|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 30, 2004 15:43:49 GMT
Deleting members is not the correct way to go about it. He has posted some good things and started some decent topics, and he is not worthy of deletion. Only of banning until he learns that this forum is not the palce for crap.
He is unbanned now so long as he keeps up the good behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Mar 31, 2004 17:35:57 GMT
Anyway, before we repeat ourselves, does anyone have anything new to talk about!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 31, 2004 21:21:19 GMT
One final remark, the user known as 'MrMoony' has been banned, this ban is currently for 2weeks but if his behaviour gets any worse it will be permanent. His offensive remarks, inappopriate topics and idiotic profile led me to ban him.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Apr 1, 2004 6:02:11 GMT
Isn't it amazing, that Moony was the one who complained that this forum was like a kiddy playroom. He's making it more like a kiddy playroom.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 1, 2004 7:13:07 GMT
Yes, i noticed that topic again recently and after his recent behaviour he proved quite the hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 4, 2004 21:36:14 GMT
THE RACISM AND HYPOCRISY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (A short piece by TheCritique)
I read it in a newspaper that a renowned art gallery seeking a curator assistant for an anti-racist art show have banned whites for applying for the job. Am I getting something wrong here, or is this a contradiction of terms? Banning whites from applying is discrimination on a racial basis. The exhibition is an anti-racist one. They are promoting the very thing they claim to be battling against.
The pathetic reason they have given for this blatant racism is that ethnic minorities are ‘under-represented in the visual arts industry.’ The Commission for Racial Equality, the organization that supposedly aims to eradicate racism in Britain, is no better than the politically correct bosses of the arts gallery. They initially criticised the decision, but later retracted their statement on the basis that it was not in breach of any laws.
This is another example of the hypocratic lunacy of PC that governs our country and makes our laws. If it is an insight into the future of our country God help us all.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 5, 2004 19:25:14 GMT
As mentioned in the news fader, there has been a change of mind in the left: recently those who criticised multicultualism were branded racists. Now they realise they got it all wrong. Trevor Phillips, the chairman for the commission for racial equality, admitted that a multicultural society (ideologistic social aim created by political correctness) was a dream, not a reality. It actually drove people of difference origins apart. This is a defeat for PC! It is slowly being rejected by society as my long article predicted!
Any comments on this change of plan?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 6, 2004 8:05:05 GMT
I'm all for it, PC should be taken down for the lack of usefulness it has.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 19, 2004 23:14:09 GMT
Hmm, I'm not sure, reading through this thread, that ANYBODY has got the hang of the sheer enormity of what political correctness really is.
It is, in my belief, something far more insidious than merely an irritation that causes people and society to conduct itself in a way that contradicts all sense and logic (although that is certainly true). It is something far larger and harder to break, and indeed that is why it causes society to conduct itself in such irrational ways. Quite simply, it's a form of mind control.
It erodes the English language, and probably many others, in a manner disturbingly reminiscent of Orwell's satirical Newspeak. People's instinct is always, quite rightly, to recoil from taking offensive actions and speaking offensive words, and indeed to recoil from seeing others behaving in such a way.
But political correctness takes it a stage further. It creeps across life and society and is forever working to widen the boundaries of the unacceptable. We are now living in a society where, quite ludicrously, people wince when they hear the words, "I can see a black man." There is nothing offensive whatsoever in any of the above words, or even any combination of them, but as soon as anyone utters them they will face the likely suspicion of being racist.
So the natural reflex is to evade them and look for euphemisms to substitute them, such as, "I can see a coloured man." In the long run this is futile, because the real "crime" that they are supposedly guilty of is noticing someone's ethnic origin. There is of course nothing wrong with noticing that as long as judgements are not made on it, but political correctness suggests that this is not the case. So whatever euphemisms are dreamt up for it will eventually become taboo as well. And on and on it goes, a cycle of years and years, but each time it completes, the English language will be depleted by another word.
