Tv Members And Political Correctness

[endure]

I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position.

Why did you discriminate against that nice Chinese girl? The white man has been abusing the ethnic minorities since the beginning of time.

So what if she did not posses the most basic of job skills? Just think what happened to her family at Nagasaki.

I didn't realise that Nagasaki was in China?

[endure]

Garro,

I try not to highlight, as you call them racist websites.

Carrying on from that, can you please let me know what part of the article could be considered racist, I thought it was historical.

I have said before I am against the rewriting of history, if you could point me to a link that contradicts what I posted I would be more than happy to read it.

I understand your feelings on free speech, the following I am sure speaks for itself, and will no doubt lead to soul searching for many, not to include the many world wide to which it gives offense.

Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

The Pontiff made the remarks yesterday in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God’s work".

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall.

"What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected."

It is not the first time that the Pope has used the Curia speech to throw out a controversial idea – two years ago he complained that Islam had yet to learn the lessons of the Enlightenment – but the comments were quickly denounced by gay and lesbian groups, both inside and outside the Church.

The Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described the Pope's comments as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form". She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay-bashing.

"There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in Western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

"When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way because they feel that they are doing God’s work in ridding the world of these people."

Her views were echoed by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement. "I thought the Christmas angels said ’Fear not’. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that’s just absurd ... Can’t he think of something better to say at Christmas?"

Pam Spaulding, a leading lesbian blogger from the United States, was even more direct. She said: "The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

The Pope's speech was also seen, however, as a denunciation of "gender theory" – the study of how gender assignments affects the behaviour of individuals. The Catholic Church has repeatedly spoken out against gender theory, which gay and transsexual groups promote as a key to understanding and tolerance.

"That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’ in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator," the Pope said.

"Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit."

Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, who is a gay man and a former Dominican friar, said that the Pope’s remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate".

He said that he understood the Pope’s vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after".

But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sort of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality.

"It is not a one-size-fits-all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openess to the complexity of creation."

Taken from the TimesOnline, as oppossed to The Daily Mail. Who am I to deny the right to freedom of speech, to the leader of one of the worlds most respected churches?

And who has denied him the right to freedom of speech? He's spoken and some people have disagreed with him. No-one's tried to shut him up.

[endure]

I think what people like SuperHans forget is how things were before the attempt to stop the name calling and show respect.

No I don't. The selfish and the ignorant were given a good dose of common sense, which seemed to cure the problem of Generation Me-ers demanding 'their' rights. A swift clip round the ear is a terrific antidote to terrible ideas.

Like Hans I can remember the good old days before PC took hold. In the 60s we lived just down the road from a house with rooms to let. I can still remember the sign in the front window. It read 'No Blacks or Irish'.

In the 60's? I seriously doubt that, more likely you read it in a book written by someone else who also read it in a book somewhere.

Yes, in the 60s. I didn't read it in a book. I was there. We lived in an area of town that had a large immigrant population.

Out of interest, how prevalent were posters like that? How many would you personally see on a day to day basis?

I personally saw one every day as there was a boarding house on the street that I lived on with a sign in the window. I didn't go round searching for them. I was 16 - I had more important things to do

[garro]

Actually he said THEY haven't gone away you know. We were always supposed to believe that he and McMingeface were never members of the PIRA, after all they denied it so many times. And now you tell us they were liars? Who to believe, I just don't know..........

Lovely photo by the way, bit meaningless without it's history and provenance. Couldn't just have been a set up could it?

Well I certainly believe they were members, but I am not a spokesperson for either of them.

As for your comments that the photo could be a set up well I am sure you could find a way to dispute any evidence. Just keep on saying to yourself; "it's not true". "it's not true". I lived in England for a great deal of my life and while most English people are fair-minded there are a significant number who are extremely hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. I always felt sorry for people of a different colour though as they couldn't just put on an accent to fit in.

I am sure that I won't have to wait too long for your comments that Irish people have no right to be in England.

Well things have moved on in the 12 hours since i was last on the p.c., but at the same time some things never change, i.e., taking the last point first:-

You habitually accuse me of things that I do not think and have not said, opinions that on the other side of the coin you will frequently argue forcibly. Irish people in England?(the UK?), I presume they are there legally so have never given the matter a thought. Now take British people in Ireland, as you appear to hold and trot out "production line" Irish Republican opinions you will presumably blame "The British Presence" for all Ireland's problems, as this is the beardy git's standby phrase.

It always struck me as supremely ironic that people who based all their acts on a "Brits out of Ireland" premise, could then form a fenian propaganda setup called "The Irish in Britain Movement".

