Serious PC thread

[tented]

Maybe a better approach is to start the conversation on what we can all agree on, rather than disagree on.

Can we all agree that sexualising young children is not a good idea?
That Children don't need Drag Queens to educate them on sexual issues?
Children shouldn't need to know anything about sexual relations in primary level education?
Children should not be having any physical "modifications" related to sex organs?

Is everyone onboard with that as a starting point?

Yes, I agree with all of those points. I’ll add:

- Parents (not teachers or anyone else) should decide when their kids are exposed to anything sexual

Anyone else agree with these points?

 

[Federberg]

Yes, I agree with all of those points. I’ll add:

- Parents (not teachers or anyone else) should decide when their kids are exposed to anything sexual

Anyone else agree with these points?

100%

Wasn't that in essence what the don't say gay bill was in Florida? It was rebranded by the left to make it seem like a homophobic issue but it was actually about parental control. Which is why even Democrats in Florida were supportive. At least that's what I read somewhere...

 

[tented]

100%

Wasn't that in essence what the don't say gay bill was in Florida? It was rebranded by the left to make it seem like a homophobic issue but it was actually about parental control. Which is why even Democrats in Florida were supportive. At least that's what I read somewhere...

I haven’t read the actual bill, but I heard Bill Maher frame it in those terms: it’s about parental control/choice. It’s officially called “The Parental Rights in Education” bill. Maher said something along the lines of it’s the “Let’s take education back to where it was a few years ago“ bill.

 

[Federberg]

I haven’t read the actual bill, but I heard Bill Maher frame it in those terms: it’s about parental control/choice. It’s officially called “The Parental Rights in Education” bill. Maher said something along the lines of it’s the “Let’s take education back to where it was a few years ago“ bill.

I might not be a fan of the authoritarian bent that De Santis seems to favour, but that piece of legislation makes sense to me. When teachers start indoctrinating children that's just intolerable.

 

[Jelenafan]

I haven’t read the actual bill, but I heard Bill Maher frame it in those terms: it’s about parental control/choice. It’s officially called “The Parental Rights in Education” bill. Maher said something along the lines of it’s the “Let’s take education back to where it was a few years ago“ bill.

Lower grade school kids get exposed to alot of sexual topics through social media these days. (Can’t unhear from a month ago a couple of 8 year olds discussing whether a BJ is “real sex”. )

But i leave that to parents’ purview, its not like they can’t talk to their kids about these things if they choose to, it’s their responsibility. Its like when kids are unruly & disruptive in public, its not the kids that irritate me its the parents for their lack of attention.

So where I do think it gets tricky is at what age or grade level do you start introducing basic sex education (birds & bees stuff) as part of a curriculum, Jr. High? High School ?

If parents proactively opt out at even those levels for their kids I’m actually good with that, puts the onus back on mom & dad.

 

[Kieran]

Maybe a better approach is to start the conversation on what we can all agree on, rather than disagree on.

Can we all agree that sexualising young children is not a good idea?
That Children don't need Drag Queens to educate them on sexual issues?
Children shouldn't need to know anything about sexual relations in primary level education?
Children should not be having any physical "modifications" related to sex organs?

Is everyone onboard with that as a starting point?

I think on this forum we can agree that sexualising young children is wrong but in the wider world where this is happening, it’s going to be difficult to get agreement on this. Especially with the way activists own the White House and most other positions of power in the west.

The trans hoax essentially is an American creation, like Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, but unfortunately the rest of us can’t just pick and choose the Americanisms which reach us, and so we get the worst ideas too. And people fall for them here too. How can we stop the rot?

Certainly by legislating against child abuse. But who will pass this legislation? Biden? Leo Varadkar?

By rounding up the groomers? But who are they? Some of them are the parents! You read of American parents bragging that they now have two trans kids. The far left have infiltrated and destroyed most institutions in the west. Universities. Hospitals. They’re all preaching this ideology.

So you and I and everyone here might say, let’s start with not grooming children, because we’re sane and logical, but this isn’t about logic. We can’t hit a reset button. It’s a revolution taking place by osmosis. The first step might be that people on the left shun their own rogue element. When conservatives attack this ideology, the left circle the wagons against them, almost habitually, without examining their own side to see if the attack had some truth to it. Because that’s how tribalism thrives - not by examining things but by attacking the other side.

And then of course there are the places like the Tavistock clinic that recently closed, and some American child abuse clinics which have closed. Other clinics are still open. These places are a cash cow. One transitioning child makes a fortune for them. Look at all the quack ‘therapists’. There’s a huge lucrative industry going on.

I don’t know how all of this can be reversed. Maybe if more people challenge the trans ideology? Maybe if more nominal feminists join the TERFS to really fight for women’s rights - existence? Maybe if there’s more open discussion about science? And the difference between gender dysphoria and Gucci handbags?

