Blah Blah

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Therefore it seems we are concluding that context > both condemns and excuses the same words and that > nothing can ever be said to be insulting or > offensive per se. No, we are merely pointing out the difference between fiction (which is a reflection) and real life. There are debates to be had about whether fiction reflects or influences (art imitating life and vice versa) but most people know the difference. Having said that, there is censorship in the form of certification for viewing, so there are sensibilities as to the level of maturity expected from the viewer. > Do we maintain the right to be offended (free > speech) or do we instigate the right not to be > offended(total censorship)? We have something in between and that is both sensible and right. Responsibility comes with free speech and again most people know when they are being deliberately offensive as opposed to having sensible debate.

I don't watch X factor, so can't comment on that, but I would say that using deliberately provocative language to offend enough to raise debate is a form of trolling. And I'm not really understanding what your point is. Were you commenting on X factor, by using offensive language from a fictional character in a fictional drama? I didn't see your deleted post, but would assume moderators would only delete if they had good reason to do so. To echo everyone else, context is everything. Fiction is different from real life.

Agreed Saffron. Human identity on any level is complex and to reduce any part of it to one aspect of biology is ridiculous.

I know better than to argue with a sodding big spreadsheet :D

I agree too ???? and prety much with everyone else. They made committments to some groups to secure votes and it's coming back to haunt them (and I think part of the problem is that they didn't expect to win the election and have to deliver half of them). The stupid thing is that I don't think anyone disagrees with the principle that the Tories are promoting, just the process of delivering it. It's like having a good idea and then pissing everyone off to the point that no-one thinks it's a good idea anymore :D I absolutely agree ??? that Osborne has shown great niaivity in his rush to balance the books. He puts himself under a pressure that is very hard to deliver when so many people are trapped in low wage, insecure jobs. There does seem to be a huge disconnect whne it comes to what people on the breadline are going through. He could slow down cuts and look to reducing the deficit in a rational way rather than clearing it. At the same time he seems completely ignorant to some of the causes of hardship, like rent inflation for example. Balancing the books is more than just getting public spending into the black. It's also about making sure what people earn is enough to live on, and that the costs of living are kept in check where possible. Heseltine the other day had the nerve to say to the steel workers losing their jobs that it was a good time for them to lose them! Two million new jobs (700,000 of them zero contract) has not seem a 2 million reduction in the unemployment figures. Most of those jobs have just replaced other jobs lost through cuts and market forces. Cameron has nothing to boast about. And they think we are all too stupid to understand any of it.

Yes and what I find particularly galling is the parade of Tory MPs who claim that Cameron didn't say that, or that even though he said that, the announced 12bn welfare cuts that were in the manifesto make the lie ok. Time and time again they were asked where those cuts would come from and refused to answer. Even more annoying are those conservative MPs who didn't have the backnone to vote against the cuts in the House of Commons. A bunch of arrogant and spineless liars who can't stomach being pulled into line by people who actually have a moral conscience.

This is true. There are mansions in Kensington that have slaves (in the true sense of unpaid and incarcerated labour) and nothing is done about that.

Didn't she also one time say that rape wasn't that big a deal too?

I too agree with Otta. I watched the whole Lords debate on catchup last night and the arguments were well thought out and completely destroyed all of the governments claims on constitution. Osborne took a risk and has been caught out. He should take it on the chin and move on.

Ridgely, genes do not just determine physical appearance, they also determine a whole host of character and cognitive aspects too. There is a lot of research in this area, including the impacts of stress induced hormonal imbalances during prenancy. There are babies born with both male and female genitalia, what would Germaine Greer say they are? I think she displays and has always displayed ignorance on this issue, odd because she is an academic and therefore should be interested in reading the massive advances in research over the last 30 years. BUT I also think that ideas are always better in the open where they can be challenged and debated, so think the University is wrong, and agree with DaveR and Loz. Universities are places of learning, where students are supposed to be exposed to a wide range of opinion and views, to learn how to analyse, challenge and form debate.

I didn't know that. That's even worse then. Is there anything about this deal that is actually in the interests of Britain?

Er so the Winter of Discontent had nothing to do with it then? Every economic system has black markets. There's no getting away from that. Even the worst police states have them. As for exploiting the system, that too runs through every level of society from the billionaires at the top to the penniless pauper at the bottom.

I was merely pointing out the irony in Uncle's need to feel territorial, not blaming him for that history. How does abiding by the law of the land equate to being territorial Uncle? And how does that relate to the conversation you overheard on a bus from four West Indians? The reason why I asked you to think about that conversation again is because you seem to think that they have no right to criticise the poor attitude of some British people. Your reaction was not one of seeking to find out why they felt that way, but to tell them they didn't have to come to this country! You were so outraged (or baffled) by their comment that you felt the need to relay it on a thread about racism, to make what point exactly?

Territorial is just as bad, especially given that the wealth of the country you live in (and benefit from) was built off the profits of conquest, empire and slavery. Where was the respect for territory then?

That's a bit unfair ????s. The Labour party is not and never will be as far left as it was in the distant past. One appointment does not a party make. And the media have behaved pretty appallingly in fueling the kind of hysteria you have just demonstrated ;) My impression, from listening carefully to what Corbyn and McDonnell are saying, is that they want the Labour party to move towards arguing for a fairer form of capitalism where it's understood that the state has to be repsonsible for providing some things. There's nothing new or scary about that. The debate is simply about what should be state supported and what should not. What doesn't work however is the privatisation of everything and leaving the free market to take care of it all.

