guns and those that do are positively trained not to shoot to kill). In a society where gun ownership is as commonplace as owning a car I imagine the likelihood of using such a device is a tad higher. Calling the officer in question a nutter seems a bit rough. And remember kids - guns don't kill people. People with guns do so fairly often though. You are thinking of the wrong policeman. Have another go, it won't be The Third Policeman. He / the book was verry weird.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2021 15:31:44 GMT
Yet I see you then immediately label and divide, one happens to be muslim, the other, his religion is unknown but he was a policeman. They both have a common factor, nutter. Not all Muslims or policemen are murderers, indeed the vast majority of both groups are normal people with different beliefs. You still haven't said whether you are for or against discrimination, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Kill the bees kill the bees, oh no we can't bees are nice. What a dilemma. It's a difficult question. The problem is that the word discrimination has negative connotations, this complicates my answer. Many government initiatives are discriminatory but are incepted in order to attempt to correct a perceived power imbalance between two or more groups. For example, a benefit only available to one group, other groups are denied from applying for it, is discriminatory. You might explain this away by saying something along the lines of 'this group needs it'. That's fine, but it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. I'm for less discrimination in all areas of life, not just areas that those from the left of politics decide may be labelled with a word with negative connotations. Strange you don't recognise discrimination by the right. I see it on here all the time😂
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 22, 2021 16:48:53 GMT
It's a difficult question. The problem is that the word discrimination has negative connotations, this complicates my answer. Many government initiatives are discriminatory but are incepted in order to attempt to correct a perceived power imbalance between two or more groups. For example, a benefit only available to one group, other groups are denied from applying for it, is discriminatory. You might explain this away by saying something along the lines of 'this group needs it'. That's fine, but it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. I'm for less discrimination in all areas of life, not just areas that those from the left of politics decide may be labelled with a word with negative connotations. Strange you don't recognise discrimination by the right. I see it on here all the time😂 right doesn't discriminate ....... unless you are left
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2021 17:01:21 GMT
Strange you don't recognise discrimination by the right. I see it on here all the time😂 right doesn't discriminate ....... unless you are left Fazakerly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 17:03:07 GMT
It's a difficult question. The problem is that the word discrimination has negative connotations, this complicates my answer. Many government initiatives are discriminatory but are incepted in order to attempt to correct a perceived power imbalance between two or more groups. For example, a benefit only available to one group, other groups are denied from applying for it, is discriminatory. You might explain this away by saying something along the lines of 'this group needs it'. That's fine, but it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. I'm for less discrimination in all areas of life, not just areas that those from the left of politics decide may be labelled with a word with negative connotations. Strange you don't recognise discrimination by the right. I see it on here all the time😂
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 22, 2021 17:13:30 GMT
right doesn't discriminate ....... unless you are left Fazakerly. left doesn't discriminate ...... unless you are right
It's not surprising really ...... have you ever put your right foot in your left shoe, or your left foot in your right shoe ? discriminating people chose the right shoe for the right foot
|
|