TheCat

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Despite the fact that this is the second year of > a > > numerical grading system, on the radio this > > morning they were saying that the change from > A*-G > > to a 9-1 numerical system is likely to cause > > confusion and anxiety amongst teenagers and > > parents.... > > > > If a 9-1 numerical system is going to cause you > > confusion then one would have to think our > > schooling system is in more trouble than we > > thought.... > > Bit cynical - it hasn't just replaced letters with > numbers, it's somewhat more complex. For example, > my niece has just been awarded 3x9, 4x8 and 2x7. > 7,8 and 9 are replacements for the A and A* bands, > so when looking at her results and comparing them > with a competitor for a job or college place who > took their GCSEs under the old grade system, has > she got 7 A* and 2 A grades? 3 A* and 6 A grades? > Split the difference and call it 5 A* and 4 As? It > is confusing and the change, in my opinion and > that of many teaching friends and former > colleagues, was totally unnecessary. you say 'cynical', I say 'wry observation'....in any case...potato/potarto Best thing is to not try to look backwards and compare to an old system. I know its human nature to want to judge things on what we're familiar with, but in 2 years no one will worry about what the 'equivalent' was under the old system...they'll just worry about 1-9...and the point im making is thats a pretty bloody simple system to understand!

I suppose you could confuse a '9' (this highest possible) with a lower case 'g' (the lowest possible)......

Despite the fact that this is the second year of a numerical grading system, on the radio this morning they were saying that the change from A*-G to a 9-1 numerical system is likely to cause confusion and anxiety amongst teenagers and parents.... If a 9-1 numerical system is going to cause you confusion then one would have to think our schooling system is in more trouble than we thought....

toto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have asked them several times for hotter dishes > but they didn't have to go this far They could have used some of the rains from africa....toto

In the words of micky flanagan....when I get free time I enjoy doing 'proper f#ck all'....

Something cool....like a garage sale? I must very clearly be uncool:)

Wow. You are really totally missing the point. Perhaps purposefully? I'll try one last time....just becuase YOU call a white man a Gammon doesn't mean he is one. It means YOU think he's intolerant. YOU have branded him something he might not at all be, by assuming he holds a certain set of beliefs. But it doesn't mean he holds them. This is the premise of the whole argument.....but anyway...if you don't want to acknowledge that, then I suspect you're being purposefully obtuse in a thread I started in good faith (I belive the cool kids call it 'trolling')

I think you're starting to confuse someone who has actually shown intolerance, with someone who is from the same 'tribe' as a person who has shown intolerance.... If you can sit there and confidently say that every person who has ever been branded a Gammon is the living embodiment of intolerance....then fair enough. But that fact that you think you can is the definition of prejudice. So good luck with that

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > flocker spotter Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > White british middle aged men have beeen > dealt > > a > > > pretty good hand in life generally- society > > caters > > > to their needs and demands over all else. > Being > > > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to > > > people who have had it all their own way all > > their > > > lives > > > > And that right there is prejudice. While > overall > > one may argue that other groups may suffer more > > often, just because one is born a certain sex > and > > skin colour does not mean that if they have a > > grievance it should be dismissed out of hand > > becuase of the 'group' they are identified as > > coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's > > life experience based on the colour of their > > skin?...I think there's a word for that..... > > > > We can fight for equality for minorities, while > > still being respectful of all people, surely? > > > You agenda is pretty transparent. well done What? the agenda to ask you to actually think about your hypocrisy, instead of just regurgitating slogans about 'privelige' back at me? If you can't objectively understand that we don't defeat prejudice against one group by accepting it against another. Then i'd suggest it's not me with the 'agenda'....

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > While you make good points Cat, I still find it > difficult to feel sympathy for a section of > society which does, whatever we say, suffer far > FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than > others. > > I could write endless tiresome pages on my > feelings about racism in the modern age, but that > would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this; > just last week three young white guys liberally > tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little > convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in > south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It > was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well. > > You are right that there is a moral equivalence > between the use of various terms based on skin > colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance > of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one > direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise. > As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it > is not all one way and I don?t for one second > advocate that it is anything other than > abhorrent. > > But I have trouble putting someone being called a > gammon into the same category as those poor people > who posted in the Adys Road thread. A good post. And I would agree, that the 'balance' if definitley to skewed one way. No argument against that from me at all. As I point out above, it is those people who claim to be champions of equality, who then let themselves down by excusing namecalling and abuse of groups of people they beleive 'deserve' it or 'can handle it'

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > White british middle aged men have beeen dealt a > pretty good hand in life generally- society caters > to their needs and demands over all else. Being > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to > people who have had it all their own way all their > lives And that right there is prejudice. While overall one may argue that other groups may suffer more often, just because one is born a certain sex and skin colour does not mean that if they have a grievance it should be dismissed out of hand becuase of the 'group' they are identified as coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's life experience based on the colour of their skin?...I think there's a word for that..... We can fight for equality for minorities, while still being respectful of all people, and acknowledge the challenges and difficulties that every person may face from time to time, surely?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thoughtful thread Cat. I'm glad I waited until > after the Last Leg to post. > > Boris set a trap and we fell for it. Just > increasing his popularity among his core > demographic, maybe picking up a few of the more > traditional working class vote. > > As for the question - gammon similarly feels like > we (or many of us) are falling into a similar trap > of simply name calling against the Brexiteers and > the like. > > Having said that I have been using 'angry of > Tunbridge Wells' for years and this type of > behaviour has long since parodied. > > Don't diss this thread. And thanks for a thoughtful response malumbu. For what it's worth my own opinion is that bojo has typically said something boorish to gain attention. And succeeded. Many people think it's offensive and inciting towards violence to Muslim women.....but i've yet to hear a Muslim burqa wearing woman express this opinion....that's not me trying to have a dig, and saying that they don't..I'm highlighting that the most vocal outrage comes from others bein 'offended' on behalf of a Muslim woman. The issue with the Gammon thing is that I would wager that most people who fit into that category couldn't really give a toss if they get caled a Gammon. But I get frustrated by what I see as the hypocrisy of those people who feel (on behalf of others) that the former is deeply offensive, and the latter (on behalf of others) is nothing to worry about, as white middle aged men don't have feelings. Yes, Muslim women suffer 'more' prejudice than middle-aged white men. But why should ANY prejudice be acceptablle? If you condemn the first, you really shouldn't delight in use of the second

