"Qatar won't allow any cooked Kosher food and public Jewish prayer Jewish organizations claim that Qatar is breaking its promise on allowing any cooked Kosher food to be sold at FIFA World Cup."
There may be some Jewish provocation here? - nonetheless Qatar is walking right into every accusation that they are a joyless, autocratic, homophobic, cruel, teetotal anti-Semitic nation of utter wankers
Politicalbetting would be a far better place if people stopped writing articles and comments about trans issues.
It's irrelevant to politics and it brings out the worst in the hard right wingers and trans exclusionary radical feminists.
Let people get on with their lives and stop f-ing obsessing about an irrelevant topic in the grand scheme.
"People who disagree with me should shut up".
She's an intelligent poster most of the time but I'm afraid this is how her generation is wired. It's part of the insidious effects of Woke.
As far as they're concerned the issue isn't up for discussion.
It does feel a bit like the current reorganisation of twitter is the beginning of the end of 'woke'. They overreached.
Far from it. I was on the train last week and some undergraduates were sitting a few seats up, talking quite loudly. Literature students, from what I could tell. Literally everything they discussed was from the viewpoint of a critical race theory lens - and how they felt it was the central part of the course.
While it's always good to look at things through a critical lens, listening in on their conversation was fascinating, because for them, critical race theory was the only lens. I felt sorry for them - they were missing out on the great beauty of the literary canon because they could only see it as evil and colonialist. As long as that remains the default mode for teaching, the mind virus will continue to propagate. Critical thinking skills are essential. The irony is they seemed to be unable to think critically about their own education and the political motivations behind it.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
I admit I don't really understand the issues around trans versus women's rights, but I get the impression people who are thoughtful and want to do the right thing are treading warily on this. For the timebeing I am willing to give Nicola Sturgeon the benefit of the doubt - that she is tackling something she doesn't think has a clear solution but isn't in a position to say so.
She is after all a woman, and a somewhat feminist one at that.
The problem here is that, to date, nearly all progressive issues have been one way. That is improve the rights of a “protected” group, that’s it.
This issue is new, in that there is an issue of the rights of 2 “protected” groups. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Much of government in a socially democratic liberal democracy is about arbitrating when rights of groups meet.
However, having to choose, like this, is unfamiliar to many of a progressive bent. How can a progressive measure be less than an alloyed good? An obvious truth?
I get that, in broad terms we have conflicting rights. So what do you do? Do you not bother to reconcile the irreconcilable - which I suspect is Sturgeon's position? Or do you attempt futilely to bridge two entrenched positions? (One or both of which might be justifiably entrenched for what I know?)
You form a judgement on the appropriate boundary. It won’t satisfy the extremists on both sides but it should be a compromise
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
And are convinced it is an entirely middle-class affectation. That an incensed working class seethes at their very existence, and will shortly explode in revolt, driving the gays from the land. And, most ludicrously, appear to believe we will believe that.
Mind you, some of my impeccably liberal American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) are discombobulated that there aren’t race riots about Rishi Sunak being PM.
To them, the fact that most people shrug at the idea of a chap with his backstory being PM is almost immoral. Someone should be celebrating. Other people should be angry.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
An interesting comment on you, your friends and your university.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
That's what you get for attending Moscow State University.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
I suppose it depends what you mean by skin deep. That they are pretending? Or that they believe they are tolerant, but push come to shove would react against?
As I can easily believe some people are more uncomfortable in reality than they might admit, but in practice if they genuinely believe themselves tolerant, and act accordingly, what would then shift them to reveal an inner contrary opinion, even to themselves?
And if it is largely about presentation and herd behaviour, for sake of argument, then within a general or two the tolerance will be ingrained and not skin deep anyway.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Yes the changes have been rapid in less than one human lifetime...a very interesting social experiment has taken place
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
However. What about the Georgian era? Molly houses a plenty, and every politician and aristocrat had a known mistress or two. Was still a more religious time than the nineteen forties.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
Religions deplor homosexuality, because it is not in the interests of religions to encourage it. A religion grows only if it has lots of followers, and births are the best way of spreading.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I’m not sure that young footballers would be that bothered by an openly gay colleague in the dressing room tbh. They are not the same as footballers past.
My point is that in both instances attitudes are likely to be driven far more by social proof than the innate enlightenment (or otherwise) of the individual.
Imagine FIFA kicking England out for that but letting Qatar and Iran play …
But we need their cheap gas and while that’s the case we’ll be taking the knee to Qatar. Sadly I expect that message is being relayed to the team as we speak.
If we can get renewables properly sorted and wean ourselves off the LNG then we can flick a final bird to the lot of them.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
And are convinced it is an entirely middle-class affectation. That an incensed working class seethes at their very existence, and will shortly explode in revolt, driving the gays from the land. And, most ludicrously, appear to believe we will believe that.
Mind you, some of my impeccably liberal American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) are discombobulated that there aren’t race riots about Rishi Sunak being PM.
To them, the fact that most people shrug at the idea of a chap with his backstory being PM is almost immoral. Someone should be celebrating. Other people should be angry.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
Religions deplor homosexuality, because it is not in the interests of religions to encourage it. A religion grows only if it has lots of followers, and births are the best way of spreading.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
Hmm, nah. I think there's more to it than that. It's about enforcing discipline, self-control, and sacrifice.
