- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2300 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
676 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 15041
>Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people
>The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may "disappoint" some people "the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first."
>Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”
Life rarely takes the piss out of itself like this. It almost sounds like the plot of a South Park episode.
|>>|| No. 28913
>Why is she talking about being able to be mates with Peter Hitchens like that's an accomplishment? Not only do hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country work with people they'd happily see fed to a pride of lions, Peter Hitchens is a definitively awful person who stands against more-or-less everything Moore claims to stand for, and has actively tried to make British lives more unhappy and difficult for decades. It's an act of cowardice to speak kindly of such people.
The point she's trying to make there is that you can disagree with someone whilst still being civil and capable of hearing them out. There has definitely been an increase in people being intolerant of different opinions.
|>>|| No. 28915
That's a reasonable complaint on its own but I still don't see how it has any but the most tenuous connection to the rest of what she's on about. May as well have ended with a complaint about the poor editorial catching of spelling mistakes. Unless she's making some connection between a sexually-motivated murderer and trans people?
|>>|| No. 28916
I think she's trying to say that some women feel they're being relegated in society but they're afraid to speak out about this because of the potential backlash. Then the Graun come along and do an obituary about the Yorkshire Ripper, notorious for targeting women.
|>>|| No. 28920
I feel so bad for this woman being silenced, to the extent that where before she was confined to The Guardian I now have to read her drivel on .gs. Maybe when she gets really silenced they will run her on TV 24 hours a day.
|>>|| No. 28921
She isn't claiming to be silenced. She said she left because she didn't feel like senior staff such as Katharine Viner had her back sufficiently, which is pretty fundamental to journalism.
|>>|| No. 28922
I'd put money on the uptake being 99% down to the dynamics of social media, rather than ideology.
I suspect the ideological element comes in because younger people are far less likely to have a cry over being called a stupid cunt on twitter, since they've been receiving "death threats" since age 12.
At the risk of undermining my point, I'll add generally that all the crowing about civility in recent years rubs me the wrong way. A lot of the time, the battle is really between incivility couched in polite language and formalities, and direct rudeness from the powerless. Politicians, journalists, celebrities etc all grouping up to have a cry over the end of civility because Alex from Jaywick called them mean names on Twitter just because they voted to hurt people, said nasty words themselves, or were just generally acting like a knob.
|>>|| No. 28923
You don't understand. There is a humungous difference between me and Joe Bloggs putting the world to rights in a Costa Coffee or wherever, and Peter Hitchens having a weekly column in one of the most popular papers in the country and making dozens and dozens of TV appearences over the years. I'm not going to judge Mr Bloggs for being wrong in my eyes, but Hitchens is actively trying to make people's lives worse and has a huge platform for doing so, he's spent this year alone advocating for a Brazil-style "let 'em all die" approach to COVID. He's a bad person, he is an immoral person. Joe's just mistaken and if I can't talk him round, well, whatever, he's his own worst enemy. These are completely different circumstances and conflating the two is the ambrosia of far too many in the columnist class right now. They seem to forget that they aren't anonymously pinning their think pieces to the walls of a public bathroom, and that having hundreds of people disagree with you is entirely normal when you're being published online for the world to see.
I'd also like to add that no one appears to have been uncivil to Moore in real life, it was all Twitter bellends. To which I'd point out that if you're going to stick your hand in a wasp's nest what happens next is a foregone conclusion. If signing on open letter is nothing less than the most civil form of disagreement possible then what else is there? She can air her voice in The Guardian, but if those who think otherwise do so in public they're the problem? It's nakedly hypocritical.
Anyway, hope she enjoys her newfound civility over at UnHerd*, see attached image. *Christ, just call it "Sheeple Silencer" already, those pretentious arseholes.
|>>|| No. 28924
>She can air her voice in The Guardian, but if those who think otherwise do so in public they're the problem?
What tickled me is that when Moore posted the list of the (already leaked) signatories online, one of them allegedly Owen Jones had a hissy fit about being 'doxxed.'
|>>|| No. 28931
You now have to post a cartoon or photoshop of Jones covered in floods of tears, so that we can see your homophobia writ large.
|>>|| No. 28937
>he's spent this year alone advocating for a Brazil-style "let 'em all die" approach to COVID. He's a bad person, he is an immoral person.
Pardon me for laser focussing on this one specific segment of your post, but this really betrays a specific ideological belief I am increasingly questioning to myself, recently.
Is the sanctity of human life the be all end all of morality? The one end to which our ethical compass should point us? Is it really? Does quality of life never factor in to it at all? I had a revelatory thought the other day, during one of my long hours transferring bits of viral transport medium in to lysis buffer. Isn't that just basically the argument pro-life Christians have been making this entire time?
We've all been caught up in it because of covid, when arguably none of us cared that much before about all the deaths from everything else. Mainly because it was happening in other countries, to poor people, I might argue.
If it turns out that reinfection is possible and the vaccine isn't a magic cure all, we're going to have to come to terms with the deaths whether we like it or not. I predict this sudden spell of compassion for our fellow man will evaporate rather quickly at that point, when it turns out that virtuously sacrificing the pub and the package holiday were all for naught.
|>>|| No. 28938
>Does quality of life never factor in to it at all?
It's a factor but "I want to go to the pub" still doesn't rate more highly than someone else's "I don't want to die". This is, still, a first world country: complaining that your quality of life has dipped while you've still got food on your plate, central heating, WiFi and cable TV just makes you sound like a whiny baby.
|>>|| No. 28945
Of course, you would be absolutely right were it not for the millions of people put out of work since the beginning of this year, with no prospect of finding it again any time soon thanks to the collapse of the already strained local economy. What we have done is allowed an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power into the hands of the elite to slip by us unnoticed in the name of doing the right thing, and we're not going to appreciate the long term damage that has been inflicted for a generation or more. You have presented a somewhat dishonest position.
As usual, the chattering classes have zero sympathy for the povvos who have been dealt a very serious and lasting blow by all of this, by characterising them as thickos and selfish bastards who want to kill their own grandma. It's all their fault for voting the Tories in last year anyway, we'll say, from the comfort of the work-from-home non-jobs and cozy furlough wages. Therein lies the lack of perspective: For you it's just giving up the pub and package holidays, for many it's meant giving up their livelihoods.
Maybe it will turn out to have been a price worth paying and we will succeed in eradicating covid. But if it doesn't turn out that way, and much like the seasonal flu, we see covid becoming a lower level but ever present menace killing tens of thousands per year despite vaccination programs... Well, I really don't think it can be said to have been worth it in that case.
|>>|| No. 28946
How fucking presumptuous. I've been out of work this entire year thanks to this. No, the answer to problems caused by the unprecedented transfer of wealth and power you mention is not to let all the vulnerable people die. It should be obvious what the answer is but for some reason you're ignoring that and focusing on how best you can present yourself as a victim.
|>>|| No. 28947
>focusing on how best you can present yourself as a victim.
Isn't that what politics is all about these days?
|>>|| No. 28949
> It should be obvious what the answer
Communism? Education? Simplifying regulation for small businesses? Reopen coal mines?
|>>|| No. 28951
There has to be a slidding scale, If I issued the demand no one is to go on holiday ever again otherwise I execute a hostage, and then I rolled it up to never go out for public entertainment, then no outside except for work and food, then only for food.
There has to come a point where people are willing to let that one person die so that everyone else can live a normal healthy life, and I don't think that is unreasonable. Cars are really fucking dangerous, they kill people, (sometimes ones who aren't even using them) and destroy the planet, but they improve our quality of life far too much to consider a few mere deaths.
|>>|| No. 28953
Nobody said the answer was to let all the vulnerable people die, presumptuouslad. None of this is black and white, which is the part you seem incapable of grappling with, and the more we learn about covid the less clear cut any of it is starting to look.
|>>|| No. 28954
No, they just questioned whether keeping them alive is worth it, with the implication that it's not.
|>>|| No. 28955
And as the post that spawned this debate pointed out, you could argue in the opposite direction until your reach the logical conclusion of pro-life anti-abortion fundamentalists, who hold that the value of a life always outweighs the suffering caused as a result of saving it.
In that particular instance, most people in the moral majority reason that the potential suffering is often not worth saving the life, and so murdering the unborn child is just. There's also the weight of a life already lived to consider, so that most people do not consider an unborn child's life as "valuable" as an adult, but again, the same inversion of the argument can be made that losing an elderly life with many rich experiences already lived is a lesser evil than seeing a young life consigned to misery.
All of us fall somewhere in the middle, we just rarely have to think about where.
|>>|| No. 28957
If you want to kill yourself out of misery then I'm not going to forbid you, but if you're prioritising your own mild difference in comfort over the life of someone who doesn't want to die then that's not your decision to make. Or at least, if you're going to make selfish decisions that affect others negatively then there's nothing to prevent others doing the same to you.
|>>|| No. 28958
> Or at least, if you're going to make selfish decisions that affect others negatively then there's nothing to prevent others doing the same to you.
