Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
a) on the blockquote management in your response to @Casino_Royale; and b) using "uteri" in any kind of post.
As to the substance of your post. To explain woke is very easy, just substitute "political correctness gone mad" whenever anyone uses it and all becomes clear.
I'm afraid that's just a sign of limited thinking.
There's an interview with me on Farming Today on the Government U-turn on live animal exports (leads the programme and then the full clip is at 9 mins 22): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m4xk
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it? The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act. To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
There seems to be a strong (but not universal) correlation between the people who fought for Brexit and those who are now screeching about the opaque evils of 'woke'.
It's almost as though having hurt Britain once, they're coming back for another try.
It has long been my view that 'woke' can be evaluated as a response to Brexit, a form of cultural revenge. It is the one element of 'woke' that is quite positive, the total ruin and obsolescence of the racist element who thought they had got their country back in 2016.
On balance though I would rather that neither Brexit nor 'woke' had ever happened.
For me, the issue with 'woke' is that is undefined, and indefinable. A vehement anti-wokeist such as @Leon or @Casino_Royale probably has a very different definition to, say, Ron DeSantis, who wants to ban just about everything that has happened since the 1950s. Yet by them all being 'anti-woke', they're bedfellows.
Society has made massive progress in the last fifty years - or even the last thirty. Look at the way gay marriage went from being unthinkable to accepted and uncontroversial in many countries around the world in just a few years - even Ireland.
I'd argue that wokeism is not a response to Brexit, as it is an extension of societal trends and awareness that have been occurring for decades. And anti-wokeism is a reaction from people who don't like such change.
But if we take its simplest definition: "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", then I'd argue I'm woke. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything people who are 'woke' say, or that I don't extend it myself: for instance I'd argue that the 'racial' word is unnecessary, and it should be "alert to *all* prejudice and discrimination".
"Woke" is classifying everyone by identity group, the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual; it is a form of cultural marxism and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away, a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time, rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
That's a definition, but not one fellow anti-wokeist De-Santis would agree with. One that bans books and removes rights. That's where 'anti-woke' leads, and will lead.
I disagree with the "It leads to stupidity like ..." It doesn't. You've jsut picked a list of things you don't like and blamed it on 'woke'.
HYUFD has just claimed DeSantis is the "anti-woke candidate"
But in essence woke is no more than " a list of things you don't like". It is a wholly confected construct.
Gun control is woke, school shooters are not.
Black lives matter is woke, vigilante executions of unarmed black teenagers is not.
LGBT plus is woke, a redneck impregnating his daughter is not.
Pulling down Confederate statues is woke, banning liberal literature in Florida schools is not.
What does it all.mean? Who are the woke blob? It is all nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It's highly controversial and deeply polarising. Despite being endlessly asked what Woke is and why it's a problem whenever a response is given it's almost always then followed up with a dismissal, a straw man about the 1950s, a bit of ad-hominem, or a repetition of exactly the same question as if it was never answered.
This isn't particularly impressive. There are those on the Left who are capable of expressing interesting and nuanced views on this, @LostPassword and @gardenwalker being two examples, and even Jonathan and Southam do so, but that's clearly not true of everyone.
More's the pity.
Well you haven't made an attempt to counter my point other than to imply I am an ill-educated and thick poster. Facts which I agree are beyond question. But please, have a go, humour me.
Oh and a reminder, you haven't given me an off topic or a flag for a while, shape up!
I have no desire to waste my time with posters who are incapable of intelligent discussion or thought. Why would I? It's like spending all day on the doorstep with JW.
I'm not interested enough to flag or off topic your posts unless you say something libellous or personally insulting, and there isn't a button for boring.
Occasionally you can be interesting. When you are again you can be sure I'll pick up.
If you read you posts this morning, you do come across as telling people in what manner they're allowed to converse with you, and setting yourself up as an arbiter of their value, and values. All of which is fair enough - except that it's also what you complain of in your interlocutors.
Not really. My name was mentioned. I responded back with my argument. I think got ad-hominem back. I then responded saying I had no desire to waste my time on this. You have simply focused on the very last point and ignored all the bits before.
I am very happy to engage with posters who make sensible points and discuss without resorting to this, and there are many on the Left.
Can I be contemptuous of herd behaviour and thinking?
Undoubtedly, this is probably where my responses can further escalate it - so ignoring them is probably better.
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
a) on the blockquote management in your response to @Casino_Royale; and b) using "uteri" in any kind of post.
As to the substance of your post. To explain woke is very easy, just substitute "political correctness gone mad" whenever anyone uses it and all becomes clear.
I'm afraid that's just a sign of limited thinking.
Mate, I hear you, but you are having a bit of a "red cords" moment.
You are upset about a perception that is mostly, with certain carve outs which funnily enough you don't mention and which concern eg womens' safe spaces, entirely in your own mind.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Ronald Reagan explained it with customary clarity. "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours and a recovery, " he said pointing at Jimmy Carter, "is when he loses his."
I knew this would be mentioned.
But it's the key point. No one cares about GDP. They care about having a job and they care about inflation.
I'd add they also care about having a home, a pay rise and interest on their savings.
Everyone should look at this chart from @jburnmurdoch before making US/UK comparisons on culture wars. We are less divided and more socially liberal - advances in gender equality, gay rights, tackling racism are seen as sources of pride right across the spectrum in the UK. https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1662008567312818176
The first question on the chart is the most telling, being the least politically loaded.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it? The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act. To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
Yes, it's very difficult to engage sensibly with a poster who starts from the basic premise that anyone who voted for Brexit was a secret racist. You are simply on the exact opposite side of this debate to me, which is why this will go precisely nowhere.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
There's an interview with me on Farming Today on the Government U-turn on live animal exports (leads the programme and then the full clip is at 9 mins 22): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m4xk
Nice programme. Were you on before or after King Charles who also seemed to be commenting on it.
What do you think is the real reason behind it - as you acknowledge (at the moment) live animal exports are tiny.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Ronald Reagan explained it with customary clarity. "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours and a recovery, " he said pointing at Jimmy Carter, "is when he loses his."
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary and Labour MP for Manchester Central, which includes Moss Side, supports the application, and has criticised the “gang narrative” as “racially discriminatory”.
I'm reminded of that Alan Partridge line about Cockney: "Cockney is an area of London where criminals live. The police don't arrest them because, and they're very strict about this, 'they only slaughter their own.'"
If we're not careful, that's where we'll end up with this stuff.
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it? The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act. To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
Yes, it's very difficult to engage sensibly with a poster who starts from the basic premise that anyone who voted for Brexit was a secret racist. You are simply on the exact opposite side of this debate to me, which is why this will go precisely nowhere.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my day.
Hope you enjoy yours.
You misunderstood. I was using the "Brexit is racist" as an example we both agree is wrong to show you the form of your argument is wrong. How, using the logic you appear to be using, you can derive horrible conclusions about anyone and anything.
But it's interesting that you became upset by it, because that's what your arguments do to those who earnestly believe their ideas about woke are a good thing. This is an ample demonstration of why you should engage with ideologies how you find them rather than how those who demonise them paint them.
In some parallel universe I can see Rishi Sunak being quite a good PM, say he was PM instead of Tony Blair I can see him being quite popular.
The issue is that he keeps demonstrating that he is not able or not willing to combat the worst parts of his party that want to destroy the country that I love and that unintentionally or not, he comes across as rather out of touch which is just reinforced by how much money he has.
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it? The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act. To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
Yes, it's very difficult to engage sensibly with a poster who starts from the basic premise that anyone who voted for Brexit was a secret racist...
Just as it is to engage with someone who start from the basic premise that 'woke' is 'cultural Marxism'. Which was the point Farooq was attempting to illustrate.
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
Not really. Thousands of people read this site and hundreds post here - and the contemporary regulars being strongly skewed to the left/centre-left, with a few liberals on top. Those who liked it were entirely self-selecting and those who agreed with Farooq already. Precisely who I'd expect. And quite frankly it was a pretty dire post - the likes were more defensive than anything else.
It's like being impressed that a town has 8 LD board up on its high street and none for the Conservatives. It tells you a bit about passion, and where the social proof is at - not much about the argument and where the votes will actually land.
You can be sure I will continue to make my points regardless of this and of how many likes the counter-argument gets.
There's an interview with me on Farming Today on the Government U-turn on live animal exports (leads the programme and then the full clip is at 9 mins 22): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m4xk
Nice programme. Were you on before or after King Charles who also seemed to be commenting on it.