"Qatar won't allow any cooked Kosher food and public Jewish prayer Jewish organizations claim that Qatar is breaking its promise on allowing any cooked Kosher food to be sold at FIFA World Cup."
There may be some Jewish provocation here? - nonetheless Qatar is walking right into every accusation that they are a joyless, autocratic, homophobic, cruel, teetotal anti-Semitic nation of utter wankers
Surely Fifa should be lobbing massive fines over stuff like this, and should have over the beer thing.
Now, I don't drink beer, but Fifa always make a big deal of its requirements, people have been pointing out how they strongarmed Brazil to amend its laws for example, so if Qatar said they were going to do a bunch of things as a precondition of hosting they should bit hit with financial punishments for not complying.
I'm sure the Qataris would still have done what they wanted, but they would at least have to cough up.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
I suppose it depends what you mean by skin deep. That they are pretending? Or that they believe they are tolerant, but push come to shove would react against?
As I can easily believe some people are more uncomfortable in reality than they might admit, but in practice if they genuinely believe themselves tolerant, and act accordingly, what would then shift them to reveal an inner contrary opinion, even to themselves?
And if it is largely about presentation and herd behaviour, for sake of argument, then within a general or two the tolerance will be ingrained and not skin deep anyway.
I think your final paragraph is the mistake.
Your first is accurate: people believe they are tolerant, but are actually pretty intolerant in weeding out those in their peer group that don't comply and, across all humans across all generations, pretty agnostic to the values - be they what they may - that underpin it.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
And are convinced it is an entirely middle-class affectation. That an incensed working class seethes at their very existence, and will shortly explode in revolt, driving the gays from the land. And, most ludicrously, appear to believe we will believe that.
Mind you, some of my impeccably liberal American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) are discombobulated that there aren’t race riots about Rishi Sunak being PM.
To them, the fact that most people shrug at the idea of a chap with his backstory being PM is almost immoral. Someone should be celebrating. Other people should be angry.
It's like the disingenuous chap from the Daily Show, after his story about Rishi claiming that he never said the whole UK was racist about it, when the whole point of his piece was there was a significant reaction. Who would spare the time to do a comedic rant for 5-10 minutes on the basis of trivial reactions? No one would, so of course he was suggesting a major one, then weaselling out of that when it was pointed out to be nonsense.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I’m not sure that young footballers would be that bothered by an openly gay colleague in the dressing room tbh. They are not the same as footballers past.
My point is that in both instances attitudes are likely to be driven far more by social proof than the innate enlightenment (or otherwise) of the individual.
It's how people work, IMHO.
Very true and is the point i am making. My friends at university had liberal attitudes but homosexuality whilst not reviled was slightly pitied
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
Religions deplor homosexuality, because it is not in the interests of religions to encourage it. A religion grows only if it has lots of followers, and births are the best way of spreading.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
And are convinced it is an entirely middle-class affectation. That an incensed working class seethes at their very existence, and will shortly explode in revolt, driving the gays from the land. And, most ludicrously, appear to believe we will believe that.
Mind you, some of my impeccably liberal American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) are discombobulated that there aren’t race riots about Rishi Sunak being PM.
To them, the fact that most people shrug at the idea of a chap with his backstory being PM is almost immoral. Someone should be celebrating. Other people should be angry.
It's like the disingenuous chap from the Daily Show, after his story about Rishi claiming that he never said the whole UK was racist about it, when the whole point of his piece was there was a significant reaction. Who would spare the time to do a comedic rant for 5-10 minutes on the basis of trivial reactions? No one would, so of course he was suggesting a major one, then weaselling out of that when it was pointed out to be nonsense.
I would be genuinely interested in some stats/data - has there been an increase/decrease of racist shite due to Rishi becoming PM? Are racist letters getting sent to No 10?
As far as I can tell, even the real, actual Fascists don’t seem to be saying much, if anything.
Lol, is that the one Truss vetoed as 'nanny state'?
It was such a bizarre position to take. Was "Look, tough times are coming, maybe turn down the heat a little?" really an oppressive message from the government? Are there not public awareness campaigns she has ever supported, as suggesting people do things is bad?
I mean, I get being careful about what messages are sent out and how - the police putting out messages about people not doing things might give the incorrect impression those things are illegal - but something like that?
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Yes the changes have been rapid in less than one human lifetime...a very interesting social experiment has taken place
We're communicating on a medium that has utterly transformed communications well within my lifetime. And people cope with this 'social experiment'.
My great-grandfather lived from approximately the 1870s to the 1960s. Let's look at just some of the ways his world changed: Cars World wars Widespread electricity. Planes Man in space Telephony Vast medical improvements etc
It was a period of massive compressed change. The UK when he died was utterly different to the UK he was born in. And so was society.
And people coped. They (and most of us) coped with the fact some people are attracted to other people who are not the other sex.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
Religions deplor homosexuality, because it is not in the interests of religions to encourage it. A religion grows only if it has lots of followers, and births are the best way of spreading.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
Hmm, nah. I think there's more to it than that. It's about enforcing discipline, self-control, and sacrifice.
Most religions are full of it.
