Didzy racially abused [Off topic messages removed]

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Whats really disappointing about all of this is its actually very easy to track where anything comes from on the net. I say this as someone who works at a fairly high level for an ISP (I imagine its easy to guess who but no names in any case!)

There's a little known system in the UK for tracking copyright pirates. Copyright owners actually put out 'pirate' versions of their content on these dodgy websites and than can then track the IP addresses of those who download it. Pretty sure these huge social media companies can easily track the IP addresses of where content uploads from. Pretty much all ISPs are signed up to this scheme where every UK based IP address is linked to a particular company, who can of course check who was using a particular address at a particular time.

Working back from there its easy to track where the offense came from-doesnt matter how many VPN tricks etc you use to hide your address, there's always a paper trail to follow and it will always end up finding the source if enough effort is put in to actually follow it through and companies actually release the info.

So with all that said, what concerns me more is a this 'working with authorities to find the culprits' crap. Its actually really easy and already used when it comes to money and copyright matters. So if these big media companies actually all got on the same page and stopped hiding behind these 'privacy' concerns these 🔔 ends would be found so fast you wouldn't believe it.

Find the source, apply the punishment. Hell-just cut off their Internet so they can't spout this crap. Take away their porn access and they'll soon change their tune!

Seriously though, how many of these racist (or other forms of bellendery) would actually say this shit in public. Take away their anonymity and they'll soon learn. Even if it is a kid in the back bedroom. As a parent myself-if I found out my kid was spouting this kind of abuse they'd soon be put right-and if I didn't I'd think it perfectly reasonable that I got torn apart for not doing so.
 

I'd also add that there's all these questions about how do we deal with these people. Honestly I think we worry too much about hurting feelings.

Give someone a criminal record for being racist and you ruin their life. You know what, someone with that kind of attitude maybe needs that level of shock.

When it comes to kids then yes there's an argument for a level of restraint-that 12 yr old has learnt that from environment (parents, school of wherever). We already have a level where kids who commit offences are treated differently to adults. Apply the same logic to racists. Kids get educated. Adults get hammered, and frankly they deserve it. Pussyfooting around will sort nothing at all. Treat abuse the same, be that physical or verbal and maybe it will stick.
 
FMBlade1 said:
I don't really care about JK Rowling. The only reason she can say what she says is that she is too big to cancel or lose anything significant that she cares about. Its the 'average' person that this issue pertains to more.

I'm yet to see a conclusive confirmation proving her wrong so please provide a study. I'm not standing up for her or saying that she is right, but I find 'the science is settled' statement unnerving when no science is provided.

Let's say that someone lost their job for saying that Ched was innocent on Twitter in 2015. Would that be justified? Such a statement would be offensive and against majority of thought by society/evidence at that time.

What we're really looking at here is the Overton Window:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Of course the abuse this thread is about falls completely outside this window. The question is, what else should be and where is that line drawn and what consequences should there be for those outside it?
Click to expand...

In every Western country right now the idea of transitioning and affirming the indentity that people want to express is the consensus amongst doctors and psychologists. Unless you think they've come to that position without research and data then you've got to figure that it's a position they've all independently arrived at based on the data. I mean, I can do it if you really want but you'd be better just hitting google yourself.
 
PokerBlade said:
In every Western country right now the idea of transitioning and affirming the indentity that people want to express is the consensus amongst doctors and psychologists. Unless you think they've come to that position without research and data then you've got to figure that it's a position they've all independently arrived at based on the data. I mean, I can do it if you really want but you'd be better just hitting google yourself.
Click to expand...

'During this “transgender moment,” a government-enforced tyranny of false presumptions about nature besieges the American family. When Harry Became Sally provides the empirical information needed to refute the transgender suppositions, and―in a most original way―makes historic sense of this social misdirection by noting how the “gender-fluid” pseudo-scientific claims of today’s transgender ideologues derive from dubious arguments previously passed around amongst second-wave feminists. Learn from Ryan Anderson how another craze about the workings of the mind has come to beset American households and put thousands of people at risk.

—Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.'