What do you think is the real reason behind it - as you acknowledge (at the moment) live animal exports are tiny.
So what was the "scope creep"?
The real reasons are (1) it was a Johnson/Eustice/Goldsmith thing and the current regime doesn't care either way and (2) they were worried about Tory rebels attaching amendments on unrelated subjects like non-stun slaughter and hunting. They have the numbers to defeat the rebels but didn't want the hassle. The proposed replacement is Bills in the next session which would be narrowly drawn to avoid amendment, but which may run out of time because of the election potentially interrupting the session.
I didn't hear Charles! - but assume his thoughts are on a slightly wider scale
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
The difference between then and now is that Major & Lamont weren't billionaires/millionaires.
The optics of wealthy men like Hunt and Sunak happy for struggling families to get an even worse financial position will not play well.
Edit - Add in Green Card Rishi and his non dom wife....
What hurts families more: recession or inflation?
Both but depends on which lasts the longest.
I asked these questions on PB last night, is it better to recession to kill inflation, or go for growth and keep inflation burning.
I think The Kitchen Cabinet may have called me a Labour spinner for merely suggesting recession to kill inflation might be better of two options, very much with a “don’t know what your talking about or how it works, and need to be taught these basics.”
the current Tory chancellor has gone further than I suggested.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt comfortable with recession if it brings down inflation Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has pledged to support the Bank of England’s decisions on interest rates, even if rising mortgage costs push the UK into a recession. Hunt told Sky News there could be no trade-off between cutting inflation and the risk of provoking a recession, arguing that the “only path to sustainable growth” is to bring down the high prices behind the cost-of-living crisis - “because in the end, inflation is a source of instability.”
So the current Tory chancellor is a Labour spinner too, and doesn’t know the basics?
That’s Kitchen Cabinet dealt with - now for brunch. 🥓
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
F*** off Bellend, WTF have I got to do with Fcuknuggets arguing over whose handbag is the best. @eek
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
It is easy to lose sight of a significant question. Which is this: Is a person fundamentally one with a democracy mindset, or are they an authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist.
De Santis has views and does things which I think are profoundly wrong. But that is not the most important point. In a democracy voters are entitled to want and support things that others don't. (Liberals got affronted en masse when the SCOTUS returned the abortion matter back to the voter and the democratic process. They should not have done so but should have realised that voters in huge numbers are moderates.)
It is clear that Trump as well as having absurd views is also a person of fascist mentality. Like Putin. It is this rather than the views (which is for voters to decide) which is the danger.
Is there evidence for or against De Santis being of the fascist type mindset, or is he, like some others, merely a populist loudmouth who knows that it is perfectly proper to win and to lose elections without calling for insurrections?
No. If anyone "died" it was by misadventure. But I think there's still scope for constructive conversation here. I've stayed polite this time.
I think you’ve done very well to stay restrained, the particular poster loves to throw their weight around.
All the things they accuse other posters of they do themselves.
Bad sense of humour - check Sucking up to other posters - check Personal attacks - check Random posts like a Labrador needing attention - check Inability to discuss things with certain posters who disagree with their world view - check
I am going to get a predictable response to this post. But I’m off for a run. See you.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things. The whole point here is that the merits of the individual are lost in the intersectionality hierarchy of what gender, race, and sexuality they have. In far too many instances that has become the main prism through which individuals are assessed now ans it polarises society between those groups, rather than uniting them, and that's the problem.
It's a matter of fact that Putin, Xi and Iran use cyber attacks and money to try and split and divide Western societies and fund both sides of this debate- their objective is discord - and this is well captured by the security services.
It's perfectly possible - in fact I think it's true - that we haven't seen just how different black people's experiences, in particular, are until very recently and change there is a good thing. It's perfectly possible to have an inclusive society that treats people without racial discrimination that's also patriotic, builds people into its heritage, treats them as individuals and is colour-blind and fair.
However, I don't see Woke (for definition see above) as the methods to do this and the problem is you confuse the goal - possibly deliberately - and conflate it with the method.
I don't expect a constructive response here because I don't think you're particularly interested in one - what you want is to be seen to dismiss the concern as illegitimate and shut down the line of argument - but you'd do well to reflect on it since liberal overreach is contributing to the polarisation here and if you are entirely unable to check yourself then that isn't going to go away.
What it's proponents argue it's for and what it actually is are two entirely separate things.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it? The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act. To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
Yes, it's very difficult to engage sensibly with a poster who starts from the basic premise that anyone who voted for Brexit was a secret racist. You are simply on the exact opposite side of this debate to me, which is why this will go precisely nowhere.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my day.
Hope you enjoy yours.
You misunderstood. I was using the "Brexit is racist" as an example we both agree is wrong to show you the form of your argument is wrong. How, using the logic you appear to be using, you can derive horrible conclusions about anyone and anything.
But it's interesting that you became upset by it, because that's what your arguments do to those who earnestly believe their ideas about woke are a good thing. This is an ample demonstration of why you should engage with ideologies how you find them rather than how those who demonise them paint them.
You keep saying I'm upset, angry or similar - this is simply projection because it's precisely how you are yourself.
I have acknowledged the motives behind some of those who want a better and more inclusive society in my posts.
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Vanilla screwed that up. I will return to these points another time. It's a nuanced one to make and your thoughts deserve a considered response.
There's an interview with me on Farming Today on the Government U-turn on live animal exports (leads the programme and then the full clip is at 9 mins 22): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m4xk
Nice programme. Were you on before or after King Charles who also seemed to be commenting on it.
What do you think is the real reason behind it - as you acknowledge (at the moment) live animal exports are tiny.
So what was the "scope creep"?
The real reasons are (1) it was a Johnson/Eustice/Goldsmith thing and the current regime doesn't care either way and (2) they were worried about Tory rebels attaching amendments on unrelated subjects like non-stun slaughter and hunting. They have the numbers to defeat the rebels but didn't want the hassle. The proposed replacement is Bills in the next session which would be narrowly drawn to avoid amendment, but which may run out of time because of the election potentially interrupting the session.
I didn't hear Charles! - but assume his thoughts are on a slightly wider scale
Charles wasn't on the programme Nick, but someone (SOMEONE) who was on sounded an awfully lot like him...
But let me get this straight - they were worried that Tory rebels would attach an amendment that said what exactly on, say, hunting? That it should be legalised or that eg trail hunting should be banned completely?
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
F*** off Bellend, WTF have I got to do with Fcuknuggets arguing over whose handbag is the best. @eek
Brilliant. One of those examples where I am going to like both posters
Everyone should look at this chart from @jburnmurdoch before making US/UK comparisons on culture wars. We are less divided and more socially liberal - advances in gender equality, gay rights, tackling racism are seen as sources of pride right across the spectrum in the UK. https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1662008567312818176
The first question on the chart is the most telling, being the least politically loaded.
Yep. The Republicans would be utterly unelectable here, some kind of fringe party like UKIP, Reform/Reclaim.
And Cameron era Tories would be seen as dangerously woke by many in the US (but embraced by many Dem voters)
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
F*** off Bellend, WTF have I got to do with Fcuknuggets arguing over whose handbag is the best. @eek
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
It is easy to lose sight of a significant question. Which is this: Is a person fundamentally one with a democracy mindset, or are they an authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist.
De Santis has views and does things which I think are profoundly wrong. But that is not the most important point. In a democracy voters are entitled to want and support things that others don't. (Liberals got affronted en masse when the SCOTUS returned the abortion matter back to the voter and the democratic process. They should not have done so but should have realised that voters in huge numbers are moderates.)
It is clear that Trump as well as having absurd views is also a person of fascist mentality. Like Putin. It is this rather than the views (which is for voters to decide) which is the danger.
Is there evidence for or against De Santis being of the fascist type mindset, or is he, like some others, merely a populist loudmouth who knows that it is perfectly proper to win and to lose elections without calling for insurrections?
Robert Smithson's prediction that, ultimately, about a dozen States will finish up with serious restrictions on abortion, following the repeal of Roe v Wade, is probably correct.
I think that Trump does have a fascist mindset, and would end democracy if he could.
I raise the issue of history, because it is enormously important to understand that the world does not divide neatly into oppressor and victim groups, and that historical figures and groups that you try to enlist as being on your side, might well have done some very deplorable things.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
You and @Mexicanpete are trying to turn a positive into a negative, and for political reasons. If UK consumer spending is holding up unexpectedly, that is a positive, not a negative - it shows that consumers believe, all other things being equal, that their personal situation remains positive. If consumers reduce their spending - as in Germany - it shows they are more pessimistic.