If you listen to african priests they say they accept homosexuals but don t like the act...in other words to them a celibate homosexual is acceptable.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
I know that in Russia, the media is a monolithic bloc that serves principally to push the Kremlin's line, but it's different here.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
The first syllable leads me to draw a natural correlation with Masturbate, which is fitting really since almost everyone who joins the platform seems to be a wanker.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
Isn't that exactly why the OneLove armband might be needed?
but to do it in qatar where gays are reviled would be deliberately inflammatory
Good. What is the point of protest if it does not disturb the status quo? I have no time for bladder kickers as a rule and certainly am avoiding the World Cup because of the way in which the venue was decided but I might change my mind on that if they actually decide to use it as an opportunity to shake the tree.
Bear in mind homosexuality was illegal in the uk as recent as the 1960s...should we revile english people of the 1960s as disgusting homophobes.
We should recognise the time as homophobic, and hopefully the people still around from that time recognise that their views, if in support of the law, were wrong.
Things have come a long way very fast. When I was at school in the 90s we used the word gay as an insult, and it wasn't until secondary school that I knew someone personally who was gay (or at least whom I knew was gay) and then only as an infrequent acquaintance. I'm sure gay people are still more likely to be bullied, but that level of casual insult is at least accepted to be bad.
Mainstream TV shows showing gay people was still relatively rare, and mainstream politicians who are still around now were not necessarily in favour of things like gay marriage.
What I take from that is there's been a lot of positive development, and, importantly, public attitudes support that development, it isn't something that feels imposed by some woke elite. Given how rapid the changes have been I think people should be treated understandingly for perhaps not holding all the 'right' views on this topic even 20 years ago.
It's when there is a rapid shift attempted without consideration of what seemed appropriate merely 5 years ago that people can feel confused as to why certain things that seemed like common sense are beyond the pale. Particularly on topics that require nuance, but are treated as if debating the details is unacceptable.
When did attitudes to pre-marital sex change? Mid 1960s possibly? When I was at university in the mid-1970s quite a few still adhered to 'chastity before marriage.' Cohabitation - 'living in sin' - was certainly not socially acceptable in the early 1970s. By 1980 that had changed, but even during the 1980s having kids out of wedlock was generally frowned upon.
Values change all the time.
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
Religions deplor homosexuality, because it is not in the interests of religions to encourage it. A religion grows only if it has lots of followers, and births are the best way of spreading.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
Hmm, nah. I think there's more to it than that. It's about enforcing discipline, self-control, and sacrifice.
Most religions are full of it.
If you listen to african priests they say they accept homosexuals but don t like the act...in other words to them a celibate homosexual is acceptable.
Pretty standard tortured religious position, that is being homosexual is not a sin, but doing homosexual things is. Tim Farron got in a right old mess when asked about that.
It's one of those religious compromises that doesn't withstand 5 seconds of common sense thought. It's hardly accepting them for a start.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Where did MERS come from? Or Ebola? Or the sweating sickness? Or Yrsinia Pestis? I’m not convinced that public belief about origin is what matters. In truth I don’t know if it was from a lab, or not. It matters if the Chinese know it did but aren’t saying.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
I was wondering if @DrkB was our first Islamist Qatari bot. They must exist. Especially right now
Must be German… it’s the abbreviation for Dresdner Kleinwort Benson…
I think when humans are told to be tolerant to one group they just shift their intolerance to another...for example some on here criticize the elderly in a way which if they did the same about blacks and gays would produce an instant ban.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
I don't mean to get all @edmundintokyo here, but this is to misunderstand Mastadon.
There is no one Mastadon, there are tens or even hundreds of servers. They are all connected, but independently adminstered. Anyone can start a Mastadon server: we could start Mastadon political betting furries, and set our own rules on the server. We could say "no posts about food" or whatever, and could then kick who we want from our server.
If you go to Mastadon Communism, then you might find that the (published) rule is "no capitalists".
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
I don't mean to get all @edmundintokyo here, but this is to misunderstand Mastadon.
There is no one Mastadon, there are tens or even hundreds of servers. They are all connected, but independently adminstered. Anyone can start a Mastadon server: we could start Mastadon political betting furries, and set our own rules on the server. We could say "no posts about food" or whatever, and could then kick who we want from our server.
If you go to Mastadon Communism, then you might find that the (published) rule is "no capitalists".
Nobody is misunderstanding. The guy clearly did it to get a reaction and he got the reaction he was looking for i.e. to highlight there are proper loony "instances"....it has been well reported that more innocent members of the public / journos have had a bit of a rude awakening about what Mastadon instances can be like.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
I love the way that our Russian friends are completely gay obsessed.
I was wondering if @DrkB was our first Islamist Qatari bot. They must exist. Especially right now
Must be German… it’s the abbreviation for Dresdner Kleinwort Benson…
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
It was almost certainly zoonotic
The balance of probabilities is that zoonotic escape occurred as a result of an accidental leak from a lab
But an accidental leak of a virus engineered by Gain of Function - or not? My enhanced humanized spidey-sense says Yes. Which also explains the total allergic reaction of science - esp virologists - to this revelation
They are the guilty men and women. And 20 million died (and are still dying). Not a very nice place to be
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
I know that in Russia, the media is a monolithic bloc that serves principally to push the Kremlin's line, but it's different here.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
* OK, not the BBC
Exactly...im not saying the media in the west will turn anti gay but you are missing my point. If a different form of govt took charge and ran anti gay propaganda for 10 years attitudes would change....its just how humans are wired.