“Do no harm” is a fundamental tenet of medical ethics. But sadly―as shown by Ryan Anderson’s careful examination of the research―people with gender dysphoria are now commonly given treatments that involve grave health hazards and few (if any) lasting benefits. Regardless of political persuasion, all concerned citizens, especially parents, policymakers, and healthcare professionals, should give serious consideration to the evidence presented in this thoughtful and balanced book.

—Melissa Moschella, Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University.


Ryan Anderson forthrightly calls out the suspension of disbelief that has led us into ever more bizarre denials of reality, blindfolding our eyes and our heads in the name of political ideology and ensuring the suffering of the mentally ill. Everyone concerned with the welfare of children should read When Harry Became Sally.

—Margaret A. Hagen, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University.

Ryan Anderson takes up the challenging topic of the “transgender moment” in a clear and biologically well-informed manner. He writes in a thoughtful and accessible manner, and he succeeds in his goal of providing “a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.” When Harry Became Sally raises important questions for anyone who is sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of those struggling with their gender identity.”

—Maureen Condic, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah.



---

I'm not even taking sides or disagreeing with you and what is going on.

My point is those people listed above are prominent and highly qualified in their field. They might be wrong. They might be right.

If the average person repeated what they said would it be fair game for them to lose their jobs?

I would say no it wouldn't be justified.

Comments that were made to DMcG absolutely unacceptable no doubt that there should be severe consequences.

Though this is something different.
 
184blade said:


People are thick
Click to expand...


I'm glad McGoldrick had the balls to out the guy publicly. I did the same on here when a poster inboxed me some abuse that contained a load of homophobic references recently.

I'm a big believer in "if you don't feel comfortable saying it in public, don't say it at all."

I don't think "outting people" alone will change much, but if it makes people think twice about what they're saying & how it comes across to others then I think it's a step worth taking.
 
FMBlade1 said:
'During this “transgender moment,” a government-enforced tyranny of false presumptions about nature besieges the American family. When Harry Became Sally provides the empirical information needed to refute the transgender suppositions, and―in a most original way―makes historic sense of this social misdirection by noting how the “gender-fluid” pseudo-scientific claims of today’s transgender ideologues derive from dubious arguments previously passed around amongst second-wave feminists. Learn from Ryan Anderson how another craze about the workings of the mind has come to beset American households and put thousands of people at risk.

—Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.'

“Do no harm” is a fundamental tenet of medical ethics. But sadly―as shown by Ryan Anderson’s careful examination of the research―people with gender dysphoria are now commonly given treatments that involve grave health hazards and few (if any) lasting benefits. Regardless of political persuasion, all concerned citizens, especially parents, policymakers, and healthcare professionals, should give serious consideration to the evidence presented in this thoughtful and balanced book.

—Melissa Moschella, Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University.


Ryan Anderson forthrightly calls out the suspension of disbelief that has led us into ever more bizarre denials of reality, blindfolding our eyes and our heads in the name of political ideology and ensuring the suffering of the mentally ill. Everyone concerned with the welfare of children should read When Harry Became Sally.

—Margaret A. Hagen, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University.

Ryan Anderson takes up the challenging topic of the “transgender moment” in a clear and biologically well-informed manner. He writes in a thoughtful and accessible manner, and he succeeds in his goal of providing “a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.” When Harry Became Sally raises important questions for anyone who is sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of those struggling with their gender identity.”

—Maureen Condic, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah.



---

I'm not even taking sides or disagreeing with you and what is going on.

My point is those people listed above are prominent and highly qualified in their field. They might be wrong. They might be right.

If the average person repeated what they said would it be fair game for them to lose their jobs?

I would say no it wouldn't be justified.

Comments that were made to DMcG absolutely unacceptable no doubt that there should be severe consequences.

Though this is something different.
Click to expand...

This is why consensus is important. I can cite you "prominent scientists" who will tell you that evolution is impossible. What the creationists can't do is persuade a significant portion of the scientific community that they're onto something.

Hagan, for instance, referenced a study in her blog posts the author of which came out and said words to the effect of "This isn't what my work showed, anti-trans people are massively misrepresenting it". I'm not familiar with the other names off the top of my head but I bet if I do some googling I'll find they're equally motivated as Hagan is.