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >They have no idea what it's like to > experience racism. Or do they? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1956574

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's unlikely that people are being abused > in the street for being white, middle aged men. I think that's a fair point of diferntation. If the comments incite intimidation and violence, then i'd agree it is of more concern. Also, don't get me wrong, I understand that some minorities will suffer 'more' from prejudice. I'm just asking if two wrongs make a right. But, assuming true, I think your point is well made.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...right-leaning folk... > > What a quaint little picture you've tried to paint > there... You do know that one can be 'right-leaning', and still be a rational, reasonable person. It doesn't mean they are a racist, misogynistic imperialist. Or is everyone who might disagree with some leftist sensibilities automaticaly a nazi to you?

So my weekly dose of Guardian reading has told me that many people are very upset about BoJo suggesting a muslim women in a burqa look a little like a 'letterbox' At the same time, my learned progressive friends at the Guardian also delight in referring to angry, white, right-leaning folk as 'Gammons'....in light of the fact that their light skins turns pink with anger when discussing things such as immigration. So...both terms are dismissed as a 'bit of a lighthearted joke' by those in favour of using them, while their opponents brand them as 'deeply offensive'....is one more acceptable than the other? are they both unacceptable? are they both acceptable?

People who pay no notice of the 'engaged' sign on a toilet door and decide to rattle and shake the door anyway. Puts me right off my game. And before anyone asks...yes...I am typing this in the cr@pper....

I despair. People don't want to pick up their own dog's shit off the street, what's gonna make them care about their sandwich wrapper?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > For example, one might be happy to support the > > view that it is minorities who suffer more at > the > > hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a > view > > that (on occasion) they have also suffered in > some > > way (even though they are a > > man/white/rich/straight) without being met with > > incredulity about how they could possibly ever > > understand suffering because they are a > > man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that > > breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in > > people being willing to listen to stories about > > the suffering of others, because no one > listened > > to theirs? > > I entirely agree, I think problems arise when > people start pushing the idea of an equivalence, > e.g. men suffer just as much oppression from women > as vice versa, racism is just as bad for white > people etc. That negates the reality of all > experiences and is often used as an excuse to > continue bad behaviour: "they" are just as bad as > "us", "we" suffer just as much as "them", so you > can't blame "us" for carrying on. As with all these sorts of issues these days, the internet shoulders much of the blame, as the lack of nuance in debate creates division where there probably needn't be. I dont think most reasonable 'non-PC brigade' people would deny that minorities suffer 'more' rascism, and women suffer 'more' sexism. They probably just want recognition and acknowledgement on those occasions when the opposite is true...instead of being told that someone else has it worse...and therefore 'invalidating their lived experience' (to coin a progressive left phrase!).

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a school of thought that believes that > racism can only come from 'the majority' (by which > is always meant the white majority) directed to a > minority - and thus that it is impossible for > anyone of colour to be racist. Hence the surprise/ > disbelief of some on hearing of a racist encounter > directed at a white person, for being white. In > their view, (for some of them at least) an > apparent racist expression directed at a white > person is thus a legitimate expression of 'hit > back' from an oppressed minority. > > I believe that any expression of hatred against an > individual - (just) for belonging to any group > membership of which they had no choice in - is > frightening and reprehensible, whatever you want > to call it. And if someone is being judged for > belonging to a racial group, then that is racism, > surely? > > I am more relaxed about judging people for who > they are than what they are, and you can only > judge someone for who they are by knowing them in > the first place, evidently not the case here. > > My sympathies to the OP and others who have > suffered similarly. Agreed. I think that much of the progressive left would find that many of the people they likely think dont share their values, actually do share many of their social values at their core (i.e. anti-racism, sexism etc etc), but get 'bullied' into silence, which breeds resentment. For example, one might be happy to support the view that it is minorities who suffer more at the hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a view that (on occasion) they have also suffered in some way (even though they are a man/white/rich/straight) without being met with incredulity about how they could possibly ever understand suffering because they are a man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in people being willing to listen to stories about the suffering of others, because no one listened to theirs? Overall this insistence in ou society on categorising everyone into a 'bucket' drives me mad.

tash b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m the daughter of applepears, anyone who stops > me again will get told the same thing as that lady > 20 yrs ago when my children were little we never > had them spaces and even now when I have my > grandsons I can?t always get a space there but I > manage with them like I did 20 yrs ago, so please > yes stop me and moan and you will get told if you > can not manage then don?t have children. 3000 years ago people with bad hips couldnt run away, and got eaten by sabre tooth tigers...you people with bad hips dont know how good you've got it today....

> I have had an unbelievable experience here with a > new opening which I will describe later this > month Why the wait? lets have all the salacious details now....

im sure you've got a story about everyone yourself mate

.

I got plenty more aussie words u don't know....