The slogan "Brits Out", of course is carefully ambiguous so that it neither includes nor excludes the Ulster Unionist poulation, and you talk of showing people respect? I have never been aware of a significant number of English people who are hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, the RC population in Northern Ireland is proportionally and numerically larger than at the time of partition, Protestants in the 26 counties smaller, and there is of course a substantial Irish poulation in the UK.

The photo? I am not in a position to say yea or nay to it's veracity, but I have to be at least a little bit sceptical.

Here is where the problem starts Rott. People interpreting my posts to fit their own agendas. If you read my posts you will see that I have nowhere supported the extreme views in Ireland. I merely reported from the beginning that many of Ireland's problems have been improved through dialogue and some respect - much of which could be described as a form of political correctness. There were great injustices comitted against the Irish, but times change and we need to go forward.

As to kicking the Britis out of Ireland. Well that would be quite difficult as so many Irish are of British decent. Did you know that they did a genetic study which showed that through inter-marriage the Ulster-Scots and southern Irish are the same people. My own city contains a very large protestant population which traditionally views itself as British. No my argument was not for kicking the Brits out of Ireland. My argument is that a resistance movement grew because of real grievances against the British government which could not be fixed until the talking started.

I went on holiday to Ireland with my family last year and saw an amazing thing. There was a wheelchair ramp in my local train station. The thing was though that this wheelchair ramp had a Union Jack label on it and the really amazing thing was that nobody had tried to deface this Union Jack. This would have been unthinkable a few years back. Not only would the Union Jack have been defaced, but likely people would have destroyed the wheelchair ramp as well. This type of change is what occurs through repectful dialouge -it does not occur through guns and bombs.

[Super Hans]

Super Hans, you asked for a Politically Correct Comedian and where offered Ben Elton - You now object because, well it seems you don't like Ben Elton.

I'm sure there's a point lurking in there somewhere...

Thanks for your example of Political Correctness, you not being able to turn down an Asian applicant... why does that not surprise me?!

To use your (rather tiresome) device, you asked for an example of how PC affected my ability to do the job - I gave you one and you don't like it. This is not the first time you've been given good, direct evidence and chosen to ignore it.

As to the girl, her spelling was even worse than yours. That is quite enough reason not to employ someone IMO.

If you've aspirations at being a wind-up merchant, you need to up your game. Actually, you're so poor at it I'd recommend you stick to somewhat less challenging pursuits.

Thaibeachlover, the case of the banned Christian Festivities has, like so very much more of the Anti PC Hyperbole been debunked.

Again, you asked for examples and examples were provided. No one can force you to believe things you simply do not want to believe. Ultimately, you've been absolutely trounced on this thread, as witnessed by your reticence to actually engage in debate. Garros, despite tying himself in knots, has bravely had a go. You, sir, have been a coward of the highest order.

[Super Hans]

I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration.

I think you'll find there is not a lot of anonymity when many of the discussions carry the title of the people/organistions discussing the issue.

The 'Black and White' issue here, is 'Black and White' evidence of discussion that you deny is taking place, is once more denied.

Putting asside the Golly <deleted>, have you one single case where you can demonstrate Political Correctness is causing the ills which you attribute to it?

You have told us of your many years on the civil service, and you mentioned Shysters, Snake Oil Salesmen and men in Shiney Suits but you have not given us a single example of how Political Correctness stopped you from doing your job as a Civil Servant. Not withstanding anything you are not allowed to talk about under the OSA, is there any example you can give us?

OSA? That's not stopped me so far!

Ok, here's the scenario I was faced with a few years ago. There is a recruitment exercise for low level admin staff. I have a second/third generation asian girl working for me as a casual. I'm her boss, but she does actual work for someone else - a PC thug as it happens - so I don't really see much of her day to day output. Girl applies for job, then does some work for me whilst PC thug is on holiday. I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. The application process involves a line manager's assessment, which simply states "if this person is successful at interview, would you like them working for you?" This is a fairly euphemistic way of sifting out people who are no good - tick the "no" box and the applicant will not be offered a job, irrespective of their application and how they perform at interview. I am immediately (and very publicly) called into the director's office and asked to explain my decision. I do this robustly, with examples of her work as evidence. I'm told that that is irrelevant and I must revise my assessment as it is open to legal challenge on racial grounds. I refuse, my assessment is forcibly withdrawn and my director writes it instead. She is ranked 26th at interview, yet offered a job.

Just for those getting a twitch-on at this, I have made the exact same decision about dozens of other, white, people who did not meet the minimum requirements - none of these were queried.

Incidentally, the girl gets placed in the team dealing with community integration, along with every other asian people in the building. She is promoted within months of being made permanent against her will. She is unable to cope with new demands and is extremely unhappy. She resents management interference and hates PC with as much passion as I do. She also has some rather extreme views on immigration.