I don’t know. I think it’s probably too late now…

 

[Kieran]

Lower grade school kids get exposed to alot of sexual topics through social media these days. (Can’t unhear from a month ago a couple of 8 year olds discussing whether a BJ is “real sex”. )

But i leave that to parents’ purview, its not like they can’t talk to their kids about these things if they choose to, it’s their responsibility. Its like when kids are unruly & disruptive in public, its not the kids that irritate me its the parents for their lack of attention.

So where i do think it gets tricky is at what age or grade level do you start introducing basic sex education (birds & bees stuff) as part of a curriculum, Jr. High? High School ?

If parents proactively opt out at even those levels for their kids I’m actually good with that, puts the onus back on mom & dad.

This is tragic. And of course the internet is a huge source of this. Parental controls and age restrictions are routinely ignored. Children nowadays are exposed to so much shit and violence and explicit sex. Peer pressure is immense, compared to 30 years ago. Can’t be easy for parents…

 

[tented]

Lower grade school kids get exposed to alot of sexual topics through social media these days. (Can’t unhear from a month ago a couple of 8 year olds discussing whether a BJ is “real sex”. )

But i leave that to parents’ purview, its not like they can’t talk to their kids about these things if they choose to, it’s their responsibility. Its like when kids are unruly & disruptive in public, its not the kids that irritate me its the parents for their lack of attention.

So where i do think it gets tricky is at what age or grade level do you start introducing basic sex education (birds & bees stuff) as part of a curriculum, Jr. High? High School ?

If parents proactively opt out at even those levels for their kids I’m actually good with that, puts the onus back on mom & dad.

Full disclosure: I’m not a parent, so I have no idea what’s going on with kids in terms of sex education and exposure to sexual content these days. That you heard 8 year olds discussing BJs tells me it isn’t like it used to be when I was that age.

I’m sure it’s difficult to be a parent these days, with social media exposing kids to all kinds of content (not just sexual). I have no idea how I would handle this.

 

[Jelenafan]

… I know they say that a comic stereotype like this is different because it’s mocking Mexicans. I’d invite them to St Patrick’s Day Festival in Dublin next year. You see people from all over the world dressed as leprechauns, wearing shamrocks, rocking the green and trying to dance like Michael Flatley. It’s not offensive, it’s not cultural appropriation - it’s how people enjoy other cultures….

Kieran, they are all flat out drunk that day, who cares ? ; )

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, they are all flat out drunk that day, who cares ? ; )

True! But they’re enjoying themselves too, like Mexicans can as well. Who’s bothered if an Asian lad is dressed in green and dancing badly? Who gets offended if he’s wearing an Arran sweater and shamrocks, though he’s from America? Irish people would dance with him. Why would anyone take offence? Why

Now, there are times when American movies or TV shows represent the Irish in terrible accents and boring cliches, but it’s not offensive as such, it’s just bad art. I think we can’t argue in favour of multicultural societies while at the same time raising borders between the cultures…

 

[Moxie]

When you say things like, “kids are generating chemical castration on themselves” I don’t know what you expect to get back.

Please quote me wherever I actually said this. I'm pretty sure I never said anything like this. I don't even know what it means. Before I abdicate from this thread, I'd like to set that record straight.

You threw kids under a bus because your ideology demands it, but you expect civil conversation about it? I’ve said it before, the left have gone rogue. So long as they’re attacking women, children and gays, they’re unelectable. They can’t be trusted. They’ve dropped “following the science” and taken up voodoo, or something equally deranged.

There’s no bloody stump though. You’re always welcome to argue your position…

The thread seems to be moving on to actual conversation, which is good, but no, I have not been welcome to argue my position. Everyone keeps arguing it for me, no matter what I say. (See above.) You seemed interested in my friend's opinions, without regard to the notion that if they weren't mine, too, I wouldn't have posted them.

 

[Jelenafan]

True! But they’re enjoying themselves too, like Mexicans can as well. Who’s bothered if an Asian lad is dressed in green and dancing badly? Who gets offended if he’s wearing an Arran sweater and shamrocks, though he’s from America? Irish people would dance with him. Why would anyone take offence? Why...
…

I'm not offended, but I do find St. Patrick's day creepy... : )

Now, there are times when American movies or TV shows represent the Irish in terrible accents and boring cliches, but it’s not offensive as such, it’s just bad art. I think we can’t argue in favour of multicultural societies while at the same time raising borders between the cultures…

Of course, but when did it veer over per what you and Federberg are implying that anybody finding offense with some stereotype are inherently victimizing others or have "fake concerns"? You concede that people or even groups don't respond as a monolithic body, so is it so outside the pall that while some may not be offended, some may be?

If we are going to have a serious discourse, we just can't dismiss all other arguments as knee jerk tribalism, as if if someone is offended the automatic assumption being that there is something wrong with them. IMO most rationale people have their standards of what is permissible or offensive per their set of values, so I don't buy the premise that one size fits all.

