We do, night mayor is not a political title. It's an unofficial title for a person that's very influential in a city's nightlife. There are elections, but it's nothing political.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Ok, gotcha. It's a great idea. Especially for a City like Amsterdam. Re the reason you mentioned him, I agree that it sounds like what he said was nonsense but what do you think could have been gained if he'd said "this assault was motivated by Islamic homophobia". How would that make Amsterdam a better/safer place to live? Because you can certainly see how it could have the opposite effect.
I don't think he should've said Islamic homophobia, he should've had just condemned homophobia in general without looking for a cause, or in this case an excuse. Homophobia is wrong, period. And so is Racism, or Islamophobia or pretty much all forms of phobia.
Except Arachnophobia, that was a proper scary movie when I was little.
Ok, yeah. Gotcha. If he really did use their background as an excuse (rather than an explanation) then that's pretty lame.
Trying to excuse homophobes because of victimhood status is obviously a far far more stupid idea than just condemning the homophobia. Unless you actually want Wilders elected of course.
Similar to what we were discussing yesterday. People need to stop being arrogant and ignorant to the point that they start telling other people what their culture and language should be like.
People Are Calling Out The Spanish Word For 'Black' After Woman Loses Dog
"I saw him at the cotton field"To be honest, Wilders is old news now. The new kid in town is Thierry Baudet. He's like a younger more handsome Wilders with LVG's narcissism. Him and Wilders could almost make a majority in parliament in the poles. Which is a rather alarming fact.
What's the difference between them, politically speaking? Why are they not fighting under the same banner? Because they both have to be top dog in their own yard?
Thierry Baudet's shtick is that he wants to break down the 'party cartel' as he calls it. All political power rests with a few older parties (VVD, CDA, PVDA) making it nearly impossible to get a real foothold for new comers. This isnt entirely untrue, since PVDA lost nearly all their seats last election yet is still supplying the most mayors of all parties. Wilders' party for instance, had a lot more votes, but supply no mayors, since all other parties (except Baudet) shun him. Baudet is also much less outspoken about islam, but against all forms of immigration none the less. He likes to wear a mask of decency but is a narcissistic douchebag underneath at all.
I don't pretend to be unbiased though since I'm a bit of a lefty
Yeah, just call her out on her appalling lack of originality when coming up with pet names.Similar to what we were discussing yesterday. People need to stop being arrogant and ignorant to the point that they start telling other people what their culture and language should be like.
People Are Calling Out The Spanish Word For 'Black' After Woman Loses Dog
Pero Negro would have been better?
Just reminds me of those people that call their goldfish goldie. Bit of creativity never goes amiss.
Would you say that to Clifford Joseph Price? "Oy, mate, your pseudonym suggests a lack of imagination"?
London has a "Night Czar" now too.
Not sure why she is called a Czar though, perhaps Sadiq didn't want anyone else to be called mayor as well.......
About the black dog story. While the Spanish word for black is by no means racist, calling you black dog negro when you live in the US is a bit thick.
It's like me moving to the US and calling my sons Dick and Cock. Both very acceptable Dutch names, but kinda asking for it.
It's like me moving to the US and calling my sons Dick and Cock. Both very acceptable Dutch names, but kinda asking for it.
"Lady of the Night" would have worked.
Poetry world split over polemic attacking 'amateur' work by 'young female poets'
Writing in PN Review, Rebecca Watts has slammed the popularity of writers such as Rupi Kaur and Hollie McNish as ‘consumer-driven content’
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets
http://www.pnreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/scribe?item_id=10090
Writing in PN Review, Rebecca Watts has slammed the popularity of writers such as Rupi Kaur and Hollie McNish as ‘consumer-driven content’
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets
http://www.pnreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/scribe?item_id=10090
If you can’t be elitist about poetry, what can you be elitist about? Free verse was a mistake.
Exactement, mon ami. It's very pretentious to be unpretentious.
Similar to what we were discussing yesterday. People need to stop being arrogant and ignorant to the point that they start telling other people what their culture and language should be like.
People Are Calling Out The Spanish Word For 'Black' After Woman Loses Dog
I'd just rename it Grizzlechops. Much better name for a dog anyway.
Isn't that a old reference to prostitutes?
Yes. Maybe an ill advised joke to make in the political correctness thread.
Just felt I'd heard of it before and wanted to ask. Me & jokes are generally oil and water so I rarely ever judge anyone for their humor.