There are also countless examples of people being promoted because of their background, not their abilities. Some have even failed their interviews, yet been given the post. If you really think banging square pegs into round holes is the way to go, good luck to you. Is having a workforce that is reflective of the community more important than having the most competent workforce possible?

In terms of the job itself, there are examples too numerous to mention of how PC has been crowbarred into public policy. All government programmes have been adapted in recent years, many unnecessarily in my view.

The problem lies more within the recruitment policies; at least for now. In order to succeed you need to be able to demonstrate you've "out-diversified" your opponents. This is leading to a spiral of often unnecessary schemes, propagated by people whose intentions are nothing but naked ambition. They have spotted a mechanism for making pretty bloody comfortable careers for themselves, often with little or no added value. In such circumstances, PC becomes a runaway train.

I dont know how many can remember the days of affirmative action,(however well intentioned it may have been) or how many know of its consequences..

I can remember the days of affirmative action, and indeed I directly benefitted. Back in 1985 I applied for nurse training ( there were almost no males in nursing in my country back then ), and was accepted, despite better female applicants not even being interviewed, due, I am certain, to a desire to have more male nurses. This would be supported by the other 2 males on the course being totally unsuitable applicants ( IMO ), one of whom did not complete the course, and the other stopped nursing on graduation.

However, in my defence, I am still nursing, while the majority of the females on my course long ago gave it up ( mainly after getting married ), so I was probably one of the most cost effective students they enrolled.

Incidentally, there are lots more male nurses in the UK, where I now work in the NHS, to the extent that some days I work with no female nurses at all! Makes a change from being the only guy.

I also spent time in Antarctica in the '70s, when they were trying to get females down there. In fact they created a new position on the base just to be able to employ a female. While she was capable of doing the job ( kitchen duties ), she caused all sorts of tensions amongst the men, which is understandable when you have up to 60 males and two women ( one was a scientist ) on a very small base! I'm not saying there shouldn't be women there ( that would be very politically incorrect ), but the numbers should be more balanced, or not at all. ( I believe there are indeed lots of women down there these days. )

Where I disagree with affirmative action, is in the armed forces, where we now have a situation that allows female officers with no combat experience to command soldiers going into action ( themselves safely behind the lines ). The US recently announced that they have promoted their first female general.

I would have no problem with women that have been under fire commanding front line troops, but there's not a lot of them about, are there!

My main beef with PC, is where it is used by ignorant bureaucrats to justify being killjoys, mainly in forcing a majority of the population to suppress it's own culture/ religion in deference to a minority/ immigrant culture/ religion. In the UK there are countless instances of Christian rituals being banned "in case people of other religions object".

As for most of the other stuff blamed on PC, IMO it's just good manners not to use insulting language or actions directly to another person, regardless of color, race or creed. Why would anyone want to be able to insult someone else- not nice.

The only instance I can think of where PC ( if it can be applied in this case ) would be a "good thing", is where it is used to enforce equal access for the disabled/ less able.

Interesting what you say. I admire anyone working in the NHS.

Affirmative action, or positive discrimination, is fine until it's YOU that needs help. If I'm lying bleeding on the battlefield I really couldn't give a toss what the nurse looks like.

Do you have a view on which sex makes the more effective nurse?

[Super Hans]

A quick search of the internet shows this article was produced for one ,

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html

This is part of a racist website;

http://www.ensignmessage.com/default.asp

It's opening page states;

TO THE BRITISH AND ALL THE

CELTIC, ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES

OF THE WORLD

What's racist about that quote?

[Super Hans]

Actually he said THEY haven't gone away you know. We were always supposed to believe that he and McMingeface were never members of the PIRA, after all they denied it so many times. And now you tell us they were liars? Who to believe, I just don't know..........

Lovely photo by the way, bit meaningless without it's history and provenance. Couldn't just have been a set up could it?

Well I certainly believe they were members, but I am not a spokesperson for either of them.

As for your comments that the photo could be a set up well I am sure you could find a way to dispute any evidence. Just keep on saying to yourself; "it's not true". "it's not true". I lived in England for a great deal of my life and while most English people are fair-minded there are a significant number who are extremely hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. I always felt sorry for people of a different colour though as they couldn't just put on an accent to fit in.

I am sure that I won't have to wait too long for your comments that Irish people have no right to be in England.

Well things have moved on in the 12 hours since i was last on the p.c., but at the same time some things never change, i.e., taking the last point first:-

You habitually accuse me of things that I do not think and have not said, opinions that on the other side of the coin you will frequently argue forcibly. Irish people in England?(the UK?), I presume they are there legally so have never given the matter a thought. Now take British people in Ireland, as you appear to hold and trot out "production line" Irish Republican opinions you will presumably blame "The British Presence" for all Ireland's problems, as this is the beardy git's standby phrase.