I know you both have political reasons for pushing your view but your arguments simply do not make sense.
Oh I relish this argument with you. Prepare to be blasted out the pond. Have you never heard of Lady Thatchers great success beating inflation and how she did it? You have, because I just explained it to you.
I am not politically spinning at all, I actually called it “a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?”
For political support, if it’s a party political question in your head, tomorrows Daily Telegraph is up now to support me, what actually happens if the markets fear we have lost control of inflation, fear it’s getting set in and self perpetuating like what destroyed us in the 70s?
So you are on the side of rejoicing that, without growth to speak off we avoided a technical recession, despite we don’t have hideous inflation, food inflation under control? That this is a moment to rejoice? That’s how you answer the question I set?
Happy to have the argument with you. A few things:
- The Telegraph is not the omnipotent bearer of truth - it gets things wrong. - The issue with inflation is not inflation in general but core inflation i.e. food prices primarily. Some of that is a lag effect (i.e. crops were planted in 2023 using fertilizer bought in 2022 at massively inflated prices) but a good amount of it is CPG companies thinking of locking in price rises now while the consumer will accept it - it is a permanent margin uplift effect for them if these prices stick. - Thatcher and inflation was an entirely different thing, namely a wage-price inflation spiral, with unions being the main cause. This time round, real wage inflation (i.e. adjusted for inflation) is below headline inflation. - The current inflation issue is not being caused by QE etc solely. QE may be part of this but much has to do with extraneous factors which raising interest rates won't solve - e.g. commodities coming from Russia, lingering adjustments to supply chains etc/
I’m glad you are back, because I’m not nearly finished with you yet.
You can rubbish the Telegraph article as much as you like, truth is it’s based on reporting facts from today that exist today, and remain in play regardless how much you deny or seek to avoid they are very much part of the bigger picture here. See attached, and compare with what I posted you thought was actually lefty talking UK down simply because we have Tory government. A recession would not have been ideal, though impact lessoned by unemployment is still very low and impact would it have had on monetary tightening being used to reign in inflation, help or hinder? Food prices are not part of the core inflation rate, like energy costs being too volatile, they are removed to produce core inflation measure. I wouldn’t agree with you the inflation Lady Thatcher fought and beat is all that different than what we fight today. And my reference to QE is of more relevance to the huge bonfire of tinder waiting for the spark of chaos to set it alight - not cause of continued high inflation, but fuel on any market crash from greedy hedging.
So questions to you, you believe what sent inflation up, energy costs and you talk crops and fertiliser, so you expect inflation to calmly come down as energy and fertiliser costs come back to normal? You don’t see inflation staying high for other reasons? I’ll give you some clues, if input prices are at 4% inflation, why would output prices be at 5.5% inflation or higher?
Ok. Let's start with a few basics.
- First of all, food prices are very much part of core inflation, contrary to your statement that they are not. This is why there is interest rate pressure because, while headline inflation is coming down, core inflation (which includes food prices) is remaining sticky. Hence why Joe Biden has focused on 'greedflation' from CPG companies.
- Second, the proper question to ask here is why L&G suddenly decides after one month's data that the UK is facing such a huge crisis. Now, having worked in the City for over 20 years and having dealt with plenty of fund managers, the argument would be the typical UK PM attitude i.e. short-term focus and a tendency to over-react. The fact that L&G is panicking is probably one of the greatest reassurances for me this is overdone.
- Yes, Thatcher's crusade was different from today. To reiterate, in the 1970s, the UK was facing a wage-price spiral effect, fuelled by the OPEC price rises, which had more impact in an (then) economy more dependent on oil. This is not the same issue.
Happy to have this debate with you tomorrow morning as it is midnight now but your comments are simply wrong.
Core inflation excludes food and energy (as purchased directly by the consumer). It only includes food and energy indirectly to the extent they are inputs in the prices of other goods and services.
Actually, I think Kitchen Cabinet is correct in supporting Pres Biden on how greed inflation is playing into the current inflation.
I agree “ Core inflation excludes food and energy (as purchased directly by the consumer)” but Kitchen Cabinet is referring to the Greedinflation of “but a good amount of it is CPG companies thinking of locking in price rises now while the consumer will accept it - it is a permanent margin uplift effect for them if these prices stick.”
I totally agree racketeering under the cover of crisis is worth mentioning in how it is playing into the inflation rate. We wouldn’t want that to go under the radar would we? The four global giant agribusiness corporations that dominate crucial crops such as grains – ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, saw profits shoot up 255% in 2021, is the raw fact. Kitchen Cabinet is quite clearly saying both that they think Greedinflation is part of that 255%, and this racketeering is in part fuelling inflation.
My views on this ("woke issues") are all over the place and muddled - because they are often complex issues with muddy boundaries between respective rights, and differing views of history and society.
Therefore I'm all for Black History Month, but against mobs pulling down statues. I'm for Mary Seacole being taught in schools, but against Florence Nightingale being downgraded. I think the concept of 'privilege' is sound on a personal basis, but crummy when applied societally. I think we - as a nation - made hideous mistakes historically, but also that we have given a lot to the world. And I also believe in personal responsibility.
As I said, muddy. There's enough in there for everyone to dislike.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
@Pagan2 Sometimes you shouldn't disregard the topic because it might be relevant!!!
I think you need to read what Casino said.
He said others would not be impressed by the post. Lots of people liked the post therefore others were impressed. Therefore he is wrong. QED.
Of course under any other circumstances you would be completely correct and thank you for the kind comment about the standard of my posts
Might catch some of the T20 Blast if I have time. But I am looking forward to the Eng vs Ireland test next week. Last time was a strange affair in 2019. Ireland started strongly, put England under a lot of pressure then crumbled in dramatic fashion. Jack Leach scored a stack runs - his only other significant knock that summer being 1* with Ben Stokes at Headingly.
The political correctness comment is astute. This has become coercion masquerading as politeness, and became social justice and, more recently, woke. It's about policing the speech of others and trying to ensure conformity not via debate but by emotional language (-phobes and -ists being commonplace).
As for culture wars, we see this exemplified by the ill-fated attempt at American cultural imperialism that was Netflix's Cleopatra 'documentary', a programme so politically motivated and historically inaccurate (specifically, a Macedonian dynasty being black) it makes Braveheart look good.
And, though less irksome (it's still wrong), the attempt to rename the Christian calendar and remove Christ from it with the nonsense that is Common Era.
How does this tie into Mr. Royale's previous statements? Because it's all identity politics as a pissing contest. Black women get double points, whites are at the bottom, hence the attempt to erase Cleopatra's historical identity and bastardise history. Or this, in which a man's whiteness is deemed to affect what he can and cannot have published: https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1661372488507375631
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
@Pagan2 Sometimes you shouldn't disregard the topic because it might be relevant!!!
I think you need to read what Casino said.
He said others would not be impressed by the post. Lots of people liked the post therefore others were impressed. Therefore he is wrong. QED.
No because the only thing I addressed was the idea that someone getting more likes equalled being more correct. It is patently untrue and an idea that I would hope that all sides would dismiss. I would prefer in fact they took the like button away it is a measure of absolutely nothing.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
@Pagan2 Sometimes you shouldn't disregard the topic because it might be relevant!!!
I think you need to read what Casino said.
He said others would not be impressed by the post. Lots of people liked the post therefore others were impressed. Therefore he is wrong. QED.
No because the only thing I addressed was the idea that someone getting more likes equalled being more correct. It is patently untrue and an idea that I would hope that all sides would dismiss. I would prefer in fact they took the like button away it is a measure of absolutely nothing.
But no one has made the argument that you are arguing against!
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
@Pagan2 Sometimes you shouldn't disregard the topic because it might be relevant!!!
I think you need to read what Casino said.
He said others would not be impressed by the post. Lots of people liked the post therefore others were impressed. Therefore he is wrong. QED.
Of course under any other circumstances you would be completely correct and thank you for the kind comment about the standard of my posts
The population of others is wider than those who like the post. A typical pb thread gets between 10k-30k views (probably 10% of that below the line) so you are inferring that 6 out of 1-3k is representative.
It is not representative. Plenty of people simply can't be arsed with the subject or the hassle for very obvious reasons.