I think when humans are told to be tolerant to one group they just shift their intolerance to another...for example some on here criticize the elderly in a way which if they did the same about blacks and gays would produce an instant ban.
Thinking older voter blocs are holding back what they believe are important policy changes and should pnot have as many handouts provided at the expense of the working age popualtion does not feel like abusing black or gay people. Swing and a miss I think.
"Qatar won't allow any cooked Kosher food and public Jewish prayer Jewish organizations claim that Qatar is breaking its promise on allowing any cooked Kosher food to be sold at FIFA World Cup."
There may be some Jewish provocation here? - nonetheless Qatar is walking right into every accusation that they are a joyless, autocratic, homophobic, cruel, teetotal anti-Semitic nation of utter wankers
Sue FIFA in the NY courts for anti semitic discrimination
@Cyclefree thanks for another thought-provoking header. I don't quite share your views on this topic, but your detailed analysis in invaluable in shining a light on the process.
I had heard you had left PB - glad it's not the case.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
I know that in Russia, the media is a monolithic bloc that serves principally to push the Kremlin's line, but it's different here.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
* OK, not the BBC
Exactly...im not saying the media in the west will turn anti gay but you are missing my point. If a different form of govt took charge and ran anti gay propaganda for 10 years attitudes would change....its just how humans are wired.
So, you're saying that attitudes to homosexuality in Russia are only what they are because of constant government propaganda?
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
Lol, is that the one Truss vetoed as 'nanny state'?
It was such a bizarre position to take. Was "Look, tough times are coming, maybe turn down the heat a little?" really an oppressive message from the government? Are there not public awareness campaigns she has ever supported, as suggesting people do things is bad?
I mean, I get being careful about what messages are sent out and how - the police putting out messages about people not doing things might give the incorrect impression those things are illegal - but something like that?
Perfect information is also one of the conditions of a free market. So. A message of turning down the thermostat by 1 degree will save x% ought to have been positively viewed by the Truss bunch. "Nanny State" increasingly seems to mean information shared which we don't want to hear.
"Qatar won't allow any cooked Kosher food and public Jewish prayer Jewish organizations claim that Qatar is breaking its promise on allowing any cooked Kosher food to be sold at FIFA World Cup."
There may be some Jewish provocation here? - nonetheless Qatar is walking right into every accusation that they are a joyless, autocratic, homophobic, cruel, teetotal anti-Semitic nation of utter wankers
Surely Fifa should be lobbing massive fines over stuff like this, and should have over the beer thing.
Now, I don't drink beer, but Fifa always make a big deal of its requirements, people have been pointing out how they strongarmed Brazil to amend its laws for example, so if Qatar said they were going to do a bunch of things as a precondition of hosting they should bit hit with financial punishments for not complying.
I'm sure the Qataris would still have done what they wanted, but they would at least have to cough up.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Where did MERS come from? Or Ebola? Or the sweating sickness? Or Yrsinia Pestis? I’m not convinced that public belief about origin is what matters. In truth I don’t know if it was from a lab, or not. It matters if the Chinese know it did but aren’t saying.
This is just ridiculous now. Did MERS come from the one city in the world which had a lab deliberately engineering pangolin MERS viruses to be more dangerous to humans and therefore likely to cause plagues? Did it?
Did Ebola come from the one single village on the planet which had a virology institute which boasted "hey. we're experimenting with this thing called Ebola and trying to make it easy to spread and we're quite casual about laboratory safety when we gather pangolins in the wild but don't worry"?
That's how insane this shit is, now. It's over. It came from the lab. And scientists will just have to cope with the fact this makes them deeply and existentially uneasy, and guilty. So be it
What's the point of governmental nagging? The price should do that without undue urging from our rulers. That's what it does.
If the government are spending £100bn-£200bn on energy over the next couple of years why on earth get annoyed at a bit of nagging that might reduce the amount we use, and therefore taxpayer funds by a couple of percent?
It is not as if the UK public finances are in such great shape that we can prefer no nagging over a couple of billion quid.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
I know that in Russia, the media is a monolithic bloc that serves principally to push the Kremlin's line, but it's different here.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
* OK, not the BBC
Exactly...im not saying the media in the west will turn anti gay but you are missing my point. If a different form of govt took charge and ran anti gay propaganda for 10 years attitudes would change....its just how humans are wired.
So, you're saying that attitudes to homosexuality in Russia are only what they are because of constant government propaganda?
Not really. I think in the absence of propaganda russians would stay as they are...sceptical of homosexuality though bear in mind it is legal to practice homosexuality in russia since 1993. However if western powers took over Russia and ran a concerted propaganda campaign then yes even in Russia attitudes would turn more pro homosexuality.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Where did MERS come from? Or Ebola? Or the sweating sickness? Or Yrsinia Pestis? I’m not convinced that public belief about origin is what matters. In truth I don’t know if it was from a lab, or not. It matters if the Chinese know it did but aren’t saying.
This is just ridiculous now. Did MERS come from the one city in the world which had a lab deliberately engineering pangolin MERS viruses to be more dangerous to humans and therefore likely to cause plagues? Did it?