Now you're getting it lad. If someone feels they are at risking from being negatively impacted by others, they can choose to avoid such situations. Each individual can make his or her own choice about risk. That's been the English way, for example allowing people to use their judgement when crossing the road safely, rather than having strict crossing laws and jaywalking etc.
|>>|| No. 28962
>if you're prioritising your own mild difference in comfort over the life of someone who doesn't want to die then that's not your decision to make.
It absolutely is, if by no other point than how can you stop me making that decision? By making a threat? Then we get into the question of if that is your decision to make and if it is appropriate too. For all the dressing it up, the power to do a thing and to make a choice about if a thing should be done thing is purely defined by the capacity to be able to do it. The government has hand waved the majority of tough decision on covid to 'make it up for yourselves', if they aren't going to enforce it why shouldn't I make up my own mind any more than I shouldn't choose to buy weed light up a spliff which they also say not to do but don't really enforce?
A student union can be fairly elected and oppose the occupation of the west bank, it doesn't mean anything because it isn't like they have any power to stop it.
|>>|| No. 28964
>It absolutely is, if by no other point than how can you stop me making that decision? By making a threat?
>if you're going to make selfish decisions that affect others negatively then there's nothing to prevent others doing the same to you.
It's called the social contract.
|>>|| No. 28966
There are literally laws governing the sale and the purchase of weed, they are only as good as the willingness/capacity to implement them.
the social contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.
|>>|| No. 28967
Why do I get the feeling this bloke wants to cite the Magna Carta?
|>>|| No. 28972
I don't at all. I get the feeling you can't distinguish between someone who doesn't believe in what you believe in and someone who is against it, your world view and your paradigm too simplistic.
Now I don't think the social contract exists, because it doesn't, it is a fairy tale something they teach in school to justify a position that is ultimately intangible and unjustifiable, like human rights, any power comes down to "we say so and if you don't do it we will do something you won't like through force", anything else is set dressing.
That doesn't mean I am a freeman of the land by pointing out the lies. The same way an atheist is not a Satanist, but there are Christians who can't tell the difference (because it is too alien to their simple world view if you don't support god you are in league with Satan end of), You can't tell the difference between someone who said is only as relevant as it is enforceable, and that which isn’t enforced can be ignored and someone who barks in court "man overboard".
|>>|| No. 28973
>Or at least, if you're going to make selfish decisions that affect others negatively then there's nothing to prevent others doing the same to you.
Selfish decisions like forcing everyone to lose their job just so old Ethel doesn't buy it six months early, you mean? It's entirely relative.
Personally, I feel our failure to act sooner set us on a path which required an over-correction of the course. Now, we find ourselves in a position where what we have done goes against the "greater good" by some margin, but we're committed to it because the embarrassment of our earlier failures made us all terribly conscious of letting it get worse.
But the main thing is, at no stage have we been prepared to go far enough. At no stage would it have been considered acceptable to close the airports, close the supermarkets and get the army out on the streets enforcing a genuine quarantine until the reservoir of infection in the population disappeared. Gosh, that would have been unthinkable.
Instead we'd rather take inadequate measures and then chastise people for not supporting those measures enthusiastically enough, because you've got to be a monster who wants all the old people dead not to support this frankly retarded set of limp-dicked half attempts at control.
It's all a load of shite honestly. Sick of pretending otherwise.
|>>|| No. 28976
All we needed to do was restrict airports in january or february - We had people coming direct from Wuhan (or via Schiphol at least) and nobody so much as gave them a leaflet.
I don't really understand why, other than poor leadership - we were much more careful during the Ebola thing.
|>>|| No. 28978
People and by that token popularist governments are too thick to appreciate the virtue of preventative measures.
All those people who cry 'but the economy' at the idea of closing the country, don't really understand the problem, the damage to the economy was inevitable, it was unpreventable the only question is, if it was a short term controlled manner, or if it was bleed out in a way for months that would that would actually do significantly more damage in the long term.
|>>|| No. 28979
>I don't really understand why, other than poor leadership
I suspect that's entirely why. I will stop short of suggesting it was down to Boris (or his advisors, ministers, etc) being personally irresponsible and rash, as much as I would like to- But I wonder what difference it would have made if they had already been in government for maybe a year or two, instead of a fresh, month old government?
|>>|| No. 28980
Who said people had a right to live? How can people have a right to something no one has control over to grant? Are you going to wave the Human rights act in the face of the doctor when they try to call time of death on a patient because that patient has a right to live?
|>>|| No. 29012
I... No, that's not how this is meant to work. Can you at least call me a cunt?
|>>|| No. 29021
Why does this thread bump up the board every time I use gay porn, for fuck sake? I want to forget that depravity.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]