|
Post by vokeswagen on Jan 26, 2020 22:41:04 GMT
Mar lady could put out a chip pan fire with nothing more than a frosty glance. But God help us if she was put in charge of navigating to the cunting building
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 30, 2020 6:43:27 GMT
I'm waiting for a cartoonist to draw a picture of a homeless male explaining to a passerby that they are fully aware of their white privilege
It wont happen in a paper with a left bias
It's quite ridiculous to say that, because of my gender and skin colour I have an edge on someone with opposing orientation. In fact to say the reverse would be considered racist and sexist
Grouping people together by race, gender, sexual orientation is a very dangerous path to go down
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 30, 2020 7:01:32 GMT
I'm waiting for a cartoonist to draw a picture of a homeless male explaining to a passerby that they are fully aware of their white privilege It wont happen in a paper with a left bias It's quite ridiculous to say that, because of my gender and skin colour I have an edge on someone with opposing orientation. In fact to say the reverse would be considered racist and sexist Grouping people together by race, gender, sexual orientation is a very dangerous path to go down What are you saying, that there are no non white homeless people or something else...
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Jan 30, 2020 8:07:56 GMT
Somewhere on the interweb a Man Utd fan is proving there is no big team bias in refereeing with the fact they sometimes lose games.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 30, 2020 8:25:12 GMT
Somewhere on the interweb a Man Utd fan is proving there is no big team bias in refereeing with the fact they sometimes lose games. That’s some footballing brain you’ve got there Mustard⚽️🧠
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Jan 30, 2020 8:46:22 GMT
Somewhere on the interweb a Man Utd fan is proving there is no big team bias in refereeing with the fact they sometimes lose games. That’s some footballing brain you’ve got there Mustard⚽️🧠 It's a brain of two halves mate
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 30, 2020 10:20:08 GMT
I'm waiting for a cartoonist to draw a picture of a homeless male explaining to a passerby that they are fully aware of their white privilege It wont happen in a paper with a left bias It's quite ridiculous to say that, because of my gender and skin colour I have an edge on someone with opposing orientation. In fact to say the reverse would be considered racist and sexist Grouping people together by race, gender, sexual orientation is a very dangerous path to go down What are you saying, that there are no non white homeless people or something else... As my alarm sounded at 7.30, I jumped out of bed and did a little jig about my white privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 30, 2020 10:29:15 GMT
I'm waiting for a cartoonist to draw a picture of a homeless male explaining to a passerby that they are fully aware of their white privilege It wont happen in a paper with a left bias It's quite ridiculous to say that, because of my gender and skin colour I have an edge on someone with opposing orientation. In fact to say the reverse would be considered racist and sexist Grouping people together by race, gender, sexual orientation is a very dangerous path to go down What are you saying, that there are no non white homeless people or something else... I'm saying the myth of white male privilege is just that - where is a homeless white male's privilege? Such discourse is designed to render non-dominant groups victims and so justifies their response (often violent) to these inequalities of race and gender - the danger being to identify people solely by their race or gender
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 12:39:40 GMT
What are you saying, that there are no non white homeless people or something else... I'm saying the myth of white male privilege is just that - where is a homeless white male's privilege? Such discourse is designed to render non-dominant groups victims and so justifies their response (often violent) to these inequalities of race and gender - the danger being to identify people solely by their race or gender
Can you define what you understand 'white privilege' to mean?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 30, 2020 12:43:19 GMT
What are you saying, that there are no non white homeless people or something else... As my alarm sounded at 7.30, I jumped out of bed and did a little jig about my white privilege. I hope you gave a thought to those poor exploited people who probably made your alarm
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 30, 2020 12:56:16 GMT
I wonder what the oatcake would be like without the liberal types... Liberals tend to be atheists and therefore satanic Ermmmmm.....how does not having any religious beliefs make you satanic. That’s interesting
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jan 30, 2020 13:39:38 GMT
Liberals tend to be atheists and therefore satanic Ermmmmm.....how does not having any religious beliefs make you satanic. That’s interesting It doesn't. As satan doesn't exist, nobody can be satanic.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 30, 2020 14:04:50 GMT
I'm saying the myth of white male privilege is just that - where is a homeless white male's privilege? Such discourse is designed to render non-dominant groups victims and so justifies their response (often violent) to these inequalities of race and gender - the danger being to identify people solely by their race or gender
Can you define what you understand 'white privilege' to mean?