Your post is telling because you want me to be wrong and to close down the discussion - hence the QED. That suggests a certain level of discomfort about having the discussion at all, and that will be because you fear there is actually something in it.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Poppy fascism only really exists on TV (I'd argue mainly the BBC, but thats what I watch more of). I suspect if you appear on the BBC in any context between about 25th Oct and 11th Nov you are 'forced' to wear a poppy.
But no-one has ever made me wear one in normal life.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
Shops above a certain size are shut by law on Easter Sunday (and limited hours on other Sundays). Christmas is different..
My views on this ("woke issues") are all over the place and muddled - because they are often complex issues with muddy boundaries between respective rights, and differing views of history and society.
Therefore I'm all for Black History Month, but against mobs pulling down statues. I'm for Mary Seacole being taught in schools, but against Florence Nightingale being downgraded. I think the concept of 'privilege' is sound on a personal basis, but crummy when applied societally. I think we - as a nation - made hideous mistakes historically, but also that we have given a lot to the world. And I also believe in personal responsibility.
As I said, muddy. There's enough in there for everyone to dislike.
You woke/racist/white supremacist/transgender militant/transphobic TERF/commie/right-winger you
I was quite enjoying this woke not woke stuff. I haven't quite got my head round it yet......
I went to the Cannes film festival on Wednesday and three girls were doing a synchronised walk down the Croisette topless. (It's tricky grabbing attention)
The question is what would the correct woke response be?
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
"Being aware" is just a normal part of existing as a person. It doesn't require any special theory or theories. People who use the phrase imply there are people out there who aren't aware of things.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
Small shops not affected by Sunday Trading regulations are allowed to open, large shops like supermarkets affected by Sunday trading regulations are shut by law on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
F*** off Bellend, WTF have I got to do with Fcuknuggets arguing over whose handbag is the best. @eek
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is evidence that a certain group of people currently on the site and reading the post are willing to go public with what they're impressed by because they want to back their side.
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
On a pedantic note, most larger shops are still required to close on Easter Day, much to the surprise of irreligious punters. As Easter can fall on any day between 22nd March and 25th April those who fail to study the complex rules (sun, moon, Passover, solstice all come into it) for fixing it will have to guess. Or buy a copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which tells you the answers to this and much else.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
First they celebrated Easter, and I did not object, though I was not Chrisitian Then they observered Ramada and celebrated Eid, and I did not obejct, though I was not Muslim Then they celebrated Yom Kippur, and I did not object, though I was not Jewish Then they got pissed on St Patrick's Day, and I did not object, though I was not Irish Then they celebrated British Pie week, and I did not object, though I do not care for pies Then they took the knee, and by the time I'd finished my rant, there was no one left who could be bothered to listen to me
The political correctness comment is astute. This has become coercion masquerading as politeness, and became social justice and, more recently, woke. It's about policing the speech of others and trying to ensure conformity not via debate but by emotional language (-phobes and -ists being commonplace).
As for culture wars, we see this exemplified by the ill-fated attempt at American cultural imperialism that was Netflix's Cleopatra 'documentary', a programme so politically motivated and historically inaccurate (specifically, a Macedonian dynasty being black) it makes Braveheart look good.
And, though less irksome (it's still wrong), the attempt to rename the Christian calendar and remove Christ from it with the nonsense that is Common Era.
How does this tie into Mr. Royale's previous statements? Because it's all identity politics as a pissing contest. Black women get double points, whites are at the bottom, hence the attempt to erase Cleopatra's historical identity and bastardise history. Or this, in which a man's whiteness is deemed to affect what he can and cannot have published: https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1661372488507375631
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
"Being aware" is just a normal part of existing as a person. It doesn't require any special theory or theories. People who use the phrase imply there are people out there who aren't aware of things.
But of course many people aren't aware of many things.
All the cricket chat in the last few days was well over my head. I'm aware of cricket but not much more than that. All the stuff about the league and international matches was new information for me and I don't think much of it stuck despite me reading it.
Awareness is a strange thing to fixate on here. You know if you stop to think about it that there are continuums of knowledge and ignorance on any issue. We all know this.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
You and @Mexicanpete are trying to turn a positive into a negative, and for political reasons. If UK consumer spending is holding up unexpectedly, that is a positive, not a negative - it shows that consumers believe, all other things being equal, that their personal situation remains positive. If consumers reduce their spending - as in Germany - it shows they are more pessimistic.
I know you both have political reasons for pushing your view but your arguments simply do not make sense.
Oh I relish this argument with you. Prepare to be blasted out the pond. Have you never heard of Lady Thatchers great success beating inflation and how she did it? You have, because I just explained it to you.
I am not politically spinning at all, I actually called it “a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?”
For political support, if it’s a party political question in your head, tomorrows Daily Telegraph is up now to support me, what actually happens if the markets fear we have lost control of inflation, fear it’s getting set in and self perpetuating like what destroyed us in the 70s?
So you are on the side of rejoicing that, without growth to speak off we avoided a technical recession, despite we don’t have hideous inflation, food inflation under control? That this is a moment to rejoice? That’s how you answer the question I set?
Happy to have the argument with you. A few things:
- The Telegraph is not the omnipotent bearer of truth - it gets things wrong. - The issue with inflation is not inflation in general but core inflation i.e. food prices primarily. Some of that is a lag effect (i.e. crops were planted in 2023 using fertilizer bought in 2022 at massively inflated prices) but a good amount of it is CPG companies thinking of locking in price rises now while the consumer will accept it - it is a permanent margin uplift effect for them if these prices stick. - Thatcher and inflation was an entirely different thing, namely a wage-price inflation spiral, with unions being the main cause. This time round, real wage inflation (i.e. adjusted for inflation) is below headline inflation. - The current inflation issue is not being caused by QE etc solely. QE may be part of this but much has to do with extraneous factors which raising interest rates won't solve - e.g. commodities coming from Russia, lingering adjustments to supply chains etc/
I’m glad you are back, because I’m not nearly finished with you yet.
You can rubbish the Telegraph article as much as you like, truth is it’s based on reporting facts from today that exist today, and remain in play regardless how much you deny or seek to avoid they are very much part of the bigger picture here. See attached, and compare with what I posted you thought was actually lefty talking UK down simply because we have Tory government. A recession would not have been ideal, though impact lessoned by unemployment is still very low and impact would it have had on monetary tightening being used to reign in inflation, help or hinder? Food prices are not part of the core inflation rate, like energy costs being too volatile, they are removed to produce core inflation measure. I wouldn’t agree with you the inflation Lady Thatcher fought and beat is all that different than what we fight today. And my reference to QE is of more relevance to the huge bonfire of tinder waiting for the spark of chaos to set it alight - not cause of continued high inflation, but fuel on any market crash from greedy hedging.
So questions to you, you believe what sent inflation up, energy costs and you talk crops and fertiliser, so you expect inflation to calmly come down as energy and fertiliser costs come back to normal? You don’t see inflation staying high for other reasons? I’ll give you some clues, if input prices are at 4% inflation, why would output prices be at 5.5% inflation or higher?
Ok. Let's start with a few basics.
- First of all, food prices are very much part of core inflation, contrary to your statement that they are not. This is why there is interest rate pressure because, while headline inflation is coming down, core inflation (which includes food prices) is remaining sticky. Hence why Joe Biden has focused on 'greedflation' from CPG companies.
- Second, the proper question to ask here is why L&G suddenly decides after one month's data that the UK is facing such a huge crisis. Now, having worked in the City for over 20 years and having dealt with plenty of fund managers, the argument would be the typical UK PM attitude i.e. short-term focus and a tendency to over-react. The fact that L&G is panicking is probably one of the greatest reassurances for me this is overdone.
- Yes, Thatcher's crusade was different from today. To reiterate, in the 1970s, the UK was facing a wage-price spiral effect, fuelled by the OPEC price rises, which had more impact in an (then) economy more dependent on oil. This is not the same issue.
Happy to have this debate with you tomorrow morning as it is midnight now but your comments are simply wrong.
Core inflation excludes food and energy (as purchased directly by the consumer). It only includes food and energy indirectly to the extent they are inputs in the prices of other goods and services.
Actually, I think Kitchen Cabinet is correct in supporting Pres Biden on how greed inflation is playing into the current inflation.
I agree “ Core inflation excludes food and energy (as purchased directly by the consumer)” but Kitchen Cabinet is referring to the Greedinflation of “but a good amount of it is CPG companies thinking of locking in price rises now while the consumer will accept it - it is a permanent margin uplift effect for them if these prices stick.”
