Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Bobcat said:
Jesus Christ, the ASDA case does not prove anything because it's not the same job. Any women working in the distribution centres would have taken home the same pay as any men there. A direct quote: "At Asda, hourly-paid colleagues doing the same job in the same location are paid the same.

If you looked at any airline you would have found a similar discrepancy, simply because the vast majority of men are pilots, while the vast majority of flight attendants are female, should they get the same pay as well?

I work as a teacher, and i guess i have been shafted these years, because my female colleges out earn me (being my seniors), so i guess i ill have to step into the principles office tomorrow and demand my 20% male bonus
Click to expand...
Depends what the courts ultimately find, not what your opinion is. If the courts find that Asda is breaching the law in the same way Birmingham city council did (paying female dominated jobs less than male dominated ones despite them having equal value) then they will have to backpay those employees. Most likely outcome is Asda will settle, pay a portion of the potential fine and change its wage policy.
 
Silva said:
Depends what the courts ultimately find, not what your opinion is. If the courts find that Asda is breaching the law in the same way Birmingham city council did (paying female dominated jobs less than male dominated ones despite them having equal value) then they will have to backpay those employees. Most likely outcome is Asda will settle, pay a portion of the potential fine and change its wage policy.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. My missus takes home more than me as she works as an architect (male dominated profession) vs me as a teacher (female dominated). What i've been arguing all the time is equal pay for equal work, which it is.

That there are pay discrepancies between different occupation, even within the same organization, is no doubt about. The head chef of a kitchen earns more than the guy/girl in the bar and a deep drilling miner earns more than the ones working as secretaries for said company. What someones "value" is to any organization is very arbitrary and hard to determine. That does not mean every position should receive equal compensation, simply because they don't do the same work.

Does traditional "female" occupations deserve a pay raise? Without a doubt, but that a matter for the various unions to take care of. As i said earlier, the typical "male job" unions have been around a lot longer and have negotiated a lot better terms for themselves. It's time for nurses, teachers and hair dressers to do the same, because it's not like better terms are going to fall into their lap
 
712 said:
Kind of shows the system's working in a way though, the law taking it's course and that.

Now how about some legislation to aid young working class white males, who compared to their female counterparts are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in prison and more likely to be addicted to drugs, whilst less likely to pass five GCSEs, go to university or gain employment, and if they do they will earn less at least until their 30, and maybe forever, we'll have to see as the generations age.

I've no great ideas on the subject unfortunately, I just find it odd that some social causes are fashionable and people fall over themselves trying to prove how much they care about them, whilst there are others no one gives a toss about.
Click to expand...

It's taken women a good few decades to get to this point so you better get cracking with standing up for young white men if you want to have the desired effect by 2100.
 
Cheesy said:
I mean, I know it's a word that's used a lot...but the complaint is pretty much the definition of racism. Minor perhaps, yes, but if you're making a complaint because you don't like the skin colour of people, then...yeah, that's racist. And no matter how many times such people who say this claim they're being repressed in their free speech (the most common one), it doesn't change that fact.

It's not as if John Lewis have really given this a precedent either, is it? From what I remember their man on the moon ad last year had an older white guy on the moon. Their ad featuring the girl growing from young to old years back was of a white woman. The one where the boy gives the present to his parents featured a white family (I think, although again, it's not what ever stood out to me about the ad), so John Lewis have had plenty of ads featuring White Brits. And they likely will again...whether it be next year, or the year after etc.

I'm waiting for the furious reactions whenever they release a Christmas ad with a gay couple. No doubt that'll bring plenty more people like this out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
Yeah, definitely a racist. They say 'I don't think black people are inferior, I just don't want white culture to die'. Essentially white supremacy, so yeah, racist!
 
Bobcat said:
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. My missus takes home more than me as she works as an architect (male dominated profession) vs me as a teacher (female dominated). What i've been arguing all the time is equal pay for equal work, which it is.

That there are pay discrepancies between different occupation, even within the same organization, is no doubt about. The head chef of a kitchen earns more than the guy/girl in the bar and a deep drilling miner earns more than the ones working as secretaries for said company. What someones "value" is to any organization is very arbitrary and hard to determine. That does not mean every position should receive equal compensation, simply because they don't do the same work.