It always struck me as supremely ironic that people who based all their acts on a "Brits out of Ireland" premise, could then form a fenian propaganda setup called "The Irish in Britain Movement".

The slogan "Brits Out", of course is carefully ambiguous so that it neither includes nor excludes the Ulster Unionist poulation, and you talk of showing people respect? I have never been aware of a significant number of English people who are hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, the RC population in Northern Ireland is proportionally and numerically larger than at the time of partition, Protestants in the 26 counties smaller, and there is of course a substantial Irish poulation in the UK.

The photo? I am not in a position to say yea or nay to it's veracity, but I have to be at least a little bit sceptical.

Here is where the problem starts Rott. People interpreting my posts to fit their own agendas. If you read my posts you will see that I have nowhere supported the extreme views in Ireland. I merely reported from the beginning that many of Ireland's problems have been improved through dialogue and some respect - much of which could be described as a form of political correctness. There were great injustices comitted against the Irish, but times change and we need to go forward.

As to kicking the Britis out of Ireland. Well that would be quite difficult as so many Irish are of British decent. Did you know that they did a genetic study which showed that through inter-marriage the Ulster-Scots and southern Irish are the same people. My own city contains a very large protestant population which traditionally views itself as British. No my argument was not for kicking the Brits out of Ireland. My argument is that a resistance movement grew because of real grievances against the British government which could not be fixed until the talking started.

I went on holiday to Ireland with my family last year and saw an amazing thing. There was a wheelchair ramp in my local train station. The thing was though that this wheelchair ramp had a Union Jack label on it and the really amazing thing was that nobody had tried to deface this Union Jack. This would have been unthinkable a few years back. Not only would the Union Jack have been defaced, but likely people would have destroyed the wheelchair ramp as well. This type of change is what occurs through repectful dialouge -it does not occur through guns and bombs.

Do you know what I find amazing, Garro? That you think it's amazing that YOUR OWN COUNTRY has only recently reduced the numbers of RACIST attacks against the English. The Irish use the PC device the most in the world, yet you're amazed not to see racist graffiti on a wheelchair ramp.

You need to have a word with yourselves. When you've straightened out your own bigotry you can come and have a go at ours.

[Super Hans]

Ref Garro.

FAO those who were passing sneering comments about him, he appears to be about 39/40 years old, a f___ing big lad, and a thai kickboxer.

By all means have a go at him for what he is (a bigoted fenian, humourless, opinionated, full of <deleted> etc.), but he does not appear to be a bit of a wuss, hence his (surprisingly understated) response.

rott

Is that true? Steroid abuse can do terrible things to a fellow.

[garro]

A quick search of the internet shows this article was produced for one ,

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html

This is part of a racist website;

http://www.ensignmessage.com/default.asp

It's opening page states;

TO THE BRITISH AND ALL THE

CELTIC, ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES

OF THE WORLD

What's racist about that quote?

Erm, would that be fact that this organisation believes that the British, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world are the chosen people and that this organisation aims to build the '"new Israel' in Britain. They have been kind enough though to extend the hand of friendship too Ireland if they give up their popeish ways. This offer does not apply to non-whites though. Come on, tell me who this sounds like.

[Super Hans]

So let me get this straight rgs2001uk. You posted from an article with things even you knew were bigoted and wrong. Yet in your last post you asked me to prove that this article wasn't factual. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Absolutely nothing contradictory there. There is nothing wrong with selecting pertinent parts from an article and ignoring the rest. There's also nothing wrong with asking you to prove the article wasn't factual. There's plenty wrong with being too much of a coward to answer, though...

[Super Hans]

A quick search of the internet shows this article was produced for one ,

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html

This is part of a racist website;

http://www.ensignmessage.com/default.asp

It's opening page states;

TO THE BRITISH AND ALL THE

CELTIC, ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES

OF THE WORLD

What's racist about that quote?

Erm, would that be fact that this organisation believes that the British, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world are the chosen people and that this organisation aims to build the '"new Israel' in Britain. They have been kind enough though to extend the hand of friendship too Ireland if they give up their popeish ways. This offer does not apply to non-whites though. Come on, tell me who this sounds like.

Answer the question - what is wrong with that quote?

This is the free speech that these people want.

These people? Nothing like generalising, eh?

[garro]

Actually he said THEY haven't gone away you know. We were always supposed to believe that he and McMingeface were never members of the PIRA, after all they denied it so many times. And now you tell us they were liars? Who to believe, I just don't know..........