The reflex is therefore very gradually to annihilate forms of self-expression, and to avoid thinking about things that are simply a reality of human life. It is mind control and it's one of the most dangerous developments of the Western world in the last thirty years.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 20, 2004 6:37:36 GMT
Here, Here this is why I refuse to act PC but the problem is will we be able to help oursleves? Well anyone dare to say an un-PC word and risk being frowned upon by their peers?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 20, 2004 11:43:38 GMT
Good question, Batman. ;D The solution is to think up a sentence that is as politically incorrect, but as inoffensive as possible, and make a banner of it. Then carry the banner through your city centre.
Any suggestions for what that sentence should be?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 20, 2004 12:11:08 GMT
Anyone for a black coffee?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 20, 2004 12:21:04 GMT
Your suggestion of 'I can see a Black man' is a possibility. But we must think of some of the areas PC acts in. The prime example is race relations and equality. Something to do with men and women NOT being equal maybe.
I think promoting Britain and the British, saying this is our country would horrify the politically correct.
Keep the suggestions coming!
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on May 9, 2004 12:08:39 GMT
A few things: To clear up mooneys question earlier on: politically correct adj. Abbr. PC Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.As to the topic itself, i want to state the following things: Political Correctness is bullshit. One thing that really discusts me, is that at the college there are posters EVERYWHERE promoting anti racism. They line the coridors and decorate the canteen. But yet, when i walk around the college itself, (This is fact not specualtion) 2 out of every 3 people i see have an obvious disability. In real life 1 in 100 people (or less) have an obvious disability. This is PC gone mad. When i applied for college i had to fill out a application form - and the very last page was entitled 'Ethnic Monitoring'. When i saw that it made me feel sick. Now those with different skin colours and those who are not normally formed get picked first for job spaces. Now if a company has no (or few) women, Forigners, or those consigned to wheel chairs - they are subject to VERY heavy fines and possibly even being shut down. Shops without adaqute services for the disabled face the same fate - this is just ridiculous and should be stopped. Hypothetical situation: *This is for the less mentaly inclined (I.E. Mooney) In playground Soccer the two team captains take turns in choosing their team members. In real life they snap up the best and most agile players first, and leaving those who cant really play untill last. In a PC game the team leaders would pick the Retarded players, The slow players, the Disabled players first. This is a scary reflection of real life. More to come soon.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 12, 2004 14:21:20 GMT
I would just to add onto those informative comments. As I think I mentioned in my article, the police chiefs set targets for recruiting more ethnic minority police officers. This is in itself discrimination, as skilled British candidates could be rejected in favour of less-skilled minority officers.
|
|
|
Post by TheAntiThatcher on May 12, 2004 16:11:20 GMT
Hey, I've just joined this forum - it was recommended to me by HStorm - a very, very, very good friend of mine Political Correctness has gone WAY too far - it's just ridiculous. Last Christmas I heard that some politicians thought about scrapping cards with "Merry Christmas" on them and replacing the message with "Season's Greetings". Why? Because they thought that non-Christians would be offended by Christmas greetings. Why would they be? If I was a Muslim or a Hindu, I wouldn't be offended by that. Totally over the top, I can tell you.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 12, 2004 16:13:14 GMT
This is our first female poster I believe, and she's my girl, so be on your best behaviour from now on, the lot of you!
|
|
|
Post by mysteria on May 12, 2004 16:29:20 GMT
Christmas is viewed by many as a Christian festival. It is likely some religions would indeed be offended by it - they don't get 'happy Divali' cards' now do they?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 12, 2004 16:39:16 GMT
There's nothing to stop people making "Happy Divali" cards if they wanted to though.
Just because someone doesn't celebrate Christmas, that doesn't mean they have to take offence at the whole idea of it. There's rather a lot of middle ground available you know.
The bottom line is, if someone wants to celebrate Divali, they're allowed to do so without taking refuge from the name. Why should Christmas be treated any differently?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 12, 2004 16:39:39 GMT
I'm sure if there was enough market/interest for them they would be available, but surely changing the message to "Seasons Greetings" will upset Christians? I know as a christian myself i would be a little irritated!
|
|
|
Post by mysteria on May 12, 2004 16:45:16 GMT
If politicians represent ALL religions they should send out appropiate greeting cards cards with appropiate messages for all religios groups and just one that is most popular. Seasons greetings conveyus a commendable neutral stance on what is very sensitive ground for some.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 12, 2004 16:54:22 GMT
There's a few problems with what you're saying there.