Did Ebola come from the one single village on the planet which had a virology institute which boasted "hey. we're experimenting with this thing called Ebola and trying to make it easy to spread and we're quite casual about laboratory safety when we gather pangolins in the wild but don't worry"?
That's how insane this shit is, now. It's over. It came from the lab. And scientists will just have to cope with the fact this makes them deeply and existentially uneasy, and guilty. So be it
It’s not ridiculous, it’s an illustration that novel viruses can emerge into man, and have done repeatedly. I am not discounting the possibility that covid is the result of a lab leak. Lab leaks happen. It’s also possible that it is a result of gain of function research. But it’s also possible it is entirely natural in origin, just like SARS, MERS and all the rest. I know you think it’s been proven beyond all doubt, but not everyone agrees with you.
to be fair this was pointless virtue signalling by england, im pretty sure many of the players would be uncomfortable with an openly gay player in the dressing room regardless of what they say.
That's an interesting point actually.
How much have attitudes really, seriously, changed and how much of it is just very strong social proof with actual tolerance only skin-deep?
I'm not sure but, I suspect, it would easily return if the rules were different as fundamentally authoritarianism is buried deep within us.
I actually think tolerance is only skin deep amongst many even in some younger people. People are natural herd animals and homosexuality has been presented very positively in the last 30 years. I always remember my friends at university saying they would think less of someone if they knew they were gay....not so long ago either
Humans have been fooled by the media into supporting homosexuality... I do believe we had another poster with those views.
Any relation?
I would bet that, should I go into your profile, you have a gmx email address... and I'd bet that (a) you will have posted from many IP addresses, and (b) they will all be on one of the black lists of compromised PCs?
Ok heres an example. Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop. Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes. If not they why does advertising work.
I know that in Russia, the media is a monolithic bloc that serves principally to push the Kremlin's line, but it's different here.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
* OK, not the BBC
Exactly...im not saying the media in the west will turn anti gay but you are missing my point. If a different form of govt took charge and ran anti gay propaganda for 10 years attitudes would change....its just how humans are wired.
Yes, that is the essence of the war on woke case. It is also an admission of frankly porcine stupidity and prejudice.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Where did MERS come from? Or Ebola? Or the sweating sickness? Or Yrsinia Pestis? I’m not convinced that public belief about origin is what matters. In truth I don’t know if it was from a lab, or not. It matters if the Chinese know it did but aren’t saying.
This is just ridiculous now. Did MERS come from the one city in the world which had a lab deliberately engineering pangolin MERS viruses to be more dangerous to humans and therefore likely to cause plagues? Did it?
Did Ebola come from the one single village on the planet which had a virology institute which boasted "hey. we're experimenting with this thing called Ebola and trying to make it easy to spread and we're quite casual about laboratory safety when we gather pangolins in the wild but don't worry"?
That's how insane this shit is, now. It's over. It came from the lab. And scientists will just have to cope with the fact this makes them deeply and existentially uneasy, and guilty. So be it
It’s not ridiculous, it’s an illustration that novel viruses can emerge into man, and have done repeatedly. I am not discounting the possibility that covid is the result of a lab leak. Lab leaks happen. It’s also possible that it is a result of gain of function research. But it’s also possible it is entirely natural in origin, just like SARS, MERS and all the rest. I know you think it’s been proven beyond all doubt, but not everyone agrees with you.
Oh come on.
Leon has the precise location of the lab leak thanks to what.three.words.
Mastodon seems like a honeytrap for hall-monitor personality types. Honestly if Elon gets all the hall monitors to migrate to Mastodon that might be his greatest contribution toward the betterment of humanity.
Server admins can, like twitter there's no encryption. There are people working on end-to-end encryption for it now.
The other part that needs fixing is that moving your account off a server needs the cooperation of the server, so if a server dies or the admin decides to ransom your account then you lose your followers.
Politicalbetting would be a far better place if people stopped writing articles and comments about trans issues.
It's irrelevant to politics and it brings out the worst in the hard right wingers and trans exclusionary radical feminists.
Let people get on with their lives and stop f-ing obsessing about an irrelevant topic in the grand scheme.
Hear hear. Clearly this particular hobby horse is something the author feels passionately about but I’m not sure that a website ostensibly dedicated to politics and political betting is the right platform for posting variations of the same one-sided perspective of the gender recognition debate over and over and over again.
One article on the subject may be interesting and/or thought-provoking even if a little bit tangential for this site. Repeated articles? Tedious. Obsessive. Unnecessary. It’s hard to see any other purpose for this out-of-place stuck record show than inverse virtue signalling clickbait for those who get their jollies extolling their antiwoke credentials while feigning concern for women’s rights. Do me a favour.
The running commentary on the cricket that occasionally litters the comments threads gets on my tits as well.
The first Jesuit missionaries were astonished to find China so far ahead of Europe in technology, government, agriculture, civil engineering, etc.. Yet its open tolerance of homosexuality was "proof" it was inferior and needed civilising. Funny old things shibboleths.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Believe whatever you want, @leon - I don’t care. Your claim that scientific truth can be established by asking people wot they recon in a poll is absurd.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
One of the more ridiculous anti-government narratives during the late summer was the complaint that, unlike Germany, they weren't already telling people to turn down their thermostats, as if they needed months of advance notice.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Believe whatever you want, @leon - I don’t care. Your claim that scientific truth can be established by asking people wot they recon in a poll is absurd.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
I think Leon is right here..covid was a lab leak...of course those in power arent going to admit it though.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Believe whatever you want, @leon - I don’t care. Your claim that scientific truth can be established by asking people wot they recon in a poll is absurd.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
It is entirely possible for it to be both zoonotic and a lab leak.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Believe whatever you want, @leon - I don’t care. Your claim that scientific truth can be established by asking people wot they recon in a poll is absurd.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
It is entirely possible for it to be both zoonotic and a lab leak.