Something else that you've seen on social media, doesn't impact you in any way, shape or form yet you're getting all twitchy on the internet about? Fella 😊
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 30, 2020 14:07:12 GMT
As my alarm sounded at 7.30, I jumped out of bed and did a little jig about my white privilege. I hope you gave a thought to those poor exploited people who probably made your alarm On a Huawei phone? They're probably on a good screw.
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 14:48:48 GMT
Can you define what you understand 'white privilege' to mean?
Something else that you've seen on social media, doesn't impact you in any way, shape or form yet you're getting all twitchy on the internet about? Fella 😊
Are you ok fella? There's no twitching here, only asking a question.
I fear all that ganj you're smoking is making you para
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 14:49:37 GMT
Ermmmmm.....how does not having any religious beliefs make you satanic. That’s interesting It doesn't. As satan doesn't exist, nobody can be satanic.
I hope you don't have to find out the hard way that satan is very very real friend
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 30, 2020 14:53:11 GMT
Something else that you've seen on social media, doesn't impact you in any way, shape or form yet you're getting all twitchy on the internet about? Fella 😊
Are you ok fella? There's no twitching here, only asking a question.
I fear all that ganj you're smoking is making you para The 'ganj' trope isn't working fella, can't stand the stuff. Give me a pint anyday. Plus I'm not the one with multiple personalities on a forum banging on about Satan 😊
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 30, 2020 16:06:50 GMT
I'm saying the myth of white male privilege is just that - where is a homeless white male's privilege? Such discourse is designed to render non-dominant groups victims and so justifies their response (often violent) to these inequalities of race and gender - the danger being to identify people solely by their race or gender
Can you define what you understand 'white privilege' to mean?
I understand the left use white privilege to define the belief that white men somehow have an unfair advantage due to their skin pigmentation and gender - inverse rascism/sexism if you will To define someone having an unfair advantage due to this in this day and age is ludicrous - 1980s South Africa fair enough
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jan 30, 2020 16:27:04 GMT
It doesn't. As satan doesn't exist, nobody can be satanic. I hope you don't have to find out the hard way that satan is very very real friend I think I'll be able to take him in a fight, he is over 2500 years old and if it's really his offspring who'll be after me I'll just run away as I'll easily recognise them with their wild boar heads.
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 16:45:41 GMT
Can you define what you understand 'white privilege' to mean?
I understand the left use white privilege to define the belief that white men somehow have an unfair advantage due to their skin pigmentation and gender - inverse rascism/sexism if you will To define someone having an unfair advantage due to this in this day and age is ludicrous - 1980s South Africa fair enough How do you explain research where identical CV's are sent with British sounding names and foreign kind of names, and the British ones getting many more invites to interview? Or the lack of women in senior positions in business?
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 16:46:22 GMT
Are you ok fella? There's no twitching here, only asking a question.
I fear all that ganj you're smoking is making you para The 'ganj' trope isn't working fella, can't stand the stuff. Give me a pint anyday. Plus I'm not the one with multiple personalities on a forum banging on about Satan 😊 Fair play fella. Bit early to be pissed though
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 30, 2020 16:58:02 GMT
I understand the left use white privilege to define the belief that white men somehow have an unfair advantage due to their skin pigmentation and gender - inverse rascism/sexism if you will To define someone having an unfair advantage due to this in this day and age is ludicrous - 1980s South Africa fair enough How do you explain research where identical CV's are sent with British sounding names and foreign kind of names, and the British ones getting many more invites to interview? Or the lack of women in senior positions in business? If someone chooses to make decisions based on racism then yes, some white men may well have an unfair advantage if white people are hiring But to say ALL WHITE MEN have an advantage is nonsense Many women dont make it into the boardrooms because historically few have wanted to and women often have a biological imperative to procreate and so have to choose between being a mother and working 70-80 hrs per week and have an executive career. Men tend to be driven by power, success and status and are willing to devote their life to achieving this - women tend not to but I agree some business cultures do make life harder for women to succeed because they have to make the same decision as men regarding work v family My whole argument is about people adopting the role to justify their failure along race, gender or sexual orientation - good businesses dont give a toss they just want someone in tole who makes them money the cream tends to rise
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 17:13:36 GMT
How do you explain research where identical CV's are sent with British sounding names and foreign kind of names, and the British ones getting many more invites to interview? Or the lack of women in senior positions in business? If someone chooses to make decisions based on racism then yes, some white men may well have an unfair advantage if white people are hiring But to say ALL WHITE MEN have an advantage is nonsense Many women dont make it into the boardrooms because historically few have wanted to and women often have a biological imperative to procreate and so have to choose between being a mother and working 70-80 hrs per week and have an executive career. Men tend to be driven by power, success and status and are willing to devote their life to achieving this - women tend not to but I agree some business cultures do make life harder for women to succeed because they have to make the same decision as men regarding work v family My whole argument is about people adopting the role to justify their failure along race, gender or sexual orientation - good businesses dont give a toss they just want someone in tole who makes them money the cream tends to rise Thank you for making the point for me. White privilege just means that white people do not face the obstacles that non white people do based on their race. Not that all white people have advantages or cannot suffer other forms of disadvantage. In your previous post you seem to suggest racism doesn't exist anymore. Way to move the goalposts.