Does traditional "female" occupations deserve a pay raise? Without a doubt, but that a matter for the various unions to take care of. As i said earlier, the typical "male job" unions have been around a lot longer and have negotiated a lot better terms for themselves. It's time for nurses, teachers and hair dressers to do the same, because it's not like better terms are going to fall into their lap
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point though. If an organisation is hiring loads of women in job A and loads of men in job B, with jobs A and B being similar (say, physics teacher and biology teacher as it's pertinent to you) but they pay job B more than job A, then there's cause for a discrimination suit. Hence there being a new story every year or so about a large group of women suing an organisation for backpay and winning.

Part of the reason why younger women have a lower wage gap isn't just down to maternity leave and child rearing, it's also because of policy change caused by campaigners and various law suits.

There wouldn't be a need for these lawsuits if the gender gap was an explainable myth - and none of them would successful if it was impossible to prove.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
That's kind of the point though. If an organisation is hiring loads of women in job A and loads of men in job B, with jobs A and B being similar (say, physics teacher and biology teacher as it's pertinent to you) but they pay job B more than job A, then there's cause for a discrimination suit. Hence there being a new story every year or so about a large group of women suing an organisation for backpay and winning.

Part of the reason why younger women have a lower wage gap isn't just down to maternity leave and child rearing, it's also because of policy change caused by campaigners and various law suits.
Click to expand...

Of course, but if job A is flying a plane and job B is serving cocktails to fat twats in Hawaii shirts, it's something different. Companies, by their very nature are doing as much as they can to keep costs down, and this is a battle against their own employees for the most part. The fact that a mostly "female jobs" has been the target of this, i have no doubts about.

It's great they are fighting back against these money grabbing hawks, but i would be vary of playing "the sex card" to often, because it could very well backfire quite badly
 
Ubik said:
Yeah, definitely a racist. They say 'I don't think black people are inferior, I just don't want white culture to die'. Essentially white supremacy, so yeah, racist!
Click to expand...

And the ironic thing is that the people in the ad (irrespective of whether they're immigrants themselves or second/third generation) appear to be adhering to British/Western culture...by the looks of it they're a fairly stable, law-abiding nuclear family in a suburban area, with a daughter, pet dog, and trampoline, celebrating the traditional holiday of Christmas through buying presents in a way that many of us Westerners do.

If anything...they should be lauded as a pinnacle of integration. But then racists don't have any interest in that...generally they'll use things like integration (which a lack of can be a legit concern) to express their grievances, and when they decide it's acceptable enough, they move onto full-blown racism. That's not to diminish or devalue those who believe immigration should be reduced or subjected to more stringent controls, but in the case of the complaint...the woman making the complaint seeks to deny she's being racist when she's fulfilling the basic definition.

The irony is that such people seem to be much, much more whiny than the liberals they bemoan. British isn't white enough. Britain needs to take back control. Britain isn't taking back control in the right way because the judges are preventing it from happening. When will such people stop fecking moaning? Because for all their complaints about how patriotic they are, they seem to have little love for the Britain they're in.
 
Cheesy said:
And the ironic thing is that the people in the ad (irrespective of whether they're immigrants themselves or second/third generation) appear to be adhering to British/Western culture...by the looks of it they're a fairly stable, law-abiding nuclear family in a suburban area, with a daughter, pet dog, and trampoline, celebrating the traditional holiday of Christmas through buying presents in a way that many of us Westerners do.

If anything...they should be lauded as a pinnacle of integration. But then racists don't have any interest in that...generally they'll use things like integration (which a lack of can be a legit concern) to express their grievances, and when they decide it's acceptable enough, they move onto full-blown racism. That's not to diminish or devalue those who believe immigration should be reduced or subjected to more stringent controls, but in the case of the complaint...the woman making the complaint seeks to deny she's being racist when she's fulfilling the basic definition.

The irony is that such people seem to be much, much more whiny than the liberals they bemoan. British isn't white enough. Britain needs to take back control. Britain isn't taking back control in the right way because the judges are preventing it from happening. When will such people stop fecking moaning? Because for all their complaints about how patriotic they are, they seem to have little love for the Britain they're in.
Click to expand...
Openly gay ex-Olympic fencer judges, no less.
 