Lovely photo by the way, bit meaningless without it's history and provenance. Couldn't just have been a set up could it?

Well I certainly believe they were members, but I am not a spokesperson for either of them.

As for your comments that the photo could be a set up well I am sure you could find a way to dispute any evidence. Just keep on saying to yourself; "it's not true". "it's not true". I lived in England for a great deal of my life and while most English people are fair-minded there are a significant number who are extremely hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. I always felt sorry for people of a different colour though as they couldn't just put on an accent to fit in.

I am sure that I won't have to wait too long for your comments that Irish people have no right to be in England.

Well things have moved on in the 12 hours since i was last on the p.c., but at the same time some things never change, i.e., taking the last point first:-

You habitually accuse me of things that I do not think and have not said, opinions that on the other side of the coin you will frequently argue forcibly. Irish people in England?(the UK?), I presume they are there legally so have never given the matter a thought. Now take British people in Ireland, as you appear to hold and trot out "production line" Irish Republican opinions you will presumably blame "The British Presence" for all Ireland's problems, as this is the beardy git's standby phrase.

It always struck me as supremely ironic that people who based all their acts on a "Brits out of Ireland" premise, could then form a fenian propaganda setup called "The Irish in Britain Movement".

The slogan "Brits Out", of course is carefully ambiguous so that it neither includes nor excludes the Ulster Unionist poulation, and you talk of showing people respect? I have never been aware of a significant number of English people who are hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, the RC population in Northern Ireland is proportionally and numerically larger than at the time of partition, Protestants in the 26 counties smaller, and there is of course a substantial Irish poulation in the UK.

The photo? I am not in a position to say yea or nay to it's veracity, but I have to be at least a little bit sceptical.

Here is where the problem starts Rott. People interpreting my posts to fit their own agendas. If you read my posts you will see that I have nowhere supported the extreme views in Ireland. I merely reported from the beginning that many of Ireland's problems have been improved through dialogue and some respect - much of which could be described as a form of political correctness. There were great injustices comitted against the Irish, but times change and we need to go forward.

As to kicking the Britis out of Ireland. Well that would be quite difficult as so many Irish are of British decent. Did you know that they did a genetic study which showed that through inter-marriage the Ulster-Scots and southern Irish are the same people. My own city contains a very large protestant population which traditionally views itself as British. No my argument was not for kicking the Brits out of Ireland. My argument is that a resistance movement grew because of real grievances against the British government which could not be fixed until the talking started.

I went on holiday to Ireland with my family last year and saw an amazing thing. There was a wheelchair ramp in my local train station. The thing was though that this wheelchair ramp had a Union Jack label on it and the really amazing thing was that nobody had tried to deface this Union Jack. This would have been unthinkable a few years back. Not only would the Union Jack have been defaced, but likely people would have destroyed the wheelchair ramp as well. This type of change is what occurs through repectful dialouge -it does not occur through guns and bombs.

Do you know what I find amazing, Garro? That you think it's amazing that YOUR OWN COUNTRY has only recently reduced the numbers of RACIST attacks against the English. The Irish use the PC device the most in the world, yet you're amazed not to see racist graffiti on a wheelchair ramp.

You need to have a word with yourselves. When you've straightened out your own bigotry you can come and have a go at ours.

There you go again. The Irish do this. The Irish do that. They you accuse them of being bigots. Nowhere did I say that there were racist attacks against the English. The English have been happily visiting and living in my city all my life. Our next door neighbor was an English family. If you are going to make these type of comments please provide evidence. Merely throwing accusations and insults may be your way of trying to win an argument, but it just makes people look foolish - in my opinion.

[garro]

So let me get this straight rgs2001uk. You posted from an article with things even you knew were bigoted and wrong. Yet in your last post you asked me to prove that this article wasn't factual. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Absolutely nothing contradictory there. There is nothing wrong with selecting pertinent parts from an article and ignoring the rest. There's also nothing wrong with asking you to prove the article wasn't factual. There's plenty wrong with being too much of a coward to answer, though...

Is it a coward now you're calling me?

I will try and say this one more time for you.

This article was produced by an organisation that makes no secret of the fact that it is bigoted and racist.

I no more need to prove this article wrong than I need to prove Mein Kempf wrong.

If you can not see what is wrong with this article then there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

Perhaps all that bullying you did to yourself in your youth caused some damage.

Edited December 23, 2008 by garro

[Super Hans]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

[Super Hans]

There you go again. The Irish do this. The Irish do that. They you accuse them of being bigots. Nowhere did I say that there were racist attacks against the English.

This...

the really amazing thing was that nobody had tried to deface this Union Jack

Then...

