Make Britain great again, let's cull the BBC

[Bean]

What does 'woke' mean in this context? I seem to be able to exchange this word for 'prescient' often and it still works.

Doesn't it really just mean trying to tear someone down in an argument/discussion as they raise a valid point related to individual rights, something you right wingers are apparently fond of with your pro-individualism?

For example: many members' clubs in London allow only male joiners. Some boast "females welcome too", as they're only just now entering the 1950's for some reason in terms of personal identification. It has been commented that "what of trans? What of non-binary? What of all the other myriad people who are present in society?"

Seems a valid question to me: why are we still separating people base on physical gender for something such as a members' club? Nobody really cares what orientation or identification anybody has these days - rights are rights. However people who raise such issues now are called 'woke' and ridiculed; seems extremely unfair when they mostly seem to be in the right. The objective of a wine club, for example, is to taste new wines and enjoy that with similar minded people. Some only specify allowing men in, followed by - more recently - women. What's wrong with trans people asking the club to remove the gender pronouns entirely and just saying 'people welcome'.

Makes sense to me; I don't think much is 'woke', I think people just have no other avenue of criticising a valid and often correct opinion.

________________

As to your latter point; the US media is horrendous and creates two football camps, neither the two shall meet. Paid media is partisan media, from gun ownership through to the individual rights of everybody. Having an independent media is of huge benefit, probably the reason most European countries fund them in their respective countries.

The slights of the BBC aren't against one team, they're against all sides. It's just that recently the right wingers don't seem to accept criticism of their cause easily and would prefer to banish independent media. Christ knows why. Oh wait, it's to further their cause; great.

If Labour had got in power and were proposing this you'd be all over them like a rash but instead your hypocrisy is acceptable as you've linked to a wikipedia article.

What an absolute fanny.

Could it be related to this being so relatively recent?;
Transgender no longer recognised as 'disorder' by WHO - BBC News

Perhaps they need time to adjust to the new 'fact', that is no longer a mental illness and therefore before that time, why would they adapt to accommodate people with a mental illness - when they need treatment instead?

As an example,
Would you tell someone in a mental health institution, that you too can hear the voices they claim to be hearing?
and
Do you think that would help them in the long run?


PS. Regarding 'Woke'/'Wokeness'........ Social Justice ≠ Justice

[wattaj]

...why are we still separating people base on physical gender...

Just a small point, but "gender" is generally regarded to be a social construct. Sex is the physical characteristic that I think that you were looking for here.

HTHBIDID

[rogerfederer]

Could it be related to this being so relatively recent?;
Transgender no longer recognised as 'disorder' by WHO - BBC News

Perhaps they need time to adjust to the new 'fact', that is no longer a mental illness and therefore before that time, why would they adapt to accommodate people with a mental illness - when they need treatment instead?

As an example,
Would you tell someone in a mental health institution, that you too can hear the voices they claim to be hearing?
and
Do you think that would help them in the long run?


PS. Regarding 'Woke'/'Wokeness'........ Social Justice ≠ Justice

The whole thing just seems to me like a rerun of the way homosexuals were made to feel weird; sinners, not proper people.

Perhaps it's just the teenagers I meet, but most don't care either way what someone's gender/sexuality/preferences are, nor how they dress. We only see this now entering some work-places, but some banks only recently allow a 'no tie' rule. I find it strange that the rest of the working world is still to catch up on stuff like this - I mean: who really cares?

From speaking to a sociologist at a dinner recently the simple fat is: there are just as many gay people, trans, non-binary (etc) people in the UK now as ever but, crucially, people were repressed in the past and didn't feel they could embrace this and were taught to ignore it.

We've also had to have such researchers help us in some companies in the past because their diversity is shocking: seas of white males as far as the eye can see see; their forties with ties done up to eleven. One place that doesn't have that is the Public Sector in Scotland, where women and LGBTQIA+ occupy a far higher percentage of senior positions than anywhere else.