Possibly the most likely origin. Virus found in some distant caves, someoneone not quite careful enough and bam. But we don’t know for sure.
There are many religion-linked national regimes in this world, and some are linked to religious hierarchies that consider voluntary abortion to be sinful...but are any of them sufficiently f***ed up as to run newborn baby drop-off points ("no questions asked") like this one in the USA?
Furious Tory MPs pointing finger at Jeremy Hunt for pushing the move toward the new closer relationship that would mean a return to EU judges, contributions to the EU budget and closer alignment on rules.
💥 IDS hit out at attempts to “reopen a settled debate” adds: “The Chancellor needs to himself slap this story down, this should never have got going and if he meant it or not, he needs to make it clear this is not what the government is about.”
What's the point of governmental nagging? The price should do that without undue urging from our rulers. That's what it does.
If the government are spending £100bn-£200bn on energy over the next couple of years why on earth get annoyed at a bit of nagging that might reduce the amount we use, and therefore taxpayer funds by a couple of percent?
It is not as if the UK public finances are in such great shape that we can prefer no nagging over a couple of billion quid.
They've chosen to subsidise peoples' expenditure on gas. Doesn't that encourage said people to economise less than they otherwise would? Taxpayers' money dissipating up the flue. The effect of the subsidy is to make our collective demand for gas even more inelastic when that very inelasticity is the source of the problem.
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
It was almost certainly zoonotic
The balance of probabilities is that zoonotic escape occurred as a result of an accidental leak from a lab
But an accidental leak of a virus engineered by Gain of Function - or not? My enhanced humanized spidey-sense says Yes. Which also explains the total allergic reaction of science - esp virologists - to this revelation
They are the guilty men and women. And 20 million died (and are still dying). Not a very nice place to be
May be. It’s a scenario that can’t be excluded but without a leak (smirk) we won’t find proof.
It’s almost certainly NOT a deliberate release of a bio weapon
There are many religion-linked national regimes in this world, and some are linked to religious hierarchies that consider voluntary abortion to be sinful...but are any of them sufficiently f***ed up as to run newborn baby drop-off points ("no questions asked") like this one in the USA?
Indeed and is it healthy for children under say 3 to be separated from their mothers
Furious Tory MPs pointing finger at Jeremy Hunt for pushing the move toward the new closer relationship that would mean a return to EU judges, contributions to the EU budget and closer alignment on rules.
💥 IDS hit out at attempts to “reopen a settled debate” adds: “The Chancellor needs to himself slap this story down, this should never have got going and if he meant it or not, he needs to make it clear this is not what the government is about.”
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
It was almost certainly zoonotic
The balance of probabilities is that zoonotic escape occurred as a result of an accidental leak from a lab
But an accidental leak of a virus engineered by Gain of Function - or not? My enhanced humanized spidey-sense says Yes. Which also explains the total allergic reaction of science - esp virologists - to this revelation
They are the guilty men and women. And 20 million died (and are still dying). Not a very nice place to be
May be. It’s a scenario that can’t be excluded but without a leak (smirk) we won’t find proof.
It’s almost certainly NOT a deliberate release of a bio weapon
tldl; COVID was almost certainly zoonotic in origin.
These ignorant thugs making threats need to be arrested.
"Almost certainly"
lol
Yes.
Polls say that in 90% of countries people now firmly believe it came from the lab. Why? Because, en masse, people are not stupid. This is the Wisdom of Crowds (a real thing, btw, hence Ask the Audience on the Millionaire Quiz Show)
The world's first plague from a deadly new apparently-enhanced bat coronavirus came from a city which had the world's only BSL2-4 laboratory deliberately enhancing bat coronaviruses that might cause plagues? Er, OK, so it came from the lab
It's that simple. Always was
Believe whatever you want, @leon - I don’t care. Your claim that scientific truth can be established by asking people wot they recon in a poll is absurd.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
As a point of fact, there is no such consensus in scientists (outside perhaps the utterly panicked group of virologists with firm links to the Wuhan Institute). Plenty of them say Yep, lab leak
Indeed - as the memoirs of Jeremy Farrar say, quite plainly (he's the Head of the Wellcome Institute) - a lab leak was the presumed cause when he gathered with Antony Fauci (et al) and the top US-UK-Netherlands boffins for the first meetings on How to Respond to Coronavirus in late January 2020. Their best guess was: lab leak
A few days later a weird new consensus emerged. No it can't possibly be a lab, that's racist. This was reinforced a few days further on by the fraudulent group letter to the Lancet, organised by Peter Daszak. In which we were all told that Lab Leak was a Trumpite conspiracy theory to be dismissed (and this letter led to Facebook and Twitter prohibiting discussion of the hypothesis for a YEAR). Peter Daszak did not, in this letter, reveal that he organised the letter, and wrote it
Nor did he reveal at any point that he is the co-chief of the Wuhan Institute of Viorology, where he conducted gain of function research into bat coronaviruses, funded by Antony Fauci. Indeed he claimed he had "no conflict of interest"
100% there was a cover up. 97.3% it was a lab leak
Comments
"Qatar won't allow any cooked Kosher food and public Jewish prayer
Jewish organizations claim that Qatar is breaking its promise on allowing any cooked Kosher food to be sold at FIFA World Cup."
