Serious PC thread

[Kieran]

Both the headline and the comments say it all here, but it’s good to see a Conservative thinking and acting like a conservative. To a large extent, the problems caused by the far left have not been properly attacked and dismissed by strong conservative voices. In America, and the west at large, there’s a confusion between “right wing” and “conservative”. “Right wing” and “left wing” are blunt force descriptors of political ideologies. I prefer to deal with “conservative” and “liberal.” They’re more flexible terms. You can be liberal and agree with conservatives on social and economic issues, and vice versa. “Right wing” and “left wing” are ever tightening straitjackets. They’re tribal and afraid to accept that the other side have valid points, as well. To tag yourself as “right wing” or “left wing” is to align yourself with some desperate, shady characters.

Nowadays to combat the deranged left, we don’t need deranged right wingers - we need conservatives. Good ones, who understand that actually a healthy functioning society has both conservative and liberal wings contributing and collaborating, with ideas based on sound principles and a sound understanding of history…

 

[Federberg]

View attachment 8014


Both the headline and the comments say it all here, but it’s good to see a Conservative thinking and acting like a conservative. To a large extent, the problems caused by the far left have not been properly attacked and dismissed by strong conservative voices. In America, and the west at large, there’s a confusion between “right wing” and “conservative”. “Right wing” and “left wing” are blunt force descriptors of political ideologies. I prefer to deal with “conservative” and “liberal.” They’re more flexible terms. You can be liberal and agree with conservatives on social and economic issues, and vice versa. “Right wing” and “left wing” are ever tightening straitjackets. They’re tribal and afraid to accept that the other side have valid points, as well. To tag yourself as “right wing” or “left wing” is to align yourself with some desperate, shady characters.

Nowadays to combat the deranged left, we don’t need deranged right wingers - we need conservatives. Good ones, who understand that actually a healthy functioning society has both conservative and liberal wings contributing and collaborating, with ideas based on sound principles and a sound understanding of history…

I completely agree. We don't need silly right wing posturing. But basic conservative common sense!

 

[Federberg]

Riddle me this… if blackface is now frowned upon, and rightly so. Why do the same folks who would be up in arms about it allow people like Dylan Mulvaney to pretend to be a woman? What's the difference? Asking for a friend?

 

[Kieran]

Riddle me this… if blackface is now frowned upon, and rightly so. Why do the same folks who would be up in arms about it allow people like Dylan Mulvaney to pretend to be a woman? What's the difference? Asking for a friend?

Great question! I doubt you’ll get any answers that square that circle. Isn’t it even worse than cultural appropriation to appropriate the opposite gender to the one you were born with? And then make a career out of mocking women?

 

[mrzz]

Riddle me this… if blackface is now frowned upon, and rightly so. Why do the same folks who would be up in arms about it allow people like Dylan Mulvaney to pretend to be a woman? What's the difference? Asking for a friend?

The gut answer (from a self-designated "progressive" person) would be that some people, being a woman "inside", are allowed to change their "outside" accordingly. This, in itself, makes sense (apart from the "allowed" part).

The problem (as it is always the problem with things coming from self-designated progressives) is that is misses not only the big picture, but any picture larger than the passport picture they are looking at the moment.

You could use the above argument to counter any pseudo argument people raise when they mention the idiotic and non-existing notion of "cultural appropriation". You can *always* answer that a given individual, on the inside, is deeply connected to a given culture. For example, there are millions of people world-wide who love and live oriental martial arts. A lot of them will behave and dress and eat and think accordingly -- that is, in a way that comes from a culture which is, in principle, completely alien to them. They are all one selfie away from being accused of "cultural appropriation".

The "problem", people will say, is then when this behavior is not authentic. But how in the world can you tell that? Who made you the judge of authenticity?
And, coming back to the original point, what if the person being a woman on the outside is not authentic as well?

Your humorous question actually exposes a lot of holes, so it would definitely be labeled rather than answered by any member of the herd, or by the shepherds themselves.

 

[Federberg]

I wonder if the BBC understands how damaging this type of thing is for their brand..

 

[Kieran]

Saw this today, examples of what insensible ‘sensitivity readers’ did to Roald Dahl.