Nowhere did I say that there were racist attacks against the English.

Can you see the point here? You cannot point the finger at English bigotry when you yourself are surprised that there hasn't been Irish bigotry.

[garro]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

Mad or bad? Nature v Nurture. Well you claim to have been a rabid-PCer in your youth so this would seem to discredit the genetic argument wouldn't it?

[Super Hans]

Merely throwing accusations and insults may be your way of trying to win an argument, but it just makes people look foolish - in my opinion.

Good job your don't do the same. At least I manage to think them up at the time, rather than add them later in an edit.

Perhaps all that bullying you did to yourself in your youth caused some damage.

[Super Hans]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

Mad or bad? Nature v Nurture. Well you claim to have been a rabid-PCer in your youth so this would seem to discredit the genetic argument wouldn't it?

Not at all. Genes can lay dormant for decades. It doesn't make their presence any less devastating.

Why don't you just honestly answer the question? You won't be persecuted for your thoughts you know, well not while there's breath in my body.

[garro]

There you go again. The Irish do this. The Irish do that. They you accuse them of being bigots. Nowhere did I say that there were racist attacks against the English.

This...

the really amazing thing was that nobody had tried to deface this Union Jack

Then...

Nowhere did I say that there were racist attacks against the English.

Can you see the point here? You cannot point the finger at English bigotry when you yourself are surprised that there hasn't been Irish bigotry.

Sorry me old china, but bigotry is a bit more than a few youths defacing a Union Jack; especially when you take into account what happened the last time the Union Jack was flying in Dublin. The fact that it wasn't done though is a good sign of a nations progress and that the atrocities committed by the British just aren't such an important part of the Irish psyche anymore.

[garro]

Merely throwing accusations and insults may be your way of trying to win an argument, but it just makes people look foolish - in my opinion.

Good job your don't do the same. At least I manage to think them up at the time, rather than add them later in an edit.

Perhaps all that bullying you did to yourself in your youth caused some damage.

Post published at 06:18:05.

Post edited at 06:19:16

Straight after I hit send.

If I knew though that you were so eager to read my post I would have added it as a separate post, but then I suppose you would have accused me of trying to increase my post count.

[garro]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

Mad or bad? Nature v Nurture. Well you claim to have been a rabid-PCer in your youth so this would seem to discredit the genetic argument wouldn't it?

Not at all. Genes can lay dormant for decades. It doesn't make their presence any less devastating.

Why don't you just honestly answer the question? You won't be persecuted for your thoughts you know, well not while there's breath in my body.

I do not believe in a hate gene. I do believe though that there are a minority of psychopaths and sociopaths that are born that way, but I believe that most people learn to be filled with hate.

[Super Hans]

Merely throwing accusations and insults may be your way of trying to win an argument, but it just makes people look foolish - in my opinion.

Good job your don't do the same. At least I manage to think them up at the time, rather than add them later in an edit.

Perhaps all that bullying you did to yourself in your youth caused some damage.

Post published at 06:18:05.

Post edited at 06:19:16

Straight after I hit send.

If I knew though that you were so eager to read my post I would have added it as a separate post, but then I suppose you would have accused me of trying to increase my post count.

Not at all. I'm not post countist. You knock yourself out.

[Super Hans]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

Mad or bad? Nature v Nurture. Well you claim to have been a rabid-PCer in your youth so this would seem to discredit the genetic argument wouldn't it?

Not at all. Genes can lay dormant for decades. It doesn't make their presence any less devastating.

Why don't you just honestly answer the question? You won't be persecuted for your thoughts you know, well not while there's breath in my body.

I do not believe in a hate gene. I do believe though that there are a minority of psychopaths and sociopaths that are born that way, but I believe that most people learn to be filled with hate.

So would you abort those with the pyschopath/sociopath genes? This is the heart of the matter for me: will you take social control to its logical conclusion. If you will, fine, but if you won't, where do you draw the line and who determines where the line is drawn?

[garro]

To the PC Brigade - a question.

You appear to want to mould nature's most incredible invention into a uniform, standardised ideal. You want them to be perfect and do not tolerate its intolerance of others. If and when science advances to the stage where geneticists can isolate a "hate" gene, would you advocate termination of that child during pregnancy? In short, would you 'breed out' bigotry?

Mad or bad? Nature v Nurture. Well you claim to have been a rabid-PCer in your youth so this would seem to discredit the genetic argument wouldn't it?

Not at all. Genes can lay dormant for decades. It doesn't make their presence any less devastating.

Why don't you just honestly answer the question? You won't be persecuted for your thoughts you know, well not while there's breath in my body.

I do not believe in a hate gene. I do believe though that there are a minority of psychopaths and sociopaths that are born that way, but I believe that most people learn to be filled with hate.