Here's the American Psychological Association's guidelines for dealing with trans people. You'll find it absolutely riddled with references that you're free to follow up on.
 
PokerBlade said:
This is why consensus is important. I can cite you "prominent scientists" who will tell you that evolution is impossible. What the creationists can't do is persuade a significant portion of the scientific community that they're onto something.

Hagan, for instance, referenced a study in her blog posts the author of which came out and said words to the effect of "This isn't what my work showed, anti-trans people are massively misrepresenting it". I'm not familiar with the other names off the top of my head but I bet if I do some googling I'll find they're equally motivated as Hagan is.


Here's the American Psychological Association's guidelines for dealing with trans people. You'll find it absolutely riddled with references that you're free to follow up on.
Click to expand...

Consensus is overrated. 99% of people thinking something doesn't mean they are right because of consensus. * Our friend Galileo Galilei is proof of that.

To be clear, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this issue nor am I advocating the people or views I have quoted.

My point is, should people lose their jobs for stating objections or hesitations to transitioning?

* Also ironically there have been countless studies about group think affecting how people individually think.
 
FMBlade1 said:
Consensus is overrated. 99% of people thinking something doesn't mean they are right because of consensus. * Our friend Galileo Galilei is proof of that.

To be clear, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this issue nor am I advocating the people or views I have quoted.

My point is, should people lose their jobs for stating objections or hesitations to transitioning?

* Also ironically there have been countless studies about group think affecting how people individually think.
Click to expand...

There wasn't scientific consensus when Galileo came along. There was a giant political machine called the Catholic Church. The irony is that Galileo was essentially the catalyst that led to the modern scientific method and the idea of research that you're being sceptical of.

It isn't about 99% of people just thinking something up out of nothing. It's about all the research, all the data, all the experts, sharing, reviewing and all coming to the same conclusions based on the evidence. A few outliers aside, of course, but again I can find you outliers who believe in everything from creationism to flat-earth to perpetual motion (though they prefer the term "over unity" these days). As I said, even the sources Hagen cites have disavowed themselves of her and said she's completely misrepresented them.

You're free to reject all that, I guess, but once we've thrown out academia and science we've done away with the only evidence that matters and I've nothing left to convince you with.

I think "stating objections or hesitations" is too vague to have a position on, but I can certainly imagine someone losing their job for "stating objections or hesitations" about black people, so maybe. I don't know what jobs you've had or currently have but can you imagine "stating objections" about women working there and not facing a warning or two? But in a lot of cases, it isn't even that. JK Rowling for instance went on a rant about Maya Forstater "losing her job" for her opinions on trans people. What she failed to mention is that Forstater's contract expired and they chose not to renew it because the company she worked for really wasn't a fan of her being a public advocate for an anti-trans group she was in.

It really isn't the case that people are just getting fired left and right for voicing an opinion.
 
PokerBlade said:
There was a giant political machine called the Catholic Church. The irony is that Galileo was essentially the catalyst that led to the modern scientific method and the idea of research that you're being sceptical of.

It isn't about 99% of people just thinking something up out of nothing. It's about all the research, all the data, all the experts, sharing, reviewing and all coming to the same conclusions based on the evidence. A few outliers aside, of course, but again I can find you outliers who believe in everything from creationism to flat-earth to perpetual motion (though they prefer the term "over unity" these days). As I said, even the sources Hagen cites have disavowed themselves of her and said she's completely misrepresented them.

You're free to reject all that, I guess, but once we've thrown out academia and science we've done away with the only evidence that matters and I've nothing left to convince you with.

I think "stating objections or hesitations" is too vague to have a position on, but I can certainly imagine someone losing their job for "stating objections or hesitations" about black people, so maybe. I don't know what jobs you've had or currently had but can you imagine "stating objections" about women working there and not facing a warning or two? But in a lot of cases, it isn't even that. JK Rowling for instance went on a rant about Maya Forstater "losing her job" for her opinions on trans people. What she failed to mention is that Forstater's contract expired and they chose not to renew it because the company she worked for really wasn't a fan of her being a public advocate for an anti-trans group she was in.