Bobcat said:
Of course, but if job A is flying a plane and job B is serving cocktails to fat twats in Hawaii shirts, it's something different. Companies, by their very nature are doing as much as they can to keep costs down, and this is a battle against their own employees for the most part. The fact that a mostly "female jobs" has been the target of this, i have no doubts about.

It's great they are fighting back against these money grabbing hawks, but i would be vary of playing "the sex card" to often, because it could very well backfire quite badly
Click to expand...
You're the only person imagining it's being analysed at such extremes though. Discrimination lawsuits happen if an airline is paying one gender of pilots less, or one gender of cabin crew less.
 
“The only thing more disgusting than a jihadist Muslim is a pro-choice Muslim,” Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, wrote in April 2015.
Click to expand...
49343737.cached.jpg


“Sometime I wonder whether LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Thespian. So much drama, so few letters in the alphabet,” he wrote on the Daily Wire.

He even compared gay rights to rape in an open letter entitled, “Rape Wins.”

“You should be ashamed of yourself for committing spiritual rape in the name of tolerance and inclusion,” Adams wrote to a man who sued a wedding photographer for refusing to shoot his same-sex nuptials.
Click to expand...

Our toxic PC culture meant a mild-mannered person like him just can't tell it like it is anymore. Nazis suppressing free speech!
Oh wait

Despite all of this, the school said Adams has done nothing wrong by its own standards.

“Dr. Adams’s online column and social media presence represent his personal expressions and opinions on a variety of topics,” UNCW said in a statement. “These expressions and opinions are neither within the requested scope of Dr. Adams’s duties with the university, nor do they represent the views of this institution. However, they are expressions protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The school also said that speech didn’t cross the line when it came to Merghani.

“At this point, the university has not found evidence that Dr. Adams has improperly released any private or confidential information related to the student, or violated the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). There is no evidence of unlawful discrimination by Dr. Adams toward this student in UNCW’s working, living, or learning environment, per the university’s harassment prevention policy. Finally, Dr. Adams’s conduct and written material do not contain any evidence of a true threat toward this or any other student.”

If the school were to fire or discipline Adams, he might sue—again.

In 2007, Adams sued UNCW for religious and speech-based discrimination after he was not promoted to full professor in 2006. A federal district court ruled in favor of UNCW in 2010, but then a federal appeals court overturned that ruling in 2011. In 2014 a jury upheld Adams’s appeal of the initial ruling and awarded him $50,000 in back pay and ordered the school to pay more than $600,000 in legal fees. In the settlement the school also agreed to promote Adams to full professor, and administrators “agreed to adopt procedures protecting Adams from renewed retaliation.”

Since winning the lawsuit, Adams has ramped up his efforts, churning out more posts for Town Hall and the Daily Wire. He calls himself a “vocal critic of the diversity movement in academia” and brags about receiving ‘countless hate mails [sic].”
Click to expand...
 
Bury Red said:
OK, number of female board members?

It's improving from the 10% mark 5 years ago to 23% nowadays (FTSE100, only 18% for FTSE250) but still way off equal opportunities. Similar percentage for MPs which is surely a profession that people shouldn't be entering until middle age and where a wealth of differing life experiences, including parenthood Miss Leadsom, should be a benefit.

There are some reasons for pay disparities which statistics alone cannot highlight but claiming there is no gender inequality in the workplace because statistics can't account for every nuance is the right's way of brushing any debate under the carpet. Statistics, facts, experts who needs any of them when you've got your fantastic gut instinct and a sense of entitlement eh?

It's blatantly obvious if you open your eyes and look around any work environment that the middle aged, middle class white male still receives preferential treatment. I've worked with hundreds of men through my career who were imposters in their own jobs, winging it, bullshitting and taking the plaudits for work they piled onto lower paid colleagues, hell I'll admit that I wing it far too often as I've grown a bit too lazy to bother my arse competing with these wankers when I know I can outshine them on the spot. In the same time I've only encountered a half dozen or so women at the same level or higher than myself throughout my career and every single one of them has been a model of preparedness and professionalism that put the rest of us to shame because that's what they needed to become to get there, they were also all more alpha male than most of the men in their meetings which led to the typical derisive sneers once it was all boys together for an extended lunch or drink session. Now I know Engineering's not the greatest example of a career path to study for gender equality but the story is not unique to my industry.
Click to expand...