Artless, pointless, soulless hack work. I can only assume in the third example that - being dead - neither Joseph Conrad nor Rudyard Kipling got the memo. Hemingway somehow is temporarily reprieved until he isn’t. Doubtless Jane Austen is in there to boost the numbers on the wimmins side. Though maybe they’ve rewritten her books too and discovered she’s actually trans…

 

[Kieran]

I wonder if the BBC understands how damaging this type of thing is for their brand..

These people have gotten so used to believing and spreading lies that it’s second nature to them. They’re prepared to believe the worst about the people they hate. They’re prone to believe rumours that their own side spread. One of the most bizarre elements of the Gary Lineker situation was the suggestion that old auntie was right wing, suppressing his free speech, when we’ve all known forever that the Beeb is as pink as Dame Edna’s favourite wig…

 

[Federberg]

#FACTS

 

[Jelenafan]

Riddle me this… if blackface is now frowned upon, and rightly so. Why do the same folks who would be up in arms about it allow people like Dylan Mulvaney to pretend to be a woman? What's the difference? Asking for a friend?

I don't follow any social media transgender people. Kaitlyn Jenner I know and there is a transgender actress I've heard about for years, Laverne Cox. She comes out on social media and entertainment news alot.

It's confusing to me because I do know some gay men who cross dress in public but tell me they are still gay men, but they like women's clothing. SF since I was a kid in the city that is fairly common. Is that offensive now? I suppose the whole RuPaul drag show which I don't watch is somewhere in there, I've read some of the contestants are trans, but some identify as male and some are even straight males. I dunno, drag shows have never appealed to me nor female impersonators. Dame Edna, whose been around for decades and is hugely popular I gather , the appeal baffles me when the persona appears on my TV screen. So if Dame Edna would come out in a commercial, since everyone knows it is a male performer dressed as a woman who does not identify as a woman, is that OK to make money that way?.

Anyways I take it this transgender person Mulvaney is being used by big name brands? Seems there are alot of social influencers who corporations use to promote their products, my brother in law's son who is a total idiot has a youtube channel and makes money off from name brands, etc. It boggles me this kid makes money from anyone.

I'm getting old, I'm obviously not anybody's target demographics.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! Good grief! Is this cover real? If it is we've made progress, albeit perhaps too much?

 

[Federberg]

It's kind of funny how progressives have promoted the categorisation of identity groups. For example there used to be Latinos and Latinas. Now we have LatinX in this genderless world we live in. But surely an identity group should have some compelling thematic narrative that describes some existential rational or group motivation? But in the real world we know that this is not a monolith. Brazilian Americans are different from Nicaraguan Americans who are different from Cuban Americans and Mexican Americans. So what's the benefit? Similarly, we have African Americans, but no one can tell me a Haitian American has much in common with a Nigerian American or, for want of a better descriptor, those black Americans who came over because of slavery. In every case, what progressives seem to have tried to do, in their awesome benevolence is strip away the minority groups into sub-categories. It's fascinating to me that in the case of the trans-gender issue, something different seems to be occurring. Men... biological men... real men... are now being categorised as cis-Men. That's the majority. Why in this case is the majority being sub-categorised? I don't believe any of us who have a problem with this whole gender thing would have much of a problem with trans-genders being 'trans-men' and 'trans-women'. Don't try to tell us... the silent majority that we're cis. Fuck off with this cis shit....

It's worth noting that the Roman Empire had black emperors and no one had an issue with it. The sub-categorisation of race is the legacy of the British Empire, a relatively recent thing. I very much doubt that progressives would want to be associated with that period of slavery, but that is in essence what they are doing!

 

[mrzz]

It's kind of funny how progressives have promoted the categorisation of identity groups. For example there used to be Latinos and Latinas. Now we have LatinX in this genderless world we live in. But surely an identity group should have some compelling thematic narrative that describes some existential rational or group motivation? But in the real world we know that this is not a monolith. Brazilian Americans are different from Nicaraguan Americans who are different from Cuban Americans and Mexican Americans. So what's the benefit? Similarly, we have African Americans, but no one can tell me a Haitian American has much in common with a Nigerian American or, for want of a better descriptor, those black Americans who came over because of slavery. In every case, what progressives seem to have tried to do, in their awesome benevolence is strip away the minority groups into sub-categories. It's fascinating to me that in the case of the trans-gender issue, something different seems to be occurring. Men... biological men... real men... are now being categorised as cis-Men. That's the majority. Why in this case is the majority being sub-categorised? I don't believe any of us who have a problem with this whole gender thing would have much of a problem with trans-genders being 'trans-men' and 'trans-women'. Don't try to tell us... the silent majority that we're cis. Fuck off with this cis shit....