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 17:16:45 GMT
The rest of your post is sexist nonsense too btw. Provides nice evidence that male privilege exists.
Women don't achieve because they want babies.
Is it 1950? And why is the birthrate going down if they are so determined to get their fannies occupied?
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 30, 2020 20:30:21 GMT
If someone chooses to make decisions based on racism then yes, some white men may well have an unfair advantage if white people are hiring But to say ALL WHITE MEN have an advantage is nonsense Many women dont make it into the boardrooms because historically few have wanted to and women often have a biological imperative to procreate and so have to choose between being a mother and working 70-80 hrs per week and have an executive career. Men tend to be driven by power, success and status and are willing to devote their life to achieving this - women tend not to but I agree some business cultures do make life harder for women to succeed because they have to make the same decision as men regarding work v family My whole argument is about people adopting the role to justify their failure along race, gender or sexual orientation - good businesses dont give a toss they just want someone in tole who makes them money the cream tends to rise Thank you for making the point for me. White privilege just means that white people do not face the obstacles that non white people do based on their race. Not that all white people have advantages or cannot suffer other forms of disadvantage. In your previous post you seem to suggest racism doesn't exist anymore. Way to move the goalposts. Racism and sexism do exist on an individual basis: not ALL women are discriminated along gender lines, neither are ALL non-white people but individually they may be. The danger lies in creating a whole gender or a whole race as all being victims. This is the basis of identity based politics. The downfall of political correctness is that it creates group identities based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, nationhood and it assumes all those people within that divide are thus all discriminated against. It's a very lazy and dangerous philosophy that simplifies an incredibly complex situation by lumping together individuals into a whole Jordan Peterson talks about how the Nazis came to power and justified the eradication of the Jews based on their presumed victimhood at their hands through profiteering from WWI. The German people were encouraged to act in revenge for this through the Jewish persecution, but how could an entire religious order have done this as a collective whole? Some bankers did but what about the poor Jews? What about the non-Jewish bankers? This is the crux of my point with regards to saying all white men have a perceived privilege over non-whites and non-men: some may well have, some may not but to say all is wholly inaccurate and misleading rendering everyone non-white/non-male to be a victim of oppression: this is Marxist dogma at the height of its ideological inaccuracy driven by the belief that we should all be equal Wherein lies a paradox: in terms of good looks, strength, speed, health, wealth we are all unequal, yet spiritually, outside of the Marxist material paradigm, we are. Hope this makes sense and my point clearer.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 30, 2020 20:46:13 GMT
Thank you for making the point for me. White privilege just means that white people do not face the obstacles that non white people do based on their race. Not that all white people have advantages or cannot suffer other forms of disadvantage. In your previous post you seem to suggest racism doesn't exist anymore. Way to move the goalposts. Racism and sexism do exist on an individual basis: not ALL women are discriminated along gender lines, neither are ALL non-white people but individually they may be. The danger lies in creating a whole gender or a whole race as all being victims. This is the basis of identity based politics. The downfall of political correctness is that it creates group identities based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, nationhood and it assumes all those people within that divide are thus all discriminated against. It's a very lazy and dangerous philosophy that simplifies an incredibly complex situation by lumping together individuals into a whole Jordan Peterson talks about how the Nazis came to power and justified the eradication of the Jews based on their presumed victimhood at their hands through profiteering from WWI. The German people were encouraged to act in revenge for this through the Jewish persecution, but how could an entire religious order have done this as a collective whole? Some bankers did but what about the poor Jews? What about the non-Jewish bankers? This is the crux of my point with regards to saying all white men have a perceived privilege over non-whites and non-men: some may well have, some may not but to say all is wholly inaccurate and misleading rendering everyone non-white/non-male to be a victim of oppression: this is Marxist dogma at the height of its ideological inaccuracy driven by the belief that we should all be equal Wherein lies a paradox: in terms of good looks, strength, speed, health, wealth we are all unequal, yet spiritually, outside of the Marxist material paradigm, we are. Hope this makes sense and my point clearer. Jordan Peterson talks lots of sense