Nobody seems to look at how many women aspire to be board members, or senior exec roles. In the blue chips I've worked they have gone out of their way to promote women into senior positions, the fact of the matter is lots didn't want it compared to men. In my early career I worked with a young lady and we were promoted and given opportunity similar, in her 30's she had 3 kids, and spent a lot of time on maternity leave, was no longer willing to travel etc, which is what suited her lifestyle. My career level progressed further, but in no way is this down to discrimination, she garnered less experience, and wouldn't make the same personal sacrifices that I would. We just both had different levels of experience, and personal commitment, despite being the same age.
 
Chorley1974 said:
Nobody seems to look at how many women aspire to be board members, or senior exec roles. In the blue chips I've worked they have gone out of their way to promote women into senior positions, the fact of the matter is lots didn't want it compared to men. In my early career I worked with a young lady and we were promoted and given opportunity similar, in her 30's she had 3 kids, and spent a lot of time on maternity leave, was no longer willing to travel etc, which is what suited her lifestyle. My career level progressed further, but in no way is this down to discrimination, she garnered less experience, and wouldn't make the same personal sacrifices that I would. We just both had different levels of experience, and personal commitment, despite being the same age.
Click to expand...
I think this does happen a lot (corporations looking to become more diverse), but they unwittingly look for women and minorities in places where they'll mostly find white men. It's how the old boys' club gets ahead. "Well, we want to hire women and non-whites, but all the applicants happen to be white men" is the excuse - a way of pushing blame along because "I'm certainly not a bigot, I'll hire the best person for the job", but what often happens is that women and minorities aren't aware that particular job was going in the first place - because they're not part of the networks and groups that dominate, and have historically dominated, those positions. It's rarely a case of someone actively suppressing women and minorities, but rather a system that has over very long periods of time developed a way of getting the old boys' club ahead.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
I think this does happen a lot (corporations looking to become more diverse), but they unwittingly look for women and minorities in places where they'll mostly find white men. It's how the old boys' club gets ahead. "Well, we want to hire women and non-whites, but all the applicants happen to be white men" is the excuse - a way of pushing blame along because "I'm certainly not a bigot, I'll hire the best person for the job", but what often happens is that women and minorities aren't aware that particular job was going in the first place - because they're not part of the networks and groups that dominate, and have historically dominated, those positions. It's rarely a case of someone actively suppressing women and minorities, but rather a system that has over very long periods of time developed a way of getting the old boys' club ahead.
Click to expand...

I've worked for a certain very large blue IT company, and a very large two letter british oil company which have have diversity targets for leadership roles. It's definitely not a case of jobs for the boys.
 
Chorley1974 said:
Nobody seems to look at how many women aspire to be board members, or senior exec roles. In the blue chips I've worked they have gone out of their way to promote women into senior positions, the fact of the matter is lots didn't want it compared to men. In my early career I worked with a young lady and we were promoted and given opportunity similar, in her 30's she had 3 kids, and spent a lot of time on maternity leave, was no longer willing to travel etc, which is what suited her lifestyle. My career level progressed further, but in no way is this down to discrimination, she garnered less experience, and wouldn't make the same personal sacrifices that I would. We just both had different levels of experience, and personal commitment, despite being the same age.
Click to expand...

This undoubtedly happens a lot but it's probably, in part, due to the sort of cultural norm of the man being the breadmaker. Obviously that's no longer always the case, but it's still seen as a lot more normal for a woman to stay at home and look after the kids than a man. You hear stories of a lot of men who, due to the burden of work, struggle to spend as much time with their kids, which kind of feeds into that idea some people have of a dad 'looking after their kids for the day' if they see him with his children, whereas with a mother she's just being a parent. A case like this arguably has its negative effects for men in a different manner to how it does with women.

Things like longer paternity leave for men would perhaps be beneficial - obviously they don't quite have the same burden in going through child-birth, but they should be allowed to act in an equal parental role to that of the mother, and typically, paternity laws haven't always allowed it to be the case.
 