I hope the whole thing collapses
https://twitter.com/YoniMichanie/status/1594374517299720193?s=20&t=YkEyaOGARU3ohOo_ZrFhlA
There may be some Jewish provocation here? - nonetheless Qatar is walking right into every accusation that they are a joyless, autocratic, homophobic, cruel, teetotal anti-Semitic nation of utter wankers
While it's always good to look at things through a critical lens, listening in on their conversation was fascinating, because for them, critical race theory was the only lens. I felt sorry for them - they were missing out on the great beauty of the literary canon because they could only see it as evil and colonialist. As long as that remains the default mode for teaching, the mind virus will continue to propagate. Critical thinking skills are essential. The irony is they seemed to be unable to think critically about their own education and the political motivations behind it.
Imagine FIFA kicking England out for that but letting Qatar and Iran play …
There are periods in societies in the past where homosexuality was deeply taboo, like our own, and others where it was considered fine but only in its paedophilic form, like ancient Rome. In fact, we maintain very strong taboos on paedophilia and incest but not all societies do, and neither has our own in the past.
If I had to guess I'd say stricture on sex is correlated with religious belief and adherence - and therefore waxes and wanes as that does - and that fervour drives a repulsion for what are considered deviant practices, but it's only a guess.
To them, the fact that most people shrug at the idea of a chap with his backstory being PM is almost immoral. Someone should be celebrating. Other people should be angry.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1594350639844294656
The lunacy has to constantly be challenged.
As I can easily believe some people are more uncomfortable in reality than they might admit, but in practice if they genuinely believe themselves tolerant, and act accordingly, what would then shift them to reveal an inner contrary opinion, even to themselves?
And if it is largely about presentation and herd behaviour, for sake of argument, then within a general or two the tolerance will be ingrained and not skin deep anyway.
A belief in the immorality of homosexuality is therefore a survival advantage to a religion.
It's how people work, IMHO.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/20/people-will-urged-turn-thermostats-two-degrees-energy-campaign/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1668969483-2
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luke-wright-set-to-be-announced-as-englands-new-national-selector-fjc5s9b7n
Honestly, just get over it. The world is changing, it always has been, always will.
If we can get renewables properly sorted and wean ourselves off the LNG then we can flick a final bird to the lot of them.
Most religions are full of it.
Now, I don't drink beer, but Fifa always make a big deal of its requirements, people have been pointing out how they strongarmed Brazil to amend its laws for example, so if Qatar said they were going to do a bunch of things as a precondition of hosting they should bit hit with financial punishments for not complying.
I'm sure the Qataris would still have done what they wanted, but they would at least have to cough up.
The small problem is that the lists of servers that are OK will vary from one group of self elected Anointed to another.
Many accusations of Heresy will be made. Many will be banned.
"...they..."? Is there some secret 'Marxist' organisation we should be made aware of?
Honestly, just get over it. The world is changing, it always has been, always will."
Say the media were to portray homosexuals negatively for 10 years nonstop.
Dont you think this would have an effect on public attitudes.
If not they why does advertising work.
Your first is accurate: people believe they are tolerant, but are actually pretty intolerant in weeding out those in their peer group that don't comply and, across all humans across all generations, pretty agnostic to the values - be they what they may - that underpin it.
"Being a capitalist"
https://twitter.com/LefterisJP/status/1593934653114785793?s=20&t=DuUMwWecdSQatY3hMtNdVQ
As far as I can tell, even the real, actual Fascists don’t seem to be saying much, if anything.
I mean, I get being careful about what messages are sent out and how - the police putting out messages about people not doing things might give the incorrect impression those things are illegal - but something like that?
My great-grandfather lived from approximately the 1870s to the 1960s. Let's look at just some of the ways his world changed:
Cars
World wars
Widespread electricity.
Planes
Man in space
Telephony
Vast medical improvements
etc
It was a period of massive compressed change. The UK when he died was utterly different to the UK he was born in. And so was society.
And people coped. They (and most of us) coped with the fact some people are attracted to other people who are not the other sex.
It's not my fault if you lack the intelligence to see round corners.
Media organizations* are private businesses that exist to make money. The CEO of Disney, you know what he cares about? His stock options. Fox News exists because it is a massive money spinner for its owners.
Homosexuality isn't portrayed negatively, because that would be a massive money losing proposition for a media organization. Why would they want to piss off gay people? Or people who have friends and family who are gay?
In a profit driven, free capitalist society, the media reflects society's attitudes to homosexuality, it doesn't create them.
* OK, not the BBC
The first syllable leads me to draw a natural correlation with Masturbate, which is fitting really since almost everyone who joins the platform seems to be a wanker.
I mean how gay are these photos
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjktQ_2P_WJPSIc4jEj41CoeLsPZIb_3NrfA&usqp=CAU
Me, I’m a Yen Buddhist.