It really isn't the case that people are just getting fired left and right for voicing an opinion.
Click to expand...

Nope not sceptical of the modern scientific method and the idea of research, just stating that 'consensus' doesn't necessitate being true by that alone.

And as I mentioned, as ironically studies have shown, consensus is sometimes arrived at as a result of group-think pressure.

Is stating objections/hesitations about the examples you gave the same as objections about transitioning? I'm not even opposing it, it's the wrongly quoted Voltaire that comes to my mind here.

We could move more broadly. Should people who oppose abortion lose their jobs? Should people who view marriage as between a man woman and God lose their jobs?

If we went by that around a third of the Irish population would lose their jobs.

James Damore got fired for voicing an opinion in his infamous memo, which was ironically backed up by data. (not agreeing or disagreeing with it here).

You're right in that it isn't happening as frequently as the right (more than most) claim, but do we want it to go to that direction?

(in the case of the point of the thread, absolutely, but I'm talking about where the line should be drawn)
 
Last edited:
FMBlade1 said:
Nope not sceptical of the modern scientific method and the idea of research, just stating that 'consensus' doesn't necessitate being true by that alone.

And as I mentioned, as ironically studies have shown, consensus is sometimes arrived at as a result of group-think pressure.

Is stating objections/hesitations about the examples you gave the same as objections about transitioning? I'm not even opposing it, it's the wrongly quoted Voltaire that comes to my mind here.

We could move more broadly. Should people who oppose abortion lose their jobs? Should people who view marriage as between a man woman and God lose their jobs?

If we went by that around a third of the Irish population would lose their jobs.

James Damore got fired for voicing an opinion in his infamous memo, which was ironically backed up by data. (not agreeing or disagreeing with it here).

You're right in that it isn't happening as frequently as the right (more than most) claim, but do we want it to go to that direction?

(in the case of the point of the thread, absolutely, but I'm talking about where the line should be drawn)
Click to expand...

Again, we're talking about academics and we're talking across the world. I don't think group think is the reason that Norwegian, American, French, and English psychologists and doctors all came to the same conclusion, is it? It's because that's where the science has taken us. One one side we have the APA, and all the research it cited, the NHS and the all the research it's used, vs. a few quacks you found on google who get disavowed by the researchers they claim.

James Damore was another one who cited a researcher whose name I forget (I can find it though if you want), and that researcher then came out and said essentially "Um...no, you got it all wrong". But Damore didn't just have "hesitations", he wrote an entire screed on why women weren't suitable to working at his company and then shared the document with a bunch of his coworkers. That's a little more than merely holding a questionable view, that's on a par with calling your boss a cunt to his face and then claiming it's "just a sincere opinion".

I really can't answer vague questions about whether someone should be fired for this view or that, it comes down to degrees, context, and to whom they express them.
 
PokerBlade said:
Again, we're talking about academics and we're talking across the world. I don't think group think is the reason that Norwegian, American, French, and English psychologists and doctors all came to the same conclusion, is it? It's because that's where the science has taken us. One one side we have the APA, and all the research it cited, the NHS and the all the research it's used, vs. a few quacks you found on google who get disavowed by the researchers they claim.

James Damore was another one who cited a researcher whose name I forget (I can find it though if you want), and that researcher then came out and said essentially "Um...no, you got it all wrong". But Damore didn't just have "hesitations", he wrote an entire screed on why women weren't suitable to working at his company and then shared the document with a bunch of his coworkers. That's a little more than merely holding a questionable view, that's on a par with calling your boss a cunt to his face and then claiming it's "just a sincere opinion".

I really can't answer vague questions about whether someone should be fired for this view or that, it comes down to degrees, context, and to whom they express them.
Click to expand...

My point is not to support the 'quacks' or to disavow the 'experts'. It's whether people should lose their jobs for disagreeing with the majority of experts in a polite way.

I agree that it's a vague question and is open-ended that can't be answered on a forum but deserves to be considered.