I totally agree racketeering under the cover of crisis is worth mentioning in how it is playing into the inflation rate. We wouldn’t want that to go under the radar would we? The four global giant agribusiness corporations that dominate crucial crops such as grains – ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, saw profits shoot up 255% in 2021, is the raw fact. Kitchen Cabinet is quite clearly saying both that they think Greedinflation is part of that 255%, and this racketeering is in part fuelling inflation.
A shout out to Big G too, who actually kicked off this discussion last night with his post above, before slipping off to bed, job done.
With Jez Hunt comfortable with recession if it brings down inflation because in the end inflation is a source of instability - and Reeves and Labour just going for growth growth and growth - there is suddenly very clear blue water between the two main parties on the central economic questions and how to manage the cost of living crisis.
As Gove reminded us last week, it’s on these questions that most matter to voters where elections are won and lost. And I am pretty sure Labour have this wrong, are piling on the wrong horse.
Whilst I am thinking Reeves, Starmer and Labour have gone destructively Trussite, and on the wrong side of the clear blue water Hunt has now opened up on Labour today, there’s this stinging criticism of Reeves from a top economist.
Reeves started to mess up her trip from the moment she got on the plane - it’s looking like the whole misadventure might be a watershed moment for Starmer’s opposition, but not in the way Labour hoped.
I don’t think much of Reeve’s new hair style either. What is it with all these flipping fringes on the Labour front bench? That’s not in fashion!
My views on this ("woke issues") are all over the place and muddled - because they are often complex issues with muddy boundaries between respective rights, and differing views of history and society.
Therefore I'm all for Black History Month, but against mobs pulling down statues. I'm for Mary Seacole being taught in schools, but against Florence Nightingale being downgraded. I think the concept of 'privilege' is sound on a personal basis, but crummy when applied societally. I think we - as a nation - made hideous mistakes historically, but also that we have given a lot to the world. And I also believe in personal responsibility.
As I said, muddy. There's enough in there for everyone to dislike.
Agreed. Anybody running a political campaign based on being anti-Woke (DeSantis, Braverman), rather than with just nuanced criticism like yourself, look to be not only on the wrong side but also to be irrelevant to most people who want important things fixed. It is STILL the Economy, stupid.
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
On a pedantic note, most larger shops are still required to close on Easter Day, much to the surprise of irreligious punters. As Easter can fall on any day between 22nd March and 25th April those who fail to study the complex rules (sun, moon, Passover, solstice all come into it) for fixing it will have to guess. Or buy a copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which tells you the answers to this and much else.
Then the correct sentence would have been "some shops are required to shut on christmas day". Most shops however are allowed to open as there are more small than large and I doubt there are many everyday goods such as food and alcohol you cant purchase on those days....buying a new sofa yes maybe out of luck but thats what online is for
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is evidence that a certain group of people currently on the site and reading the post are willing to go public with what they're impressed by because they want to back their side.
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
Ah yes, the silent majority
I take your point though. Your comment can be read two ways - "no others will be" or "there will be others that are not". The second is no doubt true.
So, I retract my support for kjh and hang him out to dry. Sorry kjh, you're on your own now.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is evidence that a certain group of people currently on the site and reading the post are willing to go public with what they're impressed by because they want to back their side.
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
It is a debate where the best approach half the time is just to ignore it and wait for things to burn their natural death because you simply can't win as you rapidly get to the point that one (or both) sides misconstrue part of a comment and start attacking you on the basis of their misunderstanding.
And there are a number of woke battles where zero middle ground is possible because one side or other simply can't grasp that there are exceptions (usually people trying to profit in one way or another) that makes the application of their theory/desires impossible in reality
@Casino_Royale I'm not sure I should be posting after @Farooq effort and particularly as I have also been posting to the wrong thread so I am feeling rather inadequate, but here we go in response to your reply to me on the last thread:
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny). b) You complained about non sequitur. Where? c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you. d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups. e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
@Casino_Royale has a habit of attacking the player when he hasn't an answer to the questions being asked.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is evidence that a certain group of people currently on the site and reading the post are willing to go public with what they're impressed by because they want to back their side.
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
Ah yes, the silent majority
I take your point though. Your comment can be read two ways - "no others will be" or "there will be others that are not". The second is no doubt true.
So, I retract my support for kjh and hang him out to dry. Sorry kjh, you're on your own now.
Lol. I didn't phrase it clearly to be fair.
It is true I've had anger issues BTW, and I have treated some people on this site unfairly - sometimes I've come on here looking for a fight, due to stress - which I deeply regret. I'm aware there are real people at the other end of the keyboard and I shouldn't do it.
I am seeing someone about this and reconsidering my current career path. I'd just appeal not to provoke or press my bruises too hard as it makes it harder to control.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
The thought of people doing coke before commenting here is genuinely frightening.
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
The line at the end of Animal Farm about the pigs isn't just true for Communism. Many, many times people become what the allege to hat in their enemies
My @NewStatesman piece from yesterday on how Labour could nail the next election by becoming the party of immigration reduction, 'tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration'?"
Well we just went and did it. Social Justice gain from Labour in the Eastfield (Scarborough) by-election Tony Randerson 499 Lib Dem 281 Lab 169 Tory 69 Far-right 39 Green 19
It is true I've had anger issues BTW, and I have treated some people on this site unfairly - sometimes I've come on here looking for a fight, due to stress - which I deeply regret. I'm aware there are real people at the other end of the keyboard and I shouldn't do it.
I am seeing someone about this and reconsidering my current career path. I'd just appeal not to provoke or press my bruises too hard as it makes it harder to control.
I was sorry to read this post and I am sorry for the difficulties you are going through. It takes a great amount of courage to discuss these issues openly so I really commend you for doing that.
I will apologise for provoking you today if I did and at any other time, now I understand the situation I will do my very best to be aware of it as I hope you will also be for me.
I am sure you will come out the other side, stay well.
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
The line at the end of Animal Farm about the pigs isn't just true for Communism. Many, many times people become what the allege to hat in their enemies
As someone from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs I should be offended by woke, but I'm not. Yes I get irritated by the occasional nonsense, but that is how it has always been. In the old days we had political correctness and 'jobsworth', both of which got up my nose, but really this campaign against woke leads to nonsense like Florida.
I'm 68, but I want to see things move on. I have no desire to go back to the 50s which seems to be the desire of many anti woke campaigners. Just ignore any nonsense.
But if you want to be offended by woke there is an excellent web that will alert you to any woke occurrences so you don't miss out on being offended at all.
People try to claim its not a thing at all because some people overuse the term or its tricky to define. On that basis socialism doesn't exist either, or most other ideologies or cultural trends. But the Big Ron's of the world make things worse with their reactions.
Irritation and pushing back against blatant nonsense the public is on board with. Trying to whip up snowflakes (in both sides) into a frenzy just plays into it all. A simple ' that's really dumb, I'm not playing along' might have worked.
"Woke", or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", almost always involves intense intolerance of dissenting opinions, and a belief that free expression is dangerous. And a great deal of tendentious rewriting of history (eg the claim that racism didn't exist until Europeans invented it in the 18th century).
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
The line at the end of Animal Farm about the pigs isn't just true for Communism. Many, many times people become what the allege to hat in their enemies
There is almost always an element of ourselves in people we dislike or disagree with.
My @NewStatesman piece from yesterday on how Labour could nail the next election by becoming the party of immigration reduction, 'tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration'?"
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
On a pedantic note, most larger shops are still required to close on Easter Day, much to the surprise of irreligious punters. As Easter can fall on any day between 22nd March and 25th April those who fail to study the complex rules (sun, moon, Passover, solstice all come into it) for fixing it will have to guess. Or buy a copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which tells you the answers to this and much else.
Then the correct sentence would have been "some shops are required to shut on christmas day". Most shops however are allowed to open as there are more small than large and I doubt there are many everyday goods such as food and alcohol you cant purchase on those days....buying a new sofa yes maybe out of luck but thats what online is for
A sidenote on this; our culture is such that SFAICS it never occurs to anyone much that any shops might be open on Christmas Day, except for special exceptions things like motorway service stations; but the same mentality does not really apply to Easter for most people.
I can remember when all shops were shut on Good Friday, except for fish shops, and bakers for hot cross buns. No racing. No papers. And that was in London!
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
On a pedantic note, most larger shops are still required to close on Easter Day, much to the surprise of irreligious punters. As Easter can fall on any day between 22nd March and 25th April those who fail to study the complex rules (sun, moon, Passover, solstice all come into it) for fixing it will have to guess. Or buy a copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which tells you the answers to this and much else.