It's interesting to imagine what offices will be like in fifty years time, if they even exist at all. Diversity will be limited to spreadsheets, as a recent DR plan for a bank for Covid19 I helped with highlighted as it'll all be remote working and social working spaces within cities utilised by multiple banks, as the DR services is 100% Cloud.

[original PM]

The more I see people in suits and ties the more I think they look like people in some sort of fancy dress.

And I do believe some of them believe they are better than me because they are wearing a pair of pants and a jacket made from the same type and colour if material.

These people seem to wear a suit like a uniform one that gives them the green light to act like little Hitler's desperate for a tiny slice of power over another human being.

Utter ****wits

[Zigenare]

The more I see people in suits and ties the more I think they look like people in some sort of fancy dress.

And I do believe some of them believe they are better than me because they are wearing a pair of pants and a jacket made from the same type and colour if material.

These people seem to wear a suit like a uniform one that gives them the green light to act like little Hitler's desperate for a tiny slice of power over another human being.

Utter ****wits

More salt and vinegar?

[LondonManc]

The more I see people in suits and ties the more I think they look like people in some sort of fancy dress.

And I do believe some of them believe they are better than me because they are wearing a pair of pants and a jacket made from the same type and colour if material.

These people seem to wear a suit like a uniform one that gives them the green light to act like little Hitler's desperate for a tiny slice of power over another human being.

Utter ****wits

Don't you get the same feeling when you see people in pants and jacket made from the same type and colour of material - double denim?

[original PM]

Don't you get the same feeling when you see people in pants and jacket made from the same type and colour of material - double denim?

Nah they are normally just aging hippies.

Not a threat to anyone.

[emoji377]

[BR14]

Nah they are normally just aging hippies.

Not a threat to anyone.

[emoji377]

unless you piss off the wrong one

[Whorty]

unless you piss off the wrong one

What you gonna do if someone pisses you off? Throw another online hissy fit and tell us how tall and fat you are?

FFS, you must be the bravest little soldier in St Albans ... the local grannies must be shaking in their Scholl boots as you walk on by

[Bean]

The whole thing just seems to me like a rerun of the way homosexuals were made to feel weird; sinners, not proper people.

We are still, (I think) a fact-based western society - so should we ignore things like medical/psychological analysis etc?

Perhaps it's just the teenagers I meet, but most don't care either way what someone's gender/sexuality/preferences are, nor how they dress. We only see this now entering some work-places, but some banks only recently allow a 'no tie' rule. I find it strange that the rest of the working world is still to catch up on stuff like this - I mean: who really cares?

From speaking to a sociologist at a dinner recently the simple fat is: there are just as many gay people, trans, non-binary (etc) people in the UK now as ever but, crucially, people were repressed in the past and didn't feel they could embrace this and were taught to ignore it.

I agree, most people don't care what you wear, reasonably speaking - I think the stubbled, hairy-legged transgender male->female employee turning up to dress-down Friday in a skirt may raise some eyebrows, but then - so would a biological XX-chromosome woman... don't like the high standards of men? Don't 'become' a woman

We've also had to have such researchers help us in some companies in the past because their diversity is shocking: seas of white males as far as the eye can see see; their forties with ties done up to eleven. One place that doesn't have that is the Public Sector in Scotland, where women and LGBTQIA+ occupy a far higher percentage of senior positions than anywhere else.

Wait... are you saying, that you think if a workplace has a few non-white workers, that they can represent an entire race/sex/gender/whatever that they belong to?

Surely every company still needs to do research into certain things (sample sizing), as otherwise their whole approach is at the whim of the biases of 1/a couple of particular employee(s)?...

Surely that is borderline racism/stereotyping itself? (aka, you all think alike etc...)

Madness, but still, that's wokeness and identity politics for you.

It's interesting to imagine what offices will be like in fifty years time, if they even exist at all. Diversity will be limited to spreadsheets, as a recent DR plan for a bank for Covid19 I helped with highlighted as it'll all be remote working and social working spaces within cities utilised by multiple banks, as the DR services is 100% Cloud.

I agree, that traditional office may well become redundant in the future, not in the least due to climate-change requirements to cut emissions etc... and to cut down on costs for businesses.