I'll be more specific. Should someone who stated in Twitter 'Ched Evans is innocent' in 2015 lose their job? Such a statement would be against the courts, public opinion and the vast majority of experts as well as being offensive to many.

A third of the Irish voting population voted against abortion in last year's referendum. If someone stated on Twitter today 'Abortion should be made illegal' should they lose their job?

You're totally wrong about Damore. He did not say that women weren't suitable to work at his company. He said that men and women were different which might explain why women are underrepresented in his industry and put suggestions in how to change that.
 
FMBlade1 said:
My point is not to support the 'quacks' or to disavow the 'experts'. It's whether people should lose their jobs for disagreeing with the majority of experts in a polite way.

I agree that it's a vague question and is open-ended that can't be answered on a forum but deserves to be considered.

I'll be more specific. Should someone who stated in Twitter 'Ched Evans is innocent' in 2015 lose their job? Such a statement would be against the courts, public opinion and the vast majority of experts as well as being offensive to many.

A third of the Irish voting population voted against abortion in last year's referendum. If someone stated on Twitter today 'Abortion should be made illegal' should they lose their job?

You're totally wrong about Damore. He did not say that women weren't suitable to work at his company. He said that men and women were different which might explain why women are underrepresented in his industry and put suggestions in how to change that.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe. I mean, if you work at a women's crisis centre then probably, yes. If you're Ched's lawyer then probably not. There's a shit ton of variables to consider and it's going to be a case-by-case basis like anything you might say at work.

I really don't know if I have the strength to go through whether anyone would just innocently write a whole paper on the inherent differences of men and women and why it meant women wouldn't achieve well in STEM fields, share it with all his co-workers, but definitely not be a sexist twat. Suffice to say whatever his opinions, and wherever you stand on them, it's simply never been the case that you can say whatever you want at work and not get fired. This isn't a new thing.
 
PokerBlade said:
I don't know. Maybe. I mean, if you work at a women's crisis centre then probably, yes. If you're Ched's lawyer then probably not. There's a shit ton of variables to consider and it's going to be a case-by-case basis like anything you might say at work.

I really don't know if I have the strength to go through whether anyone would just innocently write a whole paper on the inherent differences of men and women and why it meant women wouldn't achieve well in STEM fields, share it with all his co-workers, but definitely not be a sexist twat. Suffice to say whatever his opinions, and wherever you stand on them, it's simply never been the case that you can say whatever you want at work and not get fired. This isn't a new thing.
Click to expand...

Yep there are variables. What I am wary of is firing people goes into industries that are not directly related to it. If someone working on tills at Tescos said that about Ched in 2015 and then the Twitter mob hounded Tescos to sack that individual and they did would that not be problematic?

Then you could get to a stage when only paid activists could be activists.

He didn't say that women wouldn't achieve, only say that there are reasons why they wouldn't be as well represented PARTIALLY due to biological reasons.

That doesn't seem unreasonable. Google's values were that you could say what you wanted in terms of reasonable discussion.
 

FMBlade1 said:
Yep there are variables. What I am wary of is firing people goes into industries that are not directly related to it. If someone working on tills at Tescos said that about Ched in 2015 and then the Twitter mob hounded Tescos to sack that individual and they did would that not be problematic?

Then you could get to a stage when only paid activists could be activists.

He didn't say that women wouldn't achieve, only say that there are reasons why they wouldn't be as well represented PARTIALLY due to biological reasons.

That doesn't seem unreasonable. Google's values were that you could say what you wanted in terms of reasonable discussion.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't know how you want to me to speculate about Tesco workers losing their jobs. Is it a real problem? Are thousands of people getting fired or is it just the odd idiot who says something inappropriate?

Damore was saying that women, as a group, were less suited to STEM than men. Yes, I know he didn't say "all" women but that doesn't really make it better. Remind me who he went to for interviews. He chose Stefan Molyneux, famous race realist recently dropped by YouTube for his far-right views. Just a man with natural hesitations though, I'm sure.
 
Bladesman said:
View attachment 85691
Click to expand...