It's also a simple fact that they are 'less accepting' of gay people because of their culture, & not ignorance or lack of education. The problem is, how do you change a mindset that's been immersed into a culture for centuries ? It's instances like this that are driving people into the alternative political spheres of Le Pen, Wilders, et al. Some people will accept it as a mere inconvenience to the goal of westernized multiculturalism. & some people won't. That's not bonkers, it's reality. & it's not racist either.
Hmm, that's a bit different. Had to google him cos had no idea what his real name is.
It wasn't a serious question, of course its different.
Bigotry against homosexuals due to culture? religion? ignorance? You could be talking about anywhere. Rural England, Bible belt America, or pretty much anywhere else in this planet. Worrying about causing offence (and the potential backlash) by specifying a subset of people seems to be missing the point... Bigotry is bigotry no matter where you come from.
This is my problem with these threads, people gather and moan about side issues and forget about the main issues, or maybe its just easier for them to do that, or maybe the side issue is the main issue for them?
Not being allowed to say something potentially offensive > the offence.
Being non-platformed > hate speech.
Violence breaking out at protests > what is being protested.
Etc...
This is my problem with these threads, people gather and moan about side issues and forget about the main issues, or maybe its just easier for them to do that, or maybe the side issue is the main issue for them?
Not being allowed to say something potentially offensive > the offence.
Being non-platformed > hate speech.
Violence breaking out at protests > what is being protested.
Etc...
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech
This has caused quite a ruckus hasn't it? I watched the interview, but i can't really say i'm to familiar with Peterson outside the law controversy a couple of years ago.
This has caused quite a ruckus hasn't it? I watched the interview, but i can't really say i'm to familiar with Peterson outside the law controversy a couple of years ago.
I haven't watched the interview either but I am familiar with Peterson. I've listened to him on a few different podcasts. Very smart and interesting bloke, with some goofy ideas (mainly related to religion/spirituality) but a lot of very sensible ideas too. He's a bit fecking depressing if you listen to him too much, mind you. He does polarise opinion, of course, and the alt-right seem to have taken him on as some sort of figure-head for their movement. So he's damned by association.
That's a very good piece. Far too many interesting exchanges like the interview described in the article end up being nothing more than click-bait, tit for tat nonsense, once they're put through the ringer of social media. We should have more open and honest exchange of ideas, not less.
I’ve listened to Peterson quite a bit. I first took notice of him when he got into hot water with the transgender pronoun thing at his university. When he was talking about that i thought he was great. Clearly very smart, knowledgable and often ran rings around the people opposing him.
But the more i listen to him on other subjects he becomes a little annoying to be honest. He’s a bit of an obscurantist, and seems to prevaricate when someone asks him even the simplest of questions.
He goes on these meandering monologues that often leave you exhausted. So i started to wane on him after initially liking him quite a bit. As for this interview, i did happen to watch it all. I really didn’t think Cathy Newman came out of it well. It’s become a meme at this point, with the phrase “So what you’re saying is….” plastered around the internet.
She just constantly put words in his mouth and didn’t appear to listen to anything he was saying or digest any of it. Some would argue that she was playing devils advocate, but it didn’t appear that way to me. She came across as very disingenuous. She would often challenge him on what SHE said he said, as opposed to actually challenging him on his views and what he did say.
But the more i listen to him on other subjects he becomes a little annoying to be honest. He’s a bit of an obscurantist, and seems to prevaricate when someone asks him even the simplest of questions.
He goes on these meandering monologues that often leave you exhausted. So i started to wane on him after initially liking him quite a bit. As for this interview, i did happen to watch it all. I really didn’t think Cathy Newman came out of it well. It’s become a meme at this point, with the phrase “So what you’re saying is….” plastered around the internet.
She just constantly put words in his mouth and didn’t appear to listen to anything he was saying or digest any of it. Some would argue that she was playing devils advocate, but it didn’t appear that way to me. She came across as very disingenuous. She would often challenge him on what SHE said he said, as opposed to actually challenging him on his views and what he did say.
Agreed. He does an interview with Sam Harris, who patiently tries to unpick some of his more goofy ideas and his responses are infuriatingly tangential.