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 30, 2020 21:00:16 GMT
Racism and sexism do exist on an individual basis: not ALL women are discriminated along gender lines, neither are ALL non-white people but individually they may be. The danger lies in creating a whole gender or a whole race as all being victims. This is the basis of identity based politics. The downfall of political correctness is that it creates group identities based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, nationhood and it assumes all those people within that divide are thus all discriminated against. It's a very lazy and dangerous philosophy that simplifies an incredibly complex situation by lumping together individuals into a whole Jordan Peterson talks about how the Nazis came to power and justified the eradication of the Jews based on their presumed victimhood at their hands through profiteering from WWI. The German people were encouraged to act in revenge for this through the Jewish persecution, but how could an entire religious order have done this as a collective whole? Some bankers did but what about the poor Jews? What about the non-Jewish bankers? This is the crux of my point with regards to saying all white men have a perceived privilege over non-whites and non-men: some may well have, some may not but to say all is wholly inaccurate and misleading rendering everyone non-white/non-male to be a victim of oppression: this is Marxist dogma at the height of its ideological inaccuracy driven by the belief that we should all be equal Wherein lies a paradox: in terms of good looks, strength, speed, health, wealth we are all unequal, yet spiritually, outside of the Marxist material paradigm, we are. Hope this makes sense and my point clearer. Jordan Peterson talks lots of sense When you’re lost, Anyone can tell you The Way...
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 21:45:27 GMT
Thank you for making the point for me. White privilege just means that white people do not face the obstacles that non white people do based on their race. Not that all white people have advantages or cannot suffer other forms of disadvantage. In your previous post you seem to suggest racism doesn't exist anymore. Way to move the goalposts. Racism and sexism do exist on an individual basis: not ALL women are discriminated along gender lines, neither are ALL non-white people but individually they may be. The danger lies in creating a whole gender or a whole race as all being victims. This is the basis of identity based politics. The downfall of political correctness is that it creates group identities based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, nationhood and it assumes all those people within that divide are thus all discriminated against. It's a very lazy and dangerous philosophy that simplifies an incredibly complex situation by lumping together individuals into a whole Jordan Peterson talks about how the Nazis came to power and justified the eradication of the Jews based on their presumed victimhood at their hands through profiteering from WWI. The German people were encouraged to act in revenge for this through the Jewish persecution, but how could an entire religious order have done this as a collective whole? Some bankers did but what about the poor Jews? What about the non-Jewish bankers? This is the crux of my point with regards to saying all white men have a perceived privilege over non-whites and non-men: some may well have, some may not but to say all is wholly inaccurate and misleading rendering everyone non-white/non-male to be a victim of oppression: this is Marxist dogma at the height of its ideological inaccuracy driven by the belief that we should all be equal Wherein lies a paradox: in terms of good looks, strength, speed, health, wealth we are all unequal, yet spiritually, outside of the Marxist material paradigm, we are. Hope this makes sense and my point clearer. Marx didn't say that, and you have made sweeping generalisations in the opposite direction - that men are successful because as a group they have particular traits. Why isn't your 'ideology' dangerous and misleading?
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Jan 30, 2020 21:46:12 GMT
Jordan Peterson talks lots of sense When you’re lost, Anyone can tell you The Way... You're my favourite Bath. And Peterson is a snake oil salesmen for idiots and virgins.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 30, 2020 23:14:30 GMT
|
|