I remember when this image entered the news, it didn't change my opinion.
He shouldn't be forced to wear a poppy, nobody should.
If he wants to teach his kids about the troubles and the IRA then he's entitled to do so as it's a part of their Derry/Londonderry heritage & recent history. It's daft to stick a balaclava on and upload a picture of it to social media as you leave yourself open to folk jumping all over it to say you're glorifying them.
 
PokerBlade said:
Again, I don't know how you want to me to speculate about Tesco workers losing their jobs. Is it a real problem? Are thousands of people getting fired or is it just the odd idiot who says something inappropriate?

Damore was saying that women, as a group, were less suited to STEM than men. Yes, I know he didn't say "all" women but that doesn't really make it better. Remind me who he went to for interviews. He chose Stefan Molyneux, famous race realist recently dropped by YouTube for his far-right views. Just a man with natural hesitations though, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether it is a real problem, you could answer the question. For my part I don't think it is a real issue but fear the way things are going it could be.

Would it be a good thing for society for someone being fired from Tescos for stating on Twitter when they were off duty in 2015 'Ched Evans is innocent'?

You said I was being too vague, then I gave a specific hypothetical example, then you replied that it's not an issue without answering the question.

Damore said that women's characteristics made them less inclined to pursue a career in STEM.

More men die at work than women. Why? Because men's characteristics make them more inclined to take on more dangerous jobs. Men and women are different. Doesn't seem to be unreasonable to state so as a PARTIAL explanation of why we don't have 50/50 positions in the workplace. The vast majority of primary school teachers are women as another example.

Going for an interview with an idiot makes it an idiotic thing to do but doesn't mean his points in the memo were idiotic. And you know that.
 
PokerBlade said:
Again, I don't know how you want to me to speculate about Tesco workers losing their jobs. Is it a real problem? Are thousands of people getting fired or is it just the odd idiot who says something inappropriate?

Damore was saying that women, as a group, were less suited to STEM than men. Yes, I know he didn't say "all" women but that doesn't really make it better. Remind me who he went to for interviews. He chose Stefan Molyneux, famous race realist recently dropped by YouTube for his far-right views. Just a man with natural hesitations though, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

He also went on CNN and CNBC, you know those far right organisations. :rolleyes:

It would have been quicker just to say "Yes, I think people should lose their job for having the wrong opinion." instead of going round in circles.
 
CaptainMorgans said:
I remember when this image entered the news, it didn't change my opinion.
He shouldn't be forced to wear a poppy, nobody should.
If he wants to teach his kids about the troubles and the IRA then he's entitled to do so as it's a part of their Derry/Londonderry heritage & recent history. It's daft to stick a balaclava on and upload a picture of it to social media as you leave yourself open to folk jumping all over it to say you're glorifying them.
Click to expand...

I don't think he should have to wear a poppy and could have been dignified about his stance. Instead he just acted like a bellend stoking up more hate in his direction.
 
Bladesman said:
I don't think he should have to wear a poppy and could have been dignified about his stance. Instead he just acted like a bellend stoking up more hate in his direction.
Click to expand...

What do you think he did that was undignified?

You may have a better memory than me on it, I just remember he refused & stated his reasons why - which at the time, to me, seemed justified.

I'm not being facetious by the way, I genuinely don't remember everything about it.
 
FMBlade1 said:
Regardless of whether it is a real problem, you could answer the question. For my part I don't think it is a real issue but fear the way things are going it could be.

Would it be a good thing for society for someone being fired from Tescos for stating on Twitter when they were off duty in 2015 'Ched Evans is innocent'?

You said I was being too vague, then I gave a specific hypothetical example, then you replied that it's not an issue without answering the question.

Damore said that women's characteristics made them less inclined to pursue a career in STEM.

More men die at work than women. Why? Because men's characteristics make them more inclined to take on more dangerous jobs. Men and women are different. Doesn't seem to be unreasonable to state so as a PARTIAL explanation of why we don't have 50/50 positions in the workplace. The vast majority of primary school teachers are women as another example.

Going for an interview with an idiot makes it an idiotic thing to do but doesn't mean his points in the memo were idiotic. And you know that.
Click to expand...