Cheesy said:
This undoubtedly happens a lot but it's probably, in part, due to the sort of cultural norm of the man being the breadmaker. Obviously that's no longer always the case, but it's still seen as a lot more normal for a woman to stay at home and look after the kids than a man. You hear stories of a lot of men who, due to the burden of work, struggle to spend as much time with their kids, which kind of feeds into that idea some people have of a dad 'looking after their kids for the day' if they see him with his children, whereas with a mother she's just being a parent. A case like this arguably has its negative effects for men in a different manner to how it does with women.

Things like longer paternity leave for men would perhaps be beneficial - obviously they don't quite have the same burden in going through child-birth, but they should be allowed to act in an equal parental role to that of the mother, and typically, paternity laws haven't always allowed it to be the case.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say, a lot is down to traditional roles. Anecdotally, for most the couples I know the woman does want to do the stay at home for a while, and the guys do want to go back to work.
 
Chorley1974 said:
I've worked for a certain very large blue IT company, and a very large two letter british oil company which have have diversity targets for leadership roles. It's definitely not a case of jobs for the boys.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's not something they do on purpose. More of a hangover from the decades and centuries of the system being geared towards the recruitment of middle class white blokes.
 
Silva said:
Like I said, it's not something they do on purpose. More of a hangover from the decades and centuries of the system being geared towards the recruitment of middle class white blokes.
Click to expand...

They achieve the diversity targets though, regardless of who is the best person for the job.
 
2nd time I'm posting about this madness

AFTER DONALD TRUMP’S election emboldened white supremacists and inspired a wave of anti-Semitic hate incidents across the country, the Senate on Thursday took action by passing a bill aimed at limiting the free-speech rights of college students who express support for Palestinians.

By unanimous consent, the Senate quietly passed the so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, only two days after it was introduced by Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Tim Scott, R-S.C.

A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to use the State Department’s broad, widely criticized definition of anti-Semitism when investigating schools. That definition, from a 2010 memo, includes as examples of anti-Semitism “delegitimizing” Israel, “demonizing” Israel, “applying double standards” to Israel, and “focusing only on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”.

Critics have pointed out that those are political — not racist — positions, shared by a significant number of Jews, and qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you decide if a person has double standards? Are the courts now expected to moderate online debates?
Bigger picture: Where on earth is the 1st amendment?
And unanimous consent!?! WTH? Where were Sanders, Rand Paul, and Ron Wyden?

Edit: if this passes the House I'm going to have to start deleting my posts here I think. And I'm going back home to India which isn't exactly a bastion of protected speech especially right now, so time to delete my facebook account too :lol:
 


They remind me of those Scientologists that go round stalking and filming people who've left/said negative things about them.
 
A problem I have with the left end of the spectrum (disproportionately applicable to younger people) is it's inability to engage in dialogue with people who may hold opposing, offensive or plain wrong viewpoints. Or hurling abuse at people who are willing to have this dialogue.



I think this interview of Tomi Lauren by Trevor Noah was excellent. They had a dialogue where her ideas and theories were exposed for the trash they are. The astounding part is that until today, Trevor is getting abuse from all sorts of liberal commentators for "giving her a platform" or "entertaining her ideas". And this is a new norm where echo chambers are created because there is no inlet for divergent ideas that may even originate on the same end of the spectrum...
 
adexkola said:
A problem I have with the left end of the spectrum (disproportionately applicable to younger people) is it's inability to engage in dialogue with people who may hold opposing, offensive or plain wrong viewpoints. Or hurling abuse at people who are willing to have this dialogue.



I think this interview of Tomi Lauren by Trevor Noah was excellent. They had a dialogue where her ideas and theories were exposed for the trash they are. The astounding part is that until today, Trevor is getting abuse from all sorts of liberal commentators for "giving her a platform" or "entertaining her ideas". And this is a new norm where echo chambers are created because there is no inlet for divergent ideas that may even originate on the same end of the spectrum...
Click to expand...


She is interesting, the lack of finesse in here reasoning tells me that her audience is either really dumb, really racist or have an incredible sense of humor.