Then the correct sentence would have been "some shops are required to shut on christmas day". Most shops however are allowed to open as there are more small than large and I doubt there are many everyday goods such as food and alcohol you cant purchase on those days....buying a new sofa yes maybe out of luck but thats what online is for
A sidenote on this; our culture is such that SFAICS it never occurs to anyone much that any shops might be open on Christmas Day, except for special exceptions things like motorway service stations; but the same mentality does not really apply to Easter for most people.
I can remember when all shops were shut on Good Friday, except for fish shops, and bakers for hot cross buns. No racing. No papers. And that was in London!
You haven't experienced Easter shop closures until you've stayed in an Air BnB in the Black Forest that's run out of bog roll on Easter Sunday. The Germans are absolute masters at retail inactivity.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is evidence that a certain group of people currently on the site and reading the post are willing to go public with what they're impressed by because they want to back their side.
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
Ah yes, the silent majority
I take your point though. Your comment can be read two ways - "no others will be" or "there will be others that are not". The second is no doubt true.
So, I retract my support for kjh and hang him out to dry. Sorry kjh, you're on your own now.
Lol. I didn't phrase it clearly to be fair.
It is true I've had anger issues BTW, and I have treated some people on this site unfairly - sometimes I've come on here looking for a fight, due to stress - which I deeply regret. I'm aware there are real people at the other end of the keyboard and I shouldn't do it.
I am seeing someone about this and reconsidering my current career path. I'd just appeal not to provoke or press my bruises too hard as it makes it harder to control.
On that note, I don't mean any harm or looking for a fight if I mock you a little at times (as I have done a few posts ago).
I've had similar issues (mostly in the past) and the one thing I learned was to try to see the other person's point to view and to assume good intentions on their part. When I get angry, I have generally failed to do that. There are normally multiple reasonable views on any issue (those at the more extreme ends of the trans debate , on both sides, would do well to appreciate this, I think).
As for work, it's not really my place to comment, but a few years back I found I was working well over my notional hours, with a very young family (as I believe you also have). Careers can wait, to an extent, but your children are only young once. With our eldest now at school I'm really appreciating the pre-school years and glad that, a few months after he was born, I said sod it and reined in my hours. It's also had no perceptible impact on my career progression - I've become more productive for being less stressed and I mostly managed to cut out the pointless shit and get better at saying 'no' (I know ability to do that varies by role).
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
Small shops not affected by Sunday Trading regulations are allowed to open, large shops like supermarkets affected by Sunday trading regulations are shut by law on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.
And verily CHRIST said unto the people, thou shalt respect my birthday by not doing the bigshop (but nipping out for fags and six-pack, I doth approve).
It leads to stupidity like ... a rolling calendar of identity group celebrations that are both ubiquitous and facile at the same time
What's the problem with this?
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter. I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan. I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride. I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
It's the overreach Bart. Overreach is always a problem.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim.
What overreach?
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
Point of note plenty of shops open christmas day and easter so no shops are not shut by law as you claimed
On a pedantic note, most larger shops are still required to close on Easter Day, much to the surprise of irreligious punters. As Easter can fall on any day between 22nd March and 25th April those who fail to study the complex rules (sun, moon, Passover, solstice all come into it) for fixing it will have to guess. Or buy a copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which tells you the answers to this and much else.
Then the correct sentence would have been "some shops are required to shut on christmas day". Most shops however are allowed to open as there are more small than large and I doubt there are many everyday goods such as food and alcohol you cant purchase on those days....buying a new sofa yes maybe out of luck but thats what online is for
A sidenote on this; our culture is such that SFAICS it never occurs to anyone much that any shops might be open on Christmas Day, except for special exceptions things like motorway service stations; but the same mentality does not really apply to Easter for most people.
I can remember when all shops were shut on Good Friday, except for fish shops, and bakers for hot cross buns. No racing. No papers. And that was in London!
You haven't experienced Easter shop closures until you've stayed in an Air BnB in the Black Forest that's run out of bog roll on Easter Sunday. The Germans are absolute masters at retail inactivity.
That could just by your average Sunday / Saturday afternoon outside a large city.
There's an interview with me on Farming Today on the Government U-turn on live animal exports (leads the programme and then the full clip is at 9 mins 22): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m4xk
I am all in favour of treating farm animals - indeed, all animals - well. And kudos for Nick P for his work on this.
But I find it depressing that an issue likes this - or the Home Secretary's driving - gets more attention than the government's failure to accept IICSA's recommendations or implement many of them. The government is at least promising to implement single issue bills on the animals issue, though I am sceptical of such promises. They aren't even promising that much on the IICSA report. Children - particularly abused ones - are less important to our society, it seems, than speeding offences or animals.
Wrong straight off the bat. It's proponents describe it as being aware of social, especially racial, injustice. The habit and process of classifying people by identity group is much wider. You do it when it suits you, too.
the hierarchy of which is determined by intersectionality, and ceasing to treat them as an individual;
Wrong. Intersectionality is about understanding the interaction between different kinds of inequality. It starts from the assumption that addressing inequality is a good thing but that sometimes measures to do this can lead to harms against some peopleand that being aware of this helps mitigate it.
So you already know that the the term "cultural marxism" has a distinct anti-Semitic pedigree. It would probably be helpful to your own case for you to tell us what you mean by it so that people don't get the wrong idea about where you're coming from.
and is vindictive and censorious to anyone who disagrees with or challenges it. The standard form being, "so, you're a secret bigot then?" and thus raises the cost of opposition so high that people fold. Common sense is lost in the quest you seek, which is just to be fair to people. People stop thinking and start following.
Some of that goes on, yes. But guess what? People are vindictive and censorious across a wide range of ideologies. What you're doing here is taking a large group of people and ceasing to treat them as an individual. Which is, uhh, well, what you purport to be criticising
It leads to stupidity like all our statues being torn down, women having penises
The Gender Recognition Act, 2004 holds that people can change their legal gender without havign undergone surgery. So yes, there are women with penises and men with uteri. Perhaps it's not legal gender you're referring to? In which case, clarification is welcome.
, idiotic transgender laws in Scotland, museum collections being stripped away
I'm a little unclear what collections you mean and what you say has happened to them. Keep in mind your own definition ("classifying everyone by identity group") unless you want to recant on that definition.
rolling attacks on the institutions and histories of Western nations as being fundamentally criminal and racist, and it weakens and polarises our civic society and hugely emboldens our enemies at the same time.
Which enemies? Putin? Jihadis? To what extent do you think we should accommodate their views in our society?
That is "Woke", and that is why I oppose it. It's stupid.
Yes, the way you describe it, it is very stupid. But your description is hopelessly partial and perhaps a little incoherent on top.
Bravo. Brilliant.
But it isn't brilliant, is it?
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
I think you have to accept by the number of lines @Farooq and @TOPPING got that you are wrong and others were impressed by it.
What? Sorry while completely disregarding the topic as I can't even be bothered with it. You are seriously arguing that the number of likes people get makes them right and someone else wrong? What total and utter bollocks and so far beneath your normal standard. Just no stop....likes do not correspond to correctness that is just madness
No, but it is direct evidence against "You might be impressed by that. Others won't be." kjh said nothing about it indicating right or wrong.
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
The thought of people doing coke before commenting here is genuinely frightening.
In some cases, the thought of people commenting as they do without having done coke (or other substances) is more frightening!
They've all just about reached agreement. Somewhere between 14 and 18. If SKS showed a little more vision and stopped paying lip service to the worst extremes of Toryism I reckon it would be done and dusted. Blair in '97 eat your heart out.
Comments
What's happened here is that Farooq has got emotional and really wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of what I said but couldn't really work out how to do one - so he's simply started with the conclusion he doesn't like what I'm saying about the problem, carved up my post into chunks and then posted some very vague challenges and questions and Whataboutery under each segment.
You might be impressed by that. Others won't be because it has no substance to it.
How Can Ukraine Use the F-16? Retired USAF Generals and F-16 Pilots Explain.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-use-f-16-former-generals/
Judging people by characteristics is wrong. Its racist/sexist or whatever other -ist you want to use.
But if people who are part of a group want themselves to celebrate something, then what is wrong with that?
I am not religious, but I do not object to Christians celebrating Easter.
I am not religious, but I do not object to Muslims celebrating Ramadan.
I am not religious, but I do not object to Jews celebrating Yom Kippur
I am not LGBTQ, but I do not object to those who are celebrating Pride.