So would you abort those with the pyschopath/sociopath genes? This is the heart of the matter for me: will you take social control to its logical conclusion. If you will, fine, but if you won't, where do you draw the line and who determines where the line is drawn?

I do not believe in abortion on the grounds that the baby might grow up to be disturbed. Abortion is a complex moral issue which I do not wish to discuss here, but aborting babies because somebody believes that they will grow up to be bad people I am completely against.

[Gravelrash]

Being Christmas, here is an excerpt from The Australian with yet another example of how the stupidity of PC is destroying both western culture and society.

"IN Santa's grotto at a top London department store, Santa in his big white friendly beard sits on a bench and there is a large X marked on the bench a safe distance away where the child is firmly directed to sit, allowing a wide corridor of clear and unsullied air between the child and the potential kiddie-fiddler from the North Pole, with his red cheeks, strange reindeer and unaccountable affection for children.

Santa is not allowed to touch the child. The child is not allowed to touch Santa. Happy Christmas, war is over. This is where we are now.

My three-year-old daughter was taken to see a different Santa recently, a more rural Santa, who had set up base on some farm complex, which at other times of the year sold organic produce. When my daughter stumbled, clambering on to the sleigh, Santa reached out and grabbed hold of her: an instinctive reaction, something we all might do. You don't want to see a child fall, do you? But it was the look on Santa's face when he realised what he'd done that chilled to the marrow: a look, according to my wife, of pure, blind panic and fright. "I'm really, really, sorry for touching her," he mumbled. "I didn't mean to. I thought she might fall." This is where we are now.

A couple of years back, in Cairns, another Santa was sacked from his grotto in a department store for having said "Ho, ho, ho" to the children waiting before him. According to the store, he should have said "Ha, ha, ha" but he was a Bad Santa. "Ho, ho, ho" might be perceived as being derogatory to women, it was strongly argued. A ho is African-American vernacular for a prostitute, or at least a woman of loose morals, so you can't say it any more. Ha, ha, ha. This is where we are now.

The Santa Claus in a department store in Louisville, Kentucky, was sacked because the children kept pointing out that he had extremely large breasts. This is because he was a she, a formidable woman called Marta Brown. But the breasts were not what the kids expected on Santa Claus, not when viewed in tandem with the traditional beard and stuff, so they took the piss. Brown was consequently sacked by the department store; but here's the good news: she is suing the firm for $US67,000 ($98,000) through the state commission on human rights, for injured feelings and sexual discrimination. This is where we are now.

In my lovely old home town of Guisborough, in Cleveland, they used to have Santa on a sleigh riding through the part-cobbled old market high street, dispensing sweets to the kids. Not any more. The insurance monkeys and the health and safety monkeys got together and decided that it would cost about US$30,000 in future to safeguard and insure such an event. So of course it was stopped. This is where we are, etc.

A Santa Claus working at Selfridges department store in London was sacked this year for having invited an elderly woman to sit on his lap. I do not know what the elderly woman was doing in the queue for the grotto but, of course, it is her right to queue up to meet Santa and get a present, just as it is your right and my right, the right of all people of whatever creed, colour, class or age. But you shouldn't have to put up with an outrage such as being invited to sit on Santa's lap, so Santa was sacked. A statement from Selfridges read: "We do not promote or proactively seek lap-sitting." Read that quote again and try to imagine the sort of person who wrote it: "Promote or proactively seek lap-sitting."

In the north of England a boy was not allowed to attend his school's Christmas party because his parents had insisted, ever since he joined the school, that he should not be required to attend lessons in religious education. The school presumably thought they were being scrupulous in abiding by the parents' wishes but apparently not. The boy's mum, Dawn Riddell, was incandescent at the cruelty inflicted on her poor son. Christmas parties, she said, "have got absolutely nothing to do with Jesus". I think that's one of my favourite quotes of this year or any year. And that's where we are now, too.

Those Santa-based examples above, drawn from the liberal, developed, democratic world, do not contain absolutely everything that annoys people about how we are now, but they cover a fair few bases. Utter stupidity and ignorance, an irrational and institutionalised fear of pedophiles, an institutionalised but perfectly rational fear of litigation, vexatious litigation, the triumph of health and safety legislation over everything (allied to a fear of vexatious litigation), the notion of equal rights taken to absurd conclusions, the ability of an individual to become enraged when an imagined right has been infracted, corporate and local council obeisance to a politically correct agenda with which no sane person would concur, and so on..."

[garro]

Being Christmas, here is an excerpt from The Australian with yet another example of how the stupidity of PC is destroying both western culture and society.