On your point, I think that one of the problems is that when you realize that people can't be reasoned you end up with the radical solution to eliminate the Tom Lahren of this world, her take on things is borderline dangerous, she casually put people in boxes(the wrong ones), she casually diminish the actions of a truely dangerous organization, she casually condone censure(I don't protest, so no one should) and she clearly can't think for herself. This type of people are dangerous.
 
JPRouve said:
She is interesting, the lack of finesse in here reasoning tells me that her audience is either really dumb, really racist or have an incredible sense of humor.

On your point, I think that one of the problems is that when you realize that people can't be reasoned you end up with the radical solution to eliminate the Tom Lahren of this world, her take on things is borderline dangerous, she casually put people in boxes(the wrong ones), she casually diminish the actions of a truely dangerous organization, she casually condone censure(I don't protest, so no one should) and she clearly can't think for herself. This type of people are dangerous.
Click to expand...

Well you will always have people who are stuck in their ways and opinions. I don't think they should be exiled or not spoken to.

For anyone on the fence, this exposed her ideas as ludicrous.
 
@adexkola

Having had my fair share of arguments online (!) I'm losing faith in the idea that anyone can be reasoned with or convinced that they need to rethink their position if you just provide the right evidence. As someone who would have similar opinions to Trevor Noah that interview comes across to me as yer wan (who I've never seen before but now quite fancy) being schooled.

The thing is, I'm willing to bet that people who are firmly entrenched on her side of the political spectrum could watch that whole interview and conclude that she won the debate (apart from that zinger about labels, anyway).

So then you're left wondering if giving people like her a platform on a national network just gets her more Facebook subscribers, more followers on Twitter and more online influence. And is that a good or bad thing?

I do agree with your general point. Dialogue is the only way to try and bridge divides. I'm just worried that people are so immersed in their own echo chambers and fixed in their opinions that they wouldn't recognise a compelling alternative viewpoint if it smacked them round the head and the more they're exposed to charismatic public figures who reinforce their preconceptions the more dogmatic they become.
 
adexkola said:
Well you will always have people who are stuck in their ways and opinions. I don't think they should be exiled or not spoken to.

For anyone on the fence, this exposed her ideas as ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but we are naive. Just think about the lady in the video you provided, she is articulate, she is smart enough to see a very obvious double standard but she still said and probably think what she said. You don't even need to go into details with her, she doesn't use the rules that she sets, a lot of people are like that and you can't discuss with these people, it's impossible.

Edit: And you need to think about the fact that internet allowed a lot of people to have an audience that they would have never had 15 or 20 years ago, freedom of speech was a nice thing when not everyone was actually allowed an audience.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
@adexkola

Having had my fair share of arguments online (!) I'm losing faith in the idea that anyone can be reasoned with or convinced that they need to rethink their position if you just provide the right evidence. As someone who would have similar opinions to Trevor Noah that interview comes across to me as yer wan (who I've never seen before but now quite fancy) being schooled.

The thing is, I'm willing to bet that people who are firmly entrenched on her side of the political spectrum could watch that whole interview and conclude that she won the debate (apart from that zinger about labels, anyway).

So then you're left wondering if giving people like her a platform on a national network just gets her more Facebook subscribers, more followers on Twitter and more online influence. And is that a good or bad thing?

I do agree with your general point. Dialogue is the only way to try and bridge divides. I'm just worried that people are so immersed in their own echo chambers and fixed in their opinions that they wouldn't recognise a compelling alternative viewpoint if it smacked them round the head and the more they're exposed to charismatic public figures who reinforce their preconceptions the more dogmatic they become.
Click to expand...

Worrying if this applies to the majority, instead of a vocal few.
 
adexkola said:
Worrying if this applies to the majority, instead of a vocal few.
Click to expand...

I mean, just look at this place. We're just arguing about stupid shit like whether Depay deserves more chances or not and how often do you see anyone ever say "You know what, I might be wrong about this. You've convinced me"?

Why would people be any more willing to change their opinions about stuff that actually matters?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I mean, just look at this place. We're just arguing about stupid shit like whether Depay deserves more chances or not and how often do you see anyone ever say "You know what, I might be wrong about this. You've convinced me"?

Why would people be any more willing to change their opinions about stuff that actually matters?
Click to expand...

:lol:

When you put it like that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.