I am not Irish, but I do not object to those who are celebrating St Patricks Day.
The calendar has always been full of celebrations. Saints Days litter the calendar. If any group wants their own celebration they're free to have it and there is not a single thing wrong with that.
And if you want to join in you can, and if you don't you don't have to. I can leave presents under the tree at Christmas, put out an Easter egg trail at Easter, drink Guinness on Saint Patrick's Day and wear something with a rainbow on Pride. Or you can ignore it entirely if it doesn't mean anything to you, like I do with Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
So long as the choice is yours whether you engage or not, there is nothing wrong with that. Let anyone who wants to celebrate anything they want do so - its a free society.
The same might be said of what its opponents argue. The challenge to an opponent is not to say "but you don't really mean that, do you?" Anybody can do that with any ideology, and it annoys the hell out of you when people misconstrue the things you believe in. So why do it?
The challenge is to find (widespread) contradictions between what someone says and the way they act.
To take an example that'll be closer to home, you challenge the idea that Brexit is racist. I say yeah but racism is the secret motive no matter what you say your motives are, and I find an example of someone who is racist and pro-Brexit. Have I proved "my" point? No, obviously I haven't.
People like Putin try to divide Western societies: agreed. But you are quite a divisive and angry person. Should you modify your ways because Putin finds your behaviour helpful? Should we turn against equal rights for gay people just because that's anathema to the zealous Russian Conservatism? Should we avoid all difficult questions from now on?
I would like to repeat my challenge to you on "cultural marxism". You used that term to help define "woke" and I don't understand what you mean by it. Is it an important part of the definition you gave? If so, I think we could all use a little more clarity on what you mean.
I am very happy to engage with posters who make sensible points and discuss without resorting to this, and there are many on the Left.
Can I be contemptuous of herd behaviour and thinking?
Undoubtedly, this is probably where my responses can further escalate it - so ignoring them is probably better.
a) You complained of ad hominem. Why? I assume because I directed you to the anti woke alert texts. Not sure why you are offended by this as it is an excellent service for those offended by woke and was just a joke (well I thought it funny).
b) You complained about non sequitur. Where?
c) You complained about reference to the 50s. Note I said 'some' not 'all' which is clearly true and I don't think it is true of you.
d) Your reply also did not deal with the content, but started with 'It is clear to me...' and then comment about the person posting, not the content of their post. You do this a lot in making judgement about people, often without any knowledge of whether they accurate. We don't all fit into neat little groups.
e) Really an extension of d) but responses seem to rely on use of 'strawman, as hominem, non sequitur, etc rather than pointing out where something doesn't logically follow. It would help me because sometimes I have to look up what phrases or Latin words mean.
You are upset about a perception that is mostly, with certain carve outs which funnily enough you don't mention and which concern eg womens' safe spaces, entirely in your own mind.
Everyone should look at this chart from @jburnmurdoch before making US/UK comparisons on culture wars. We are less divided and more socially liberal - advances in gender equality, gay rights, tackling racism are seen as sources of pride right across the spectrum in the UK.
https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1662008567312818176
The first question on the chart is the most telling, being the least politically loaded.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my day.
Hope you enjoy yours.
Anyone watching any cricket over the weekend?
What do you think is the real reason behind it - as you acknowledge (at the moment) live animal exports are tiny.
So what was the "scope creep"?
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/ronald-reagan-quotes
Appropriate for our current world where many seem to oppose any business making any profit.
Indeed some people seem to think the only legitimate sources of income should be increases in property wealth and handouts from the government.
Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary and Labour MP for Manchester Central, which includes Moss Side, supports the application, and has criticised the “gang narrative” as “racially discriminatory”.
I'm reminded of that Alan Partridge line about Cockney: "Cockney is an area of London where criminals live. The police don't arrest them because, and they're very strict about this, 'they only slaughter their own.'"
If we're not careful, that's where we'll end up with this stuff.
However, someone like De Santis and his followers do exactly the same in reverse, with their desire to cancel schoolbooks, which they don't like and their equal determination to rewrite history (such as his claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery).
But it's interesting that you became upset by it, because that's what your arguments do to those who earnestly believe their ideas about woke are a good thing. This is an ample demonstration of why you should engage with ideologies how you find them rather than how those who demonise them paint them.
The issue is that he keeps demonstrating that he is not able or not willing to combat the worst parts of his party that want to destroy the country that I love and that unintentionally or not, he comes across as rather out of touch which is just reinforced by how much money he has.
Others round here including @malcolmg do the same but at least his insults are usually funny.
Which was the point Farooq was attempting to illustrate.
Same as Prince Philip mourning for 2 weeks. Poppy facisim. Not really. Thousands of people read this site and hundreds post here - and the contemporary regulars being strongly skewed to the left/centre-left, with a few liberals on top. Those who liked it were entirely self-selecting and those who agreed with Farooq already. Precisely who I'd expect. And quite frankly it was a pretty dire post - the likes were more defensive than anything else.
It's like being impressed that a town has 8 LD board up on its high street and none for the Conservatives. It tells you a bit about passion, and where the social proof is at - not much about the argument and where the votes will actually land.
You can be sure I will continue to make my points regardless of this and of how many likes the counter-argument gets.
I didn't hear Charles! - but assume his thoughts are on a slightly wider scale
I think The Kitchen Cabinet may have called me a Labour spinner for merely suggesting recession to kill inflation might be better of two options, very much with a “don’t know what your talking about or how it works, and need to be taught these basics.”
the current Tory chancellor has gone further than I suggested.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt comfortable with recession if it brings down inflation
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has pledged to support the Bank of England’s decisions on interest rates, even if rising mortgage costs push the UK into a recession.
Hunt told Sky News there could be no trade-off between cutting inflation and the risk of provoking a recession, arguing that the “only path to sustainable growth” is to bring down the high prices behind the cost-of-living crisis - “because in the end, inflation is a source of instability.”
So the current Tory chancellor is a Labour spinner too, and doesn’t know the basics?
That’s Kitchen Cabinet dealt with - now for brunch. 🥓
But I think there's still scope for constructive conversation here. I've stayed polite this time.
De Santis has views and does things which I think are profoundly wrong. But that is not the most important point. In a democracy voters are entitled to want and support things that others don't. (Liberals got affronted en masse when the SCOTUS returned the abortion matter back to the voter and the democratic process. They should not have done so but should have realised that voters in huge numbers are moderates.)
It is clear that Trump as well as having absurd views is also a person of fascist mentality. Like Putin. It is this rather than the views (which is for voters to decide) which is the danger.
Is there evidence for or against De Santis being of the fascist type mindset, or is he, like some others, merely a populist loudmouth who knows that it is perfectly proper to win and to lose elections without calling for insurrections?
All the things they accuse other posters of they do themselves.
Bad sense of humour - check
Sucking up to other posters - check
Personal attacks - check
Random posts like a Labrador needing attention - check
Inability to discuss things with certain posters who disagree with their world view - check
I am going to get a predictable response to this post. But I’m off for a run. See you.
I have acknowledged the motives behind some of those who want a better and more inclusive society in my posts.
It's interesting you chose to ignore this.
Pride isn't even a Bank Holiday. We get not one but two Bank Holidays for Easter and not one but two Bank Holidays for Christmas. And the shops are shut down by law for Christmas and Easter. I don't object to people wishing each other a Happy Easter or Merry Christmas though, I'll even join in despite not being religious. I'll even join in despite disliking and opposing religion.
And interesting you mentioned the royalty as that's another example. We recently had the Coronation and a Bank Holiday for that too. I know you joined in that celebration and so did others. While others ignored it.
That's the thing about celebrations, you can choose whether to join in or not, so long as there's no legal compulsion. Although the most compulsion on celebrations are those like Royal events, Christmas, Easter etc where the state shuts down many businesses and stops many employees going to work by law due to Bank Holidays.
Society has had celebrations for thousands of years. As long as there's been a society, there's been celebrations. If you don't want to join in a celebration, you don't have to - but let people who do want to have their fun.
I have meetings from now on unfortunately.
But let me get this straight - they were worried that Tory rebels would attach an amendment that said what exactly on, say, hunting? That it should be legalised or that eg trail hunting should be banned completely?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-to-vote-if-you-havent-got-a-fixed-or-permanent-address
And Cameron era Tories would be seen as dangerously woke by many in the US (but embraced by many Dem voters)
Good and funny insult, worthy reply. D-
Lazy and cheap response. Could have come from anyone.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBat you weren't deemed worthy of getting a funny insult.