It's one of those religious compromises that doesn't withstand 5 seconds of common sense thought. It's hardly accepting them for a start.
https://twitter.com/hepimp/status/1594432554316500992
Anyhow it worked out OK, Lefteris moved his account to a different server run by someone who isn't trying to be edgy.
There is no one Mastadon, there are tens or even hundreds of servers. They are all connected, but independently adminstered. Anyone can start a Mastadon server: we could start Mastadon political betting furries, and set our own rules on the server. We could say "no posts about food" or whatever, and could then kick who we want from our server.
If you go to Mastadon Communism, then you might find that the (published) rule is "no capitalists".
The balance of probabilities is that zoonotic escape occurred as a result of an accidental leak from a lab
“It gives every piss-ant an anthill, to piss from.”
They are the guilty men and women. And 20 million died (and are still dying). Not a very nice place to be
If a different form of govt took charge and ran anti gay propaganda for 10 years attitudes would change....its just how humans are wired.
I had heard you had left PB - glad it's not the case.
So. A message of turning down the thermostat by 1 degree will save x% ought to have been positively viewed by the Truss bunch.
"Nanny State" increasingly seems to mean information shared which we don't want to hear.
Did Ebola come from the one single village on the planet which had a virology institute which boasted "hey. we're experimenting with this thing called Ebola and trying to make it easy to spread and we're quite casual about laboratory safety when we gather pangolins in the wild but don't worry"?
That's how insane this shit is, now. It's over. It came from the lab. And scientists will just have to cope with the fact this makes them deeply and existentially uneasy, and guilty. So be it
It is not as if the UK public finances are in such great shape that we can prefer no nagging over a couple of billion quid.
Meanwhile, that same year you'd be railing against the idea that women should have the vote or that the Irish should be allowed Home Rule.
However if western powers took over Russia and ran a concerted propaganda campaign then yes even in Russia attitudes would turn more pro homosexuality.
I know you think it’s been proven beyond all doubt, but not everyone agrees with you.
Leon has the precise location of the lab leak thanks to what.three.words.
The other part that needs fixing is that moving your account off a server needs the cooperation of the server, so if a server dies or the admin decides to ransom your account then you lose your followers.
One article on the subject may be interesting and/or thought-provoking even if a little bit tangential for this site. Repeated articles? Tedious. Obsessive. Unnecessary. It’s hard to see any other purpose for this out-of-place stuck record show than inverse virtue signalling clickbait for those who get their jollies extolling their antiwoke credentials while feigning concern for women’s rights. Do me a favour.
The running commentary on the cricket that occasionally litters the comments threads gets on my tits as well.
Yet its open tolerance of homosexuality was "proof" it was inferior and needed civilising.
Funny old things shibboleths.
500 years ago a theoretical poll of all the people in the world would have shown the vast majority believed the sun moved around us. Science proved them wrong.
The “wisdom of crowds” argument has some arguable validity in social science, and is particularly interesting in political polling, where the population are participants in establishing a truth (a numerical election outcome).
It has no value in establishing the truth of the origins of Covid. For that, you need to ask scientists. And they pretty much all say, with a fair amount of confidence, that Covid was Zoonotic in origin.
Leave chief warned he “was not ruling anything out” after a “senior Government figure” told the Press of secret Swiss plan:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20489299/nigel-farage-return-politics-crush-tory-plot-reverse-brexit/
Furious Tory MPs pointing finger at Jeremy Hunt for pushing the move toward the new closer relationship that would mean a return to EU judges, contributions to the EU budget and closer alignment on rules.
Sunak was forced to scotch the toxic claim
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20489299/nigel-farage-return-politics-crush-tory-plot-reverse-brexit/
💥 IDS hit out at attempts to “reopen a settled debate” adds: “The Chancellor needs to himself slap this story down, this should never have got going and if he meant it or not, he needs to make it clear this is not what the government is about.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20489299/nigel-farage-return-politics-crush-tory-plot-reverse-brexit/
Headline in mail today on Goldman Sachs
"Dont you know how Wall Street rolls sister. Sex gets you further than any degree"
Yet Goldman Sachs will at the same time push woke platitudes in its policy documents and likely sponsor and push woke causes.
It’s almost certainly NOT a deliberate release of a bio weapon
Indeed - as the memoirs of Jeremy Farrar say, quite plainly (he's the Head of the Wellcome Institute) - a lab leak was the presumed cause when he gathered with Antony Fauci (et al) and the top US-UK-Netherlands boffins for the first meetings on How to Respond to Coronavirus in late January 2020. Their best guess was: lab leak
A few days later a weird new consensus emerged. No it can't possibly be a lab, that's racist. This was reinforced a few days further on by the fraudulent group letter to the Lancet, organised by Peter Daszak. In which we were all told that Lab Leak was a Trumpite conspiracy theory to be dismissed (and this letter led to Facebook and Twitter prohibiting discussion of the hypothesis for a YEAR). Peter Daszak did not, in this letter, reveal that he organised the letter, and wrote it
Nor did he reveal at any point that he is the co-chief of the Wuhan Institute of Viorology, where he conducted gain of function research into bat coronaviruses, funded by Antony Fauci. Indeed he claimed he had "no conflict of interest"
100% there was a cover up. 97.3% it was a lab leak