About JP's initial celebrity moment (the "pronouns bill") and his wrong-ness then:
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
His article is here (I'm not watching the full panel discussion): http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a
There are many other quotes about free speech, but his particular grievance seems to be that he does not want to change the language he uses to address people. Despite talking about "complexity" and "engaging" others, it seems that when he engages with trans people, he regards them as some kind of mistake whose transgender-ness should be debated with every word he speaks.
And, is it thus an infringement of his free speech if a black student refuses to be called the n-word? Or is it the common courtesy expected from people who aren't assholes?
I have also posted about the problems with his lobster analogy from the interview.*
If you want to see his lobster quote, it's here, from the transcript:
I might go into other parts of the interview sometime, if I'm sufficiently useless at work. So, if someone can find mistakes in my responses, please reply.
*Apart from the biological issues, I think he is also very guilty of this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
The bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.
If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.
2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.
Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.
...
In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.
“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”
In the same discussion, he said:
“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”
...
“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says.
Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.
“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.”
If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:
- Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.
2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.
Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.
...
In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.
“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”
In the same discussion, he said:
“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”
...
“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says.
Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.
“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.”
His article is here (I'm not watching the full panel discussion): http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a
There are many other quotes about free speech, but his particular grievance seems to be that he does not want to change the language he uses to address people. Despite talking about "complexity" and "engaging" others, it seems that when he engages with trans people, he regards them as some kind of mistake whose transgender-ness should be debated with every word he speaks.
And, is it thus an infringement of his free speech if a black student refuses to be called the n-word? Or is it the common courtesy expected from people who aren't assholes?
I have also posted about the problems with his lobster analogy from the interview.*
If you want to see his lobster quote, it's here, from the transcript:
Because the lobster, we evolved from lobsters in evolutionary history, about 350 million years ago. Common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies, and have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous systems do. And the nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar, that antidepressants work on lobsters.
...
I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable! And there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that! Right? That’s so long, that a third of the billion years ago, there weren’t even trees! It’s a long time.
You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin. That’s similar to the lobster mechanism, that tracks your status. And the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
...
I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable! And there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that! Right? That’s so long, that a third of the billion years ago, there weren’t even trees! It’s a long time.
You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin. That’s similar to the lobster mechanism, that tracks your status. And the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
I might go into other parts of the interview sometime, if I'm sufficiently useless at work. So, if someone can find mistakes in my responses, please reply.
*Apart from the biological issues, I think he is also very guilty of this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy
This lobster thing is absolutely bizarre.
Oh god, those podcasts were brutal!
I'm a huge Sam Harris fan so was quite looking forward to listening to these when he announced them. But feck me it was hopeless. Think it was the first one they done when they went on for over an hour about the definition of truth.
Until Sam basically said feck it and called it a day.
I think it's that we as human beings are inherently shellfish.I've read it three times and I've got feck all idea what his point is?
I thank you all, my uber has arrived.
I've read it three times and I've got feck all idea what his point is?
Simply put, that the idea to implement hierarchies did not spawn from the minds of straight white men. And we can say that for a fact because there's quite a bit of evolutionary history to them.
It's the side issues that make up the bigger issues though isn't it ? Whataboutisms don't relate to the fact that there are whole cultures who are far less tolerant to certain things than others.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-talk-about_b_828037.html
> the idea to implement hierarchies
I think those spawned from some human minds.
> there's quite a bit of evolutionary history to them.
There is evol history for hierarchies. I don't believe there is any evolutionary history for the *idea to implement* hierarchies.
The hierarchies being criticised are structural positions in society, like owners of the means of production, or, say, slave owners in a slave society, which apply to classes or groups of people. These are in contrast with the individualised dominance hierarchies/pecking order he is comparing it with. Further, these hierarchies (owner-worker or master-slave) are social constructions, products of a particular system. Finally, it seems that the level of hierarchy/egalitarianism in human societies has varied over time.
I think those spawned from some human minds.
> there's quite a bit of evolutionary history to them.
There is evol history for hierarchies. I don't believe there is any evolutionary history for the *idea to implement* hierarchies.
The hierarchies being criticised are structural positions in society, like owners of the means of production, or, say, slave owners in a slave society, which apply to classes or groups of people. These are in contrast with the individualised dominance hierarchies/pecking order he is comparing it with. Further, these hierarchies (owner-worker or master-slave) are social constructions, products of a particular system. Finally, it seems that the level of hierarchy/egalitarianism in human societies has varied over time.
The willingness to mention the shortcomings of other cultures, like homophobia in Islam is not racist I agree. Wilders however is definitively racist though.