I think that Trump does have a fascist mindset, and would end democracy if he could.
I raise the issue of history, because it is enormously important to understand that the world does not divide neatly into oppressor and victim groups, and that historical figures and groups that you try to enlist as being on your side, might well have done some very deplorable things.
I agree “ Core inflation excludes food and energy (as purchased directly by the consumer)” but Kitchen Cabinet is referring to the Greedinflation of “but a good amount of it is CPG companies thinking of locking in price rises now while the consumer will accept it - it is a permanent margin uplift effect for them if these prices stick.”
I totally agree racketeering under the cover of crisis is worth mentioning in how it is playing into the inflation rate. We wouldn’t want that to go under the radar would we? The four global giant agribusiness corporations that dominate crucial crops such as grains – ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, saw profits shoot up 255% in 2021, is the raw fact. Kitchen Cabinet is quite clearly saying both that they think Greedinflation is part of that 255%, and this racketeering is in part fuelling inflation.
Therefore I'm all for Black History Month, but against mobs pulling down statues. I'm for Mary Seacole being taught in schools, but against Florence Nightingale being downgraded. I think the concept of 'privilege' is sound on a personal basis, but crummy when applied societally. I think we - as a nation - made hideous mistakes historically, but also that we have given a lot to the world. And I also believe in personal responsibility.
As I said, muddy. There's enough in there for everyone to dislike.
I think you need to read what Casino said.
He said others would not be impressed by the post. Lots of people liked the post therefore others were impressed. Therefore he is wrong. QED.
Of course under any other circumstances you would be completely correct and thank you for the kind comment about the standard of my posts
As for culture wars, we see this exemplified by the ill-fated attempt at American cultural imperialism that was Netflix's Cleopatra 'documentary', a programme so politically motivated and historically inaccurate (specifically, a Macedonian dynasty being black) it makes Braveheart look good.
We see this also with the bizarre loathing some have for the term Anglo-Saxon:
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1661815607853981716
And, though less irksome (it's still wrong), the attempt to rename the Christian calendar and remove Christ from it with the nonsense that is Common Era.
How does this tie into Mr. Royale's previous statements? Because it's all identity politics as a pissing contest. Black women get double points, whites are at the bottom, hence the attempt to erase Cleopatra's historical identity and bastardise history. Or this, in which a man's whiteness is deemed to affect what he can and cannot have published:
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1661372488507375631
Assuming we are talking about 'likes'. I read kjh's comment at face value and thought perhaps good posts were getting rewarded with lines [of coke?] now.
It is not representative. Plenty of people simply can't be arsed with the subject or the hassle for very obvious reasons.
Your post is telling because you want me to be wrong and to close down the discussion - hence the QED. That suggests a certain level of discomfort about having the discussion at all, and that will be because you fear there is actually something in it.
But no-one has ever made me wear one in normal life.
I went to the Cannes film festival on Wednesday and three girls were doing a synchronised walk down the Croisette topless. (It's tricky grabbing attention)
The question is what would the correct woke response be?
https://www.gov.uk/trading-hours-for-retailers-the-law
I think 'others' is being misread here as meaning absolutely anyone else, whereas what was actually meant is that there will be a whole group of people who aren't impressed and disagree, even if they don't show themselves.
A few weeks ago a railway viaduct over the Thames to the south of Oxford was closed after an abutment collapsed.
Here's a video showing what the ground under the abutment was like:
https://twitter.com/PaulCliftonBBC/status/1662019572709326849
Then they observered Ramada and celebrated Eid, and I did not obejct, though I was not Muslim
Then they celebrated Yom Kippur, and I did not object, though I was not Jewish
Then they got pissed on St Patrick's Day, and I did not object, though I was not Irish
Then they celebrated British Pie week, and I did not object, though I do not care for pies
Then they took the knee, and by the time I'd finished my rant, there was no one left who could be bothered to listen to me
Do we win now?
@Sean_F @Leon @MarqueeMark @JohnO @Sandpit @felix etc. help us out here
(this is a joke, btw)
All the cricket chat in the last few days was well over my head. I'm aware of cricket but not much more than that. All the stuff about the league and international matches was new information for me and I don't think much of it stuck despite me reading it.
Awareness is a strange thing to fixate on here. You know if you stop to think about it that there are continuums of knowledge and ignorance on any issue. We all know this.
With Jez Hunt comfortable with recession if it brings down inflation because in the end inflation is a source of instability - and Reeves and Labour just going for growth growth and growth - there is suddenly very clear blue water between the two main parties on the central economic questions and how to manage the cost of living crisis.
As Gove reminded us last week, it’s on these questions that most matter to voters where elections are won and lost. And I am pretty sure Labour have this wrong, are piling on the wrong horse.
Whilst I am thinking Reeves, Starmer and Labour have gone destructively Trussite, and on the wrong side of the clear blue water Hunt has now opened up on Labour today, there’s this stinging criticism of Reeves from a top economist.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/26/labour-economic-growth-g7-jeremy-hunt-inflation-recession-uk-politics-live
Reeves started to mess up her trip from the moment she got on the plane - it’s looking like the whole misadventure might be a watershed moment for Starmer’s opposition, but not in the way Labour hoped.
I don’t think much of Reeve’s new hair style either. What is it with all these flipping fringes on the Labour front bench? That’s not in fashion!
Anybody running a political campaign based on being anti-Woke (DeSantis, Braverman), rather than with just nuanced criticism like yourself, look to be not only on the wrong side but also to be irrelevant to most people who want important things fixed.
It is STILL the Economy, stupid.
I take your point though. Your comment can be read two ways - "no others will be" or "there will be others that are not". The second is no doubt true.
So, I retract my support for kjh and hang him out to dry. Sorry kjh, you're on your own now.
And there are a number of woke battles where zero middle ground is possible because one side or other simply can't grasp that there are exceptions (usually people trying to profit in one way or another) that makes the application of their theory/desires impossible in reality
It is true I've had anger issues BTW, and I have treated some people on this site unfairly - sometimes I've come on here looking for a fight, due to stress - which I deeply regret. I'm aware there are real people at the other end of the keyboard and I shouldn't do it.
I am seeing someone about this and reconsidering my current career path. I'd just appeal not to provoke or press my bruises too hard as it makes it harder to control.
May I suggest planning regulations, or perhaps the merits of physical currency?
@David_Goodhart
My @NewStatesman
piece from yesterday on how Labour could nail the next election by becoming the party of immigration reduction, 'tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration'?"
https://twitter.com/David_Goodhart/status/1661685714184990720
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/05/labour-immigration-opportunity
Well we just went and did it.
Social Justice gain from Labour in the Eastfield (Scarborough) by-election
Tony Randerson 499
Lib Dem 281
Lab 169
Tory 69
Far-right 39
Green 19
I will apologise for provoking you today if I did and at any other time, now I understand the situation I will do my very best to be aware of it as I hope you will also be for me.
I am sure you will come out the other side, stay well.
What did she campaign on? Reducing immigration.
I can remember when all shops were shut on Good Friday, except for fish shops, and bakers for hot cross buns. No racing. No papers. And that was in London!
Lab 44% (-1)
Con 30% (+1)
LibDem 11% (+1)
Reform 4% (-1)
Green 5% (+1)
SNP 3% (nc)
1,625 questioned on 24-25 May.
+/- 17-18 May.
https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1661990689620606976
I've had similar issues (mostly in the past) and the one thing I learned was to try to see the other person's point to view and to assume good intentions on their part. When I get angry, I have generally failed to do that. There are normally multiple reasonable views on any issue (those at the more extreme ends of the trans debate , on both sides, would do well to appreciate this, I think).
As for work, it's not really my place to comment, but a few years back I found I was working well over my notional hours, with a very young family (as I believe you also have). Careers can wait, to an extent, but your children are only young once. With our eldest now at school I'm really appreciating the pre-school years and glad that, a few months after he was born, I said sod it and reined in my hours. It's also had no perceptible impact on my career progression - I've become more productive for being less stressed and I mostly managed to cut out the pointless shit and get better at saying 'no' (I know ability to do that varies by role).
Good luck to you.
But I find it depressing that an issue likes this - or the Home Secretary's driving - gets more attention than the government's failure to accept IICSA's recommendations or implement many of them. The government is at least promising to implement single issue bills on the animals issue, though I am sceptical of such promises. They aren't even promising that much on the IICSA report. Children - particularly abused ones - are less important to our society, it seems, than speeding offences or animals.