I find it amusing that stating some HIspanics may not be offended while some may be offended was such an inflammatory divisive message here. : )

 

[Kieran]

Please quote me wherever I actually said this. I'm pretty sure I never said anything like this. I don't even know what it means. Before I abdicate from this thread, I'd like to set that record straight.

You said it here.

I think you're both way over the top here, esp. ol' Kieran, acting like someone's parents are forcing this upon them, rather than the children generating it themselves. And it doesn't always involve chemicals.

Implying, of course, that it often does involve chemicals, and the chemicals they use are also used to castrate rapists. It’s unacceptable what they’re doing to young boys, and unbelievable that you think that boys who just reached puberty are of an age to agree to this. Their parents should be looking after them.

The thread seems to be moving on to actual conversation, which is good, but no, I have not been welcome to argue my position. Everyone keeps arguing it for me, no matter what I say. (See above.) You seemed interested in my friend's opinions, without regard to the notion that if they weren't mine, too, I wouldn't have posted them.

In the quote I posted above, you do admit “it’s complicated” but you’ve never seemed in any sense aware of the complete catastrophe that this trans hoax is, for women and children. Maybe you trust your friend more than you trust us, which is reasonable, and he’s opened your eyes to the fact that actual gender dysphoria and what’s going on with children and society in general are two very different things, and I think that’s good. He seems - from the little you’ve said - to be well aware of the consequences of this innovative and totally anti-social, ahistorical and anti-science movement that has gripped the left and become a cancer in the west.

And I’m surprised you’re claiming you haven’t been free to argue your position. You’ve stated your position and faced replies. That’s never bothered you before. What’s different?

 

[Kieran]

I'm not offended, but I do find St. Patrick's day creepy... : )

Really? Why? It’s actually spread over a whole weekend in Dublín, it’s not just drunkenness and wild fights in O’Connell street, it has great activities for kids, there’s theatre, music and street entertainment, an ever more colourful parade. I find it fairly funny and also to be great that it’s celebrated in so many other countries.

Of course, but when did it veer over per what you and Federberg are implying that anybody finding offense with some stereotype are inherently victimizing others or have "fake concerns"? You concede that people or even groups don't respond as a monolithic body, so is it so outside the pall that while some may not be offended, some may be?

Absolutely. Which isn’t to say they’re right to feel offended, or that it’s right to not feel offended, but I do wonder what they’d feel offended by.

If we are going to have a serious discourse, we just can't dismiss all other arguments as knee jerk tribalism, as if if someone is offended the automatic assumption being that there is something wrong with them. IMO most rationale people have their standards of what is permissible or offensive per their set of values, so I don't buy the premise that one size fits all.

Nobody dismissed all other arguments as “knee jerk tribalism” but when an argument is basically regurgitated from leftist/rightist talking points by someone who’s totally associated with that political tribe, then it’s rational to respond and say that they’re only citing their party playbook.

All of us have some level of preconditioned morality or political views, and we apply them to the topic, but when we can guess your response to a question by knowing your political affiliation, then it’s reasonable to assume that the person is not thinking independently about the topic, but instead they simply defending their tribe.

I said before that I believe that if the giant controversy of the day was, should toilet roll hang facing the wall or away from the wall, there are people whose response would be:

‘After studying the science and applying logic and reason to the question, I’ve decided that my mammy’s political party were correct ONCE AGAIN and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot!’

I find it amusing that stating some HIspanics may not be offended while some may be offended was such an inflammatory divisive message here. : )

Welcome to the forum! You should see what we say about tennis, it’s totally scandalous!

 

[Jelenafan]

Really? Why? It’s actually spread over a whole weekend in Dublín, it’s not just drunkenness and wild fights in O’Connell street, it has great activities for kids, there’s theatre, music and street entertainment, an ever more colourful parade. I find it fairly funny and also to be great that it’s celebrated in so many other countries.

Absolutely. Which isn’t to say they’re right to feel offended, or that it’s right to not feel offended, but I do wonder what they’d feel offended by.


Nobody dismissed all other arguments as “knee jerk tribalism” but when an argument is basically regurgitated from leftist/rightist talking points by someone who’s totally associated with that political tribe, then it’s rational to respond and say that they’re only citing their party playbook.

All of us have some level of preconditioned morality or political views, and we apply them to the topic, but when we can guess your response to a question by knowing your political affiliation, then it’s reasonable to assume that the person is not thinking independently about the topic, but instead they simply defending their tribe.

I said before that I believe that if the giant controversy of the day was, should toilet roll hang facing the wall or away from the wall, there are people whose response would be:

‘After studying the science and applying logic and reason to the question, I’ve decided that my mammy’s political party were correct ONCE AGAIN and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot!’


Welcome to the forum! You should see what we say about tennis, it’s totally scandalous!

 

[Federberg]

If we are going to have a serious discourse, we just can't dismiss all other arguments as knee jerk tribalism, as if if someone is offended the automatic assumption being that there is something wrong with them.

this made me laugh that this argument is being used. First of all, those people weren't personally offended. They were offended on behalf of others. There's something deeply patronising about that. It smacks of an implicit assumption that those they are protecting are in some way inferior. It makes me wonder about why those students instinctively see Mexican culture as inferior. If the guy had been wearing a samurai or ninja outfit would those same students have squealed cultural appropriation? Better yet if he had been wearing a viking costume would they have said the same? It seems to me that their outrage was dependent on whether they themselves had a built in bias against the culture.

You know.. there was a time, when the reasonable response to the question would have been..."I'm not Mexican. Ask a Mexican how they feel about it." That's what my response would have been. It's not up to me to presume, which was basically my point in the first place.

 

[tented]

If the guy had been wearing a samurai or ninja outfit would those same students have squealed cultural appropriation? Better yet if he had been wearing a viking costume would they have said the same?

My guess is yes. They see themselves as the custodians of political correctness, so a white guy wearing anything that isn’t bought from The Gap is cultural appropriation. They’ve turned Halloween into a deadly boring holiday.

It seems to me that their outrage was dependent on whether they themselves had a built in bias against the culture.

That’s an interesting perspective. I hadn’t thought of it exactly that way.

You know.. there was a time, when the reasonable response to the question would have been..."I'm not Mexican. Ask a Mexican how they feel about it." That's what my response would have been. It's not up to me to presume, which was basically my point in the first place.

Why wouldn’t you have simply said “No, it’s not offensive“ since we know some Mexicans would have been offended and others would not have been offended? If there’s no monolithic right or wrong response, then you should have felt free to provide yours, right?

 

[britbox]

I think on this forum we can agree that sexualising young children is wrong but in the wider world where this is happening, it’s going to be difficult to get agreement on this. Especially with the way activists own the White House and most other positions of power in the west.

The trans hoax essentially is an American creation, like Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, but unfortunately the rest of us can’t just pick and choose the Americanisms which reach us, and so we get the worst ideas too. And people fall for them here too. How can we stop the rot?

Certainly by legislating against child abuse. But who will pass this legislation? Biden? Leo Varadkar?

By rounding up the groomers? But who are they? Some of them are the parents! You read of American parents bragging that they now have two trans kids. The far left have infiltrated and destroyed most institutions in the west. Universities. Hospitals. They’re all preaching this ideology.

So you and I and everyone here might say, let’s start with not grooming children, because we’re sane and logical, but this isn’t about logic. We can’t hit a reset button. It’s a revolution taking place by osmosis. The first step might be that people on the left shun their own rogue element. When conservatives attack this ideology, the left circle the wagons against them, almost habitually, without examining their own side to see if the attack had some truth to it. Because that’s how tribalism thrives - not by examining things but by attacking the other side.

And then of course there are the places like the Tavistock clinic that recently closed, and some American child abuse clinics which have closed. Other clinics are still open. These places are a cash cow. One transitioning child makes a fortune for them. Look at all the quack ‘therapists’. There’s a huge lucrative industry going on.

I don’t know how all of this can be reversed. Maybe if more people challenge the trans ideology? Maybe if more nominal feminists join the TERFS to really fight for women’s rights - existence? Maybe if there’s more open discussion about science? And the difference between gender dysphoria and Gucci handbags?

I don’t know. I think it’s probably too late now…

I think we need to be bit more discerning about this left/right dualism to be honest. When I was growing up, "the left" tended to consist of your blue collar workforce, unions etc. Most of whom had traditional family values and a decent moral code. I differentiate between the traditional left and these metropolitan marxists who seem to want to destroy anything in their path en route to an Orwellian "animal farm" utopia.

I don't actually come across that many of them in real life, but when you put the television on, the world seems to be infested with them. Maybe if we stopped being bystanders observing events while grumbling in the background... then we can actively change things. Starting with our own local spheres of influence...

 

[britbox]

Marxism is fantastic for subversion, rotting institutions from within, developing discontent and chaos, burning it all down... but utterly useless when it comes to building anything new to replace the scorched earth it thrives on. Apart from slaughterhouses for the dissenters.

 

[mrzz]

There is simply no such thing as "cultural appropriation". The term is a contradiction in itself. Whoever coined it, and the vast majority of people who use it, do not know what "culture" means. This thing that they call "cultural appropriation" is not only part of "culture" itself, is a fundamental part of it.

If I were god, I would give a 220 volts shock to the genitals of whoever writes, speaks or even think the term "cultural appropriation".


P.S. BBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ---- auuuchhhh! It hurts!