It's worth noting that the Roman Empire had black emperors and no one had an issue with it. The sub-categorisation of race is the legacy of the British Empire, a relatively recent thing. I very much doubt that progressives would want to be associated with that period of slavery, but that is in essence what they are doing!

From now on I DEMAND that anyone refers to me as Brazilian American. Everyone who ever refered to me as Brazilian only owes me an apology. And I can use the search tools to find you all out!

 

[Horsa]

From now on I DEMAND that anyone refers to me as Brazilian American. Everyone who ever refered to me as Brazilian only owes me an apology. And I can use the search tools to find you all out!

I think you owe yourself an apology then as you introduced yourself as Brazilian when you introduced yourself to me. Lol. That will be amusing to watch as it will probably include you explaining yourself to yourself & arguing with yourself. Lol. (Mind you, the hardest arguments we ever have are those we have with ourselves.)

 

[mrzz]

I think you owe yourself an apology then as you introduced yourself as Brazilian when you introduced yourself to me. Lol. That will be amusing to watch as it will probably include you explaining yourself to yourself & arguing with yourself. Lol. (Mind you, the hardest arguments we ever have are those we have with ourselves.)

You English-Europeans don´t get it, do you? Although "Brazilian" is offensive, we Brazilian Americans often refer to each other as "Brazilians", but between ourselves is ok. I was introducing myself, and it is acceptable that I call myself Brazilian, as between ourselves we can use this term. For example, when I do something wrong, I say to myself: "you naughty little Brazilian". But this is between I and me! Among us is ok, but outside people... come on! I thought it was obvious, but nothing is obvious to the Eurocentric minds...

 

[Jelenafan]

You English-Europeans don´t get it, do you? Although "Brazilian" is offensive, we Brazilian Americans often refer to each other as "Brazilians", but between ourselves is ok. I was introducing myself, and it is acceptable that I call myself Brazilian, as between ourselves we can use this term. For example, when I do something wrong, I say to myself: "you naughty little Brazilian". But this is between I and me! Among us is ok, but outside people... come on! I thought it was obvious, but nothing is obvious to the Eurocentric minds...

That was hilarious. Thank you you just made my day.... ; )

 

[Kieran]

You English-Europeans don´t get it, do you? Although "Brazilian" is offensive, we Brazilian Americans often refer to each other as "Brazilians", but between ourselves is ok. I was introducing myself, and it is acceptable that I call myself Brazilian, as between ourselves we can use this term. For example, when I do something wrong, I say to myself: "you naughty little Brazilian". But this is between I and me! Among us is ok, but outside people... come on! I thought it was obvious, but nothing is obvious to the Eurocentric minds...

I’m Irish. I don’t consider myself European, or of I ever do, it’s a distant second. This is how Irish people think.

 

[Kieran]

Two stupid things here: Jada, and Hollywood…

 

[Horsa]

You English-Europeans don´t get it, do you? Although "Brazilian" is offensive, we Brazilian Americans often refer to each other as "Brazilians", but between ourselves is ok. I was introducing myself, and it is acceptable that I call myself Brazilian, as between ourselves we can use this term. For example, when I do something wrong, I say to myself: "you naughty little Brazilian". But this is between I and me! Among us is ok, but outside people... come on! I thought it was obvious, but nothing is obvious to the Eurocentric minds...

I'm not completely English. I'm more Scots/Irish than English so would prefer to be referred to as a Brit.

Lol. No, I didn't get it. Why is Brazilian offensive? Lol. Argue amongst yourself & don't forget what is common knowledge to some people isn't always common knowledge to others. There are some things that I think are common knowledge & other people aren't aware of. Lol.

 

[Horsa]

I’m Irish. I don’t consider myself European, or of I ever do, it’s a distant second. This is how Irish people think.

I'm British.