Firstly, politicians do not represent ALL religions. Nobody does as far as I know. They represent their constituencies, which is a POLITICAL appointment, not a religious one.
Neutral greetings cards aren't necessarily a bad idea, but that's not quite what we're discussing. We're discussing the idea that the politicos were contemplating of ABOLISHING Christmas cards i.e. banning anyone at all from using them. This is clearly unfair on Christian groups who simply want to worship and celebrate without persecution or hindrance.
If something as simple and harmless as that is sensitive ground for other people, I'd suggest it's the other people who need to lighten up instead of insisting everyone else goes out of their way to accommodate them.
Incidentally, I'm not a Christian - in fact I'm not religious at all - while most of my family is Jewish, so I have no personal stake in defending people's rights to celebrate their religious festivals as they see fit.
The argument about the right to worship freely is part of what the English Civil Wars were fought about over 350 years ago! Don't tell me you want to reverse fundamental human rights that were established that far back.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 12, 2004 19:13:06 GMT
Christmas is viewed by many as a Christian festival. It is likely some religions would indeed be offended by it - they don't get 'happy Divali' cards' now do they? Leaders of different religions have openly declared that they are not offended by Christianity or any of it's celebrations, and they include Christmas. They say that they have no reason to be offended by it, and they rightly point out that Christians are not offended by their religion. I wish to point out to everyone that non-christians have no reason whatsoever to take offence to Christianity, just as Christians have no reason to take offence to other religions. We live in a 'free' country, and British citizens should be allowed to openly 'enjoy' their religion. For more information on the delusional madness of PC read my article!
|
|
|
Post by mysteria on May 13, 2004 16:30:50 GMT
HSTORM...
Firstly, don't refer to my reply as having problems, it makes you out to sound like a patronsing pig. Just come out with something more appropiate like 'I strongly disagree.'
If politicians represent their constituents they should be sensitive to all and not just those they want to! hose who believe otherwise really are of closed mind, in my opinion.
'Not fair?' So it is fair to give one group a special treatment? That doesn't sound very fair to me at all, if I am stopped, then so should they? Denomination is hardly fair either or did you conveniently forget that?
'Going out of their way?' It's only changing two words to make all partys happy. If thats too much you're not particularly sensitive. - as for telling them to lighten I don't beleive that is an entirely acceptable response.
No you have no personal stake there, BUT of course you have a personal stake in defending 'your girl' as you referred to her earlier. Again, your apparent patronsing nature shows through clearly.
They also used to cut peoples heads off then, let's do that too! Do you have your brain in gear today or what?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 13, 2004 16:57:59 GMT
Firstly, Mysteria, you are the one being patronising. Don't you ever accuse me of not having my brain in gear. There IS something wrong with what you said, and your insistence that I should say so differently, while not changing the meaning of what I say in any way, shows you to be politically correct - exactly the sort of thing we're complaining about.
Politicians represent their constituents POLITICALLY. Religious groups are represented by their church/mosque/synagogue etc. While the politicians must have respect for these institutions, they should be kept separate from political debate.
I'm not suggesting we give one group special treatment! Why not try reading what I said? I'm saying we shouldn't victimise a particular group for wanting to celebrate a festival in their own way as long as it doesn't do anything detrimental to anyone else. And saying "Merry Christmas" doesn't hurt anyone in any way at all. And I'm not for a moment suggesting that any other group should be stopped from worshipping in their own way either.
And don't be daft. Of course I'm not suggesting we go back to living as our ancestors did in the Civil Wars. I meant, there's a principle of people being allowed to worship and celebrate their religious beliefs in their own way free of persecution as long as it causes no harm to anyone else. People fought and died in their thousands during the wars over that right, without which there'd be no right of worship in this country today for anyone except Anglican Protestants. You'd happily throw that away just for the sake of not "offending" people who aren't offended anyway, and could just as easily look the other way even if they were.
And as for defending my girlfriend... again, try READING the previous post I've made. I never mentioned her once in it. I was just answering your points and explaining why I don't agree with you.
I suggest that in future you either pay attention to what people say before you reply to them or you don't reply to them at all. And just because I dare to disagree with you, don't have the bloody nerve to accuse me of being patronising.
|
|