"IN Santa's grotto at a top London department store, Santa in his big white friendly beard sits on a bench and there is a large X marked on the bench a safe distance away where the child is firmly directed to sit, allowing a wide corridor of clear and unsullied air between the child and the potential kiddie-fiddler from the North Pole, with his red cheeks, strange reindeer and unaccountable affection for children.

Santa is not allowed to touch the child. The child is not allowed to touch Santa. Happy Christmas, war is over. This is where we are now.

My three-year-old daughter was taken to see a different Santa recently, a more rural Santa, who had set up base on some farm complex, which at other times of the year sold organic produce. When my daughter stumbled, clambering on to the sleigh, Santa reached out and grabbed hold of her: an instinctive reaction, something we all might do. You don't want to see a child fall, do you? But it was the look on Santa's face when he realised what he'd done that chilled to the marrow: a look, according to my wife, of pure, blind panic and fright. "I'm really, really, sorry for touching her," he mumbled. "I didn't mean to. I thought she might fall." This is where we are now.

A couple of years back, in Cairns, another Santa was sacked from his grotto in a department store for having said "Ho, ho, ho" to the children waiting before him. According to the store, he should have said "Ha, ha, ha" but he was a Bad Santa. "Ho, ho, ho" might be perceived as being derogatory to women, it was strongly argued. A ho is African-American vernacular for a prostitute, or at least a woman of loose morals, so you can't say it any more. Ha, ha, ha. This is where we are now.

The Santa Claus in a department store in Louisville, Kentucky, was sacked because the children kept pointing out that he had extremely large breasts. This is because he was a she, a formidable woman called Marta Brown. But the breasts were not what the kids expected on Santa Claus, not when viewed in tandem with the traditional beard and stuff, so they took the piss. Brown was consequently sacked by the department store; but here's the good news: she is suing the firm for $US67,000 ($98,000) through the state commission on human rights, for injured feelings and sexual discrimination. This is where we are now.

In my lovely old home town of Guisborough, in Cleveland, they used to have Santa on a sleigh riding through the part-cobbled old market high street, dispensing sweets to the kids. Not any more. The insurance monkeys and the health and safety monkeys got together and decided that it would cost about US$30,000 in future to safeguard and insure such an event. So of course it was stopped. This is where we are, etc.

A Santa Claus working at Selfridges department store in London was sacked this year for having invited an elderly woman to sit on his lap. I do not know what the elderly woman was doing in the queue for the grotto but, of course, it is her right to queue up to meet Santa and get a present, just as it is your right and my right, the right of all people of whatever creed, colour, class or age. But you shouldn't have to put up with an outrage such as being invited to sit on Santa's lap, so Santa was sacked. A statement from Selfridges read: "We do not promote or proactively seek lap-sitting." Read that quote again and try to imagine the sort of person who wrote it: "Promote or proactively seek lap-sitting."

In the north of England a boy was not allowed to attend his school's Christmas party because his parents had insisted, ever since he joined the school, that he should not be required to attend lessons in religious education. The school presumably thought they were being scrupulous in abiding by the parents' wishes but apparently not. The boy's mum, Dawn Riddell, was incandescent at the cruelty inflicted on her poor son. Christmas parties, she said, "have got absolutely nothing to do with Jesus". I think that's one of my favourite quotes of this year or any year. And that's where we are now, too.

Those Santa-based examples above, drawn from the liberal, developed, democratic world, do not contain absolutely everything that annoys people about how we are now, but they cover a fair few bases. Utter stupidity and ignorance, an irrational and institutionalised fear of pedophiles, an institutionalised but perfectly rational fear of litigation, vexatious litigation, the triumph of health and safety legislation over everything (allied to a fear of vexatious litigation), the notion of equal rights taken to absurd conclusions, the ability of an individual to become enraged when an imagined right has been infracted, corporate and local council obeisance to a politically correct agenda with which no sane person would concur, and so on..."

Oh, so you think it is irrational and ignorant to fear pedophiles. Are they just misunderstood? I would certainly not want a stranger touching my child - it is just not worth the risk. Call that being overly PC if you wish.

[garro]

It should also be remembered that these rules are there to protect men doing their job from being accused of crossing the line.

[PhilHarries]

I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration.

Coming from an anonymous keyboard warrior on an anonymous internet forum that has to be the most pathetic response of the year. Yet amongst some of the other responses from the modern day crusaders, defenders of the faith, it merely blends in almost seamlessly.

[Ulysses G.]

I would certainly not want a stranger touching my child - it is just not worth the risk. Call that being overly PC if you wish.

If your child was falling down on the cement, you would not want a stranger to help them? Political correctness really is a strange disease!

Edited December 24, 2008 by Ulysses G.