It's not specific though. It's missing all the context like, when it was said, to whom it was said, what employees had been briefed on regarding social media, whether the topic had been discussed at work and what the response had been, how it was found out that they'd said it, what the working environment was like at the time regarding other staff and such, what contract they signed when they took the job. But if you want to ignore all that and say they posted "Ched is innocent" devoid of any other context, then I guess no, I wouldn't fire them merely for that. I don't know how it matters though.

And I'm just not going to litigate the inherent differences in the male and female brains. It's a whole mess of complicated social science and it simply isn't clear to what degree cultural factors play when it comes to such things. Hence why the researcher Damore cited (it was Schmitt, having looked it up) said he got it wrong.

Bladesman said:
He also went on CNN and CNBC, you know those far right organisations. :rolleyes:

It would have been quicker just to say "Yes, I think people should lose their job for having the wrong opinion." instead of going round in circles.
Click to expand...

He said he chose Molyneux first because he wanted someone who wouldn't be biased or hostile.

I don't think people should be fired for simply holding "the wrong opinion". I think some opinions, if shared with some people, should lead to you being fired. Like, if you approach a black co-worker and start telling him about phrenology and how the black brain is too smooth, it's an opinion you can hold, but I'm not shedding tears if you aren't working there tomorrow. If you say "I prefer smooth peanut butter to chunky" during a lunch break, then no, I don't think that opinion should cost you a job.

I'm sorry the world is more complicated than a binary answer on this one.
 
Houso said:
I think there's a lot of misspelling going on then. If we can start spelling it Mester then, that's fine. And it wouldn't look like the a dodgy trope mimicking an obsequious East-Asian accent. Anyway...
Click to expand...
Agree with you.

What about the fake Italian who pops up on here with his musings around once a year and gets 100 or more likes for every ludicrous post?
Can't recall what he calls himself.
 
I'm old enough to have seen and heard most things on the terraces and whilst I can honestly say that I've never shouted abuse at a player due to the colour of their skin, I do own that I have berated Strachan for his red hair while he ran the game for the referee and Dowie for being plain ugly. ( and Phil Thompson for having a big nose)

Someone said earlier in the thread that all evil needs is for good men to do nothing, and I think that is probably a very wise statement.

The problem ( it seems to me) is that radical views, either far left or far right, are rarely palatable to the majority of the general, decent population. Most of the British population are just normal, decent, hard working people ( regardless of class) and they get on with their lives, jobs, friends, colleagues, neighbours and would be very unlikely to go out of their way to intentionally upset, offend, or piss off anyone really. They like to see fairness and are put about when something is "just not cricket".

Those individuals who are on the extreme left and right, however, deliberately set out to agitate, offend and provoke in order to further their own marginal agenda.

Unfortunately, the "silent majority" are the type of person who usually doesn't speak up because that isn't in their character. They just mutter to themselves about the idiot speeding along a school road, or about someone who has jumped the queue in the supermarket. In an ideal world; the silent majority would all speak up together and drown out the far left and the far right and would dismiss these radicals, activists and agitators back to the shadows where they belong, but this is the issue ...... its not in their nature.
Regrettably .... that is why Didzy had to suffer these inane comments.

Fortunately, Didzy has broad shoulders and I believe that he did the right thing to publicise the abuse he received, so that the "silent majority" can judge for themselves and say ..... that is not acceptable. Hopefully, in time that voice will get louder.

UTB & FTP
 
PokerBlade said:
There wasn't scientific consensus when Galileo came along. There was a giant political machine called the Catholic Church. The irony is that Galileo was essentially the catalyst that led to the modern scientific method and the idea of research that you're being sceptical of.

It isn't about 99% of people just thinking something up out of nothing. It's about all the research, all the data, all the experts, sharing, reviewing and all coming to the same conclusions based on the evidence. A few outliers aside, of course, but again I can find you outliers who believe in everything from creationism to flat-earth to perpetual motion (though they prefer the term "over unity" these days).
Click to expand...
Been reading your long posts but still no wiser about whether JK Rowling favours 3-5-2 or 4-4-2.
Seriously, there's enough of this on twitter. Can we please talk about football on a football forum?
 
corner_flag said:
Been reading your long posts but still no wiser about whether JK Rowling favours 3-5-2 or 4-4-2.
Seriously, there's enough of this on twitter. Can we please talk about football on a football forum?
Click to expand...