Think again about what they were saying uncleglen. It was obviously a conversation trying to make sense of the recent upsurge in racism and xenophobia. You'd probably be the first to have such a conversation if it were you and from some of your posts on here you seem to be only too willing to support that xenophobia.

Western governments are short-termist because the electorate are short-termist, i.e what can you do for ME now, rather what can you do for the country long term. It's been that way for the last 30 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, the reality is that a state owned French company is building this, with Chinese money and we will pay double the market rate for the energy it produces. However did we get into a place where we can not build things for ourselves anymore, where other nations profit from our essential needs at double the cost to us, the people? Finally, when a nation causes a collapse in steel prices by illegally dumping subsidised steel, you don't reward them with contracts to build things like HS2. We are more than capable of building our own nuclear reactor or HS2, but of course, we have a government in power that doesn't believe in national borrowing for anything, yet wants us all to borrow to buy houses!

I would think rural areas have lost younger generations who have moved to find jobs, homes they can afford etc. The new registration rules will make things interesting too. We might see some differences in University towns in some elections. Who knows what the Corbyn effect will be - it's all guesswork at the moment. Next years local elections might be an indicator.

50 years ago, pretty much every schoolboy carried a pen knife. It's not the carrying of a knife that is the issue, but the reasons for carrying it. DuncanW is correct when looking at success rates vs different kinds of intervention. Most kids who carry knives are copying the culture they find themselves in (one of hierarchy and fear). They aren't really aware of the implications of law and killing someone. Bullies used to just beat you up if you didn't hand over your dinner money. Now they threaten you with a knife if you don't hand over your iphone, and so the cycle continues. People get stabbed everywhere in London. So comments about Peckham as though knife crime only happens there are not helpful. Nor is any other stereotyping, and that ridulous line from uncleglen (clearly a troll) of underclass vs educated class. With young people, the earlier the intervention the better, but it's hard to maintain if the wider culture doesn't change too. No easy solutions.

Point taken Otta. But even on a religious view Ridgely, not all muslim cultures are the same any more than all Christian ones are. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

There is racism found in EVERY ethnic group Ridgely. Why would that suprise you? And all racism is learned, which is why some cultures harbour more racism than others. An individual hurling racist abuse in public at anyone is no more than a disgraceful example of a human being, be they black, white, chinese, muslim, christian, or whatever. There is no significance in who is being racist and to whom, beyond working out ways to eradicate that racism, which may or may not have a cultural aspect. You do however make the classic mistake of seeing Afirca as a continent of little difference. Africa is as big as Europe with as many countries in it as Europe. We may be predominently white but you have some grasp of how different say Russia is to the UK, or Italy, or Poland etc. Apply the same logic to the multitude of countries that make up that huge continent of Africa. There's your answer. The culture of Senegal is very different to that of Eritrea, or Somalia, or South Arica, or Morocco. Being black doesn't make Africans all the same.

I don't disgree with you Dave regarding the swings that gave both Thatcher and Blair landslide majorities, but part of that 'landslide' was delivered by the type of electoral system we have. It's estimated that as little as 300,000 votes in traditionally English marginals actually decide workable majorities, that's out of how many eligible voters?. Hence the constant boundary changes by every government. Seats in Parliament have never been reflective of true voting share. So your words that 'millions of voters who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed' just isn't true. And Labour actually increased it's voting share on 2010 but lost seats. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/how-labour-gained-votes-but-still-lost-seats.html?_r=0 I think to be fair ????s, you are not typical of a Labour voter. Whilst Corbyn does take the Labour party away from the centre ground, the Conservatives at present certainly aren't filling it. I think we have yet to see who steps in there and if the Lib Dems are smart about it, it could be just the stroke of luck they need to get back in the main. I'm not offended by Corbyn (I voted for him because a case does have to be made for the hardships of welfare reform and low wages, state intervention is needed in housing and some other areas where the free market does not deliver fairness). BUT the sticking point for me is McDonnel. I think he comes accross as weasly. I want a chancellor that sees capitalism as good for the economy, but finds a fairer way to make it work, rather than the extreme form we have at present. I don't think McDonnel is the one to deliver that and imo it is he, more than Corbyn, that will cost Labour.

DaveR Wrote: > which is exactly the message that Corbyn and his > supporters are giving to the millions of voters > who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but > then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed. A > perfect strategy for getting back into government. > Not. I think the SNP took those Labour votes Dave, not the Tories :D The Tories would have a much bigger majority if there had been any significant swing in Labour voters to them. Some interesting analysis here. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout Totally agree regarding strategy though. Doomed to failure at present.

The clue might have been in 'we will make ?12bn in further cuts but aren't telling you which benefits will be cut'! The whole steel plant thing is a scandal esp as we could have kept them in business building rails for HS2. Shades of Atlas Shrugged there. It's a bit like Conway shipping kerb stones from China isn't it. Where is the backing for British business? We happily borrow trilions to bail out the city, but let the last remnants of industry go to the wall.

And Cameron DID say he WOULDN'T cut child tax credits (to match Labours pledge). She voted for someone who lied about something that really makes a difference to her. But (according to Daily Politics today) it looks as though the move is going to be blocked by the Lords, because it wasn't part of the manifesto, so Osbourne might be forced to change something. Apparently 71 Tory MPs sit in marginal seats where this policy might have an adverse effect, and they are worried.