I don't think I have anything much else to say on the matter, so I'm happy to move on.
 
Darthblade said:
I'm old enough to have seen and heard most things on the terraces and whilst I can honestly say that I've never shouted abuse at a player due to the colour of their skin, I do own that I have berated Strachan for his red hair while he ran the game for the referee and Dowie for being plain ugly. ( and Phil Thompson for having a big nose)

Someone said earlier in the thread that all evil needs is for good men to do nothing, and I think that is probably a very wise statement.

The problem ( it seems to me) is that radical views, either far left or far right, are rarely palatable to the majority of the general, decent population. Most of the British population are just normal, decent, hard working people ( regardless of class) and they get on with their lives, jobs, friends, colleagues, neighbours and would be very unlikely to go out of their way to intentionally upset, offend, or piss off anyone really. They like to see fairness and are put about when something is "just not cricket".

Those individuals who are on the extreme left and right, however, deliberately set out to agitate, offend and provoke in order to further their own marginal agenda.

Unfortunately, the "silent majority" are the type of person who usually doesn't speak up because that isn't in their character. They just mutter to themselves about the idiot speeding along a school road, or about someone who has jumped the queue in the supermarket. In an ideal world; the silent majority would all speak up together and drown out the far left and the far right and would dismiss these radicals, activists and agitators back to the shadows where they belong, but this is the issue ...... its not in their nature.
Regrettably .... that is why Didzy had to suffer these inane comments.

Fortunately, Didzy has broad shoulders and I believe that he did the right thing to publicise the abuse he received, so that the "silent majority" can judge for themselves and say ..... that is not acceptable. Hopefully, in time that voice will get louder.

UTB & FTP
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The problem, as you say, with the silent majority, is that they are just that.
 
Darthblade said:
I'm old enough to have seen and heard most things on the terraces and whilst I can honestly say that I've never shouted abuse at a player due to the colour of their skin, I do own that I have berated Strachan for his red hair while he ran the game for the referee and Dowie for being plain ugly. ( and Phil Thompson for having a big nose)

Someone said earlier in the thread that all evil needs is for good men to do nothing, and I think that is probably a very wise statement.

The problem ( it seems to me) is that radical views, either far left or far right, are rarely palatable to the majority of the general, decent population. Most of the British population are just normal, decent, hard working people ( regardless of class) and they get on with their lives, jobs, friends, colleagues, neighbours and would be very unlikely to go out of their way to intentionally upset, offend, or piss off anyone really. They like to see fairness and are put about when something is "just not cricket".

Those individuals who are on the extreme left and right, however, deliberately set out to agitate, offend and provoke in order to further their own marginal agenda.

Unfortunately, the "silent majority" are the type of person who usually doesn't speak up because that isn't in their character. They just mutter to themselves about the idiot speeding along a school road, or about someone who has jumped the queue in the supermarket. In an ideal world; the silent majority would all speak up together and drown out the far left and the far right and would dismiss these radicals, activists and agitators back to the shadows where they belong, but this is the issue ...... its not in their nature.
Regrettably .... that is why Didzy had to suffer these inane comments.

Fortunately, Didzy has broad shoulders and I believe that he did the right thing to publicise the abuse he received, so that the "silent majority" can judge for themselves and say ..... that is not acceptable. Hopefully, in time that voice will get louder.

UTB & FTP
Click to expand...
My view is.....
Player's wearing BLM shirt names, BLM shirt logos. Player's taking the knee. Player's giving the Tommie Smith fist salute. Player's (& fans) using Social Media to get anti racism messages out. All of that leaves both the silent majority (as you put it) & the racist minority in No Doubt where the players & club stand. If you'll forgive me, it gives the silent majority time, space, permission, motivation to not be quite as silent any more. I welcome that
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom