Last bastion of interest removed from F1

[woohoo]

It makes sense. If you can't be bothered reading something that might challenge your viewpoint, that says a lot about you.

I'm happy to read stuff that challenges my viewpoint.

But I'm not going to tease out your points when you can't be arsed putting any effort into your post.

[ladymuck]

Wives?

Especially wives

[Jog On]

This is a good read:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...social-justice

I do not want to diminish or underestimate the threat still posed to personal freedom by the adherents of the social justice cult, but at this stage I think it is safe to say that political correctness is effectively a dead movement walking.

Recent statistics without bias are hard to come by. That said, the latest available numbers show that people who agree with “gender equality” are many, but those who identify as “feminist” are slim. In the U.S. this constitutes 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that identify as feminist depending on which polls you look at, while in the U.K. feminists make up only 7 percent of the population.

According to the CDC, abortion rates from 2008-2014 fell to historic lows post Roe v Wade. Abortion being a primary platform and leverage issue for social justice warriors, I take it as a good sign that even in a time of severe economic instability people are backing away from abortion as an acceptable option.

Just as a general observation, social justice has not been a reliable driver for political success, considering the abject failure of the Clinton Campaign in 2016, which clung tightly to SJW ideologies throughout the election cycle.

And finally, social justice has also not been selling so great in the marketplace. This is most evident in the entertainment world, where movies created by producers with open social justice agendas continually fail to bring in expected box office numbers.

For example, the feminist-produced and-directed Ghostbusters reboot ended with a dismal showing compared to many other blockbuster movies of with the same production costs, ending its run with an estimated $70 million loss.

Feminist action films perpetuating the fantasy of physical parity between the sexes, like the movie Atomic Blonde, though receiving accolades from mainstream critics (like all social justice films do), have had embarrassing showings in theaters.

And finally, perhaps the biggest sign of a sea change against social justice in pop culture, even massive brand names like Star Wars are suffering when social justice propaganda is injected into the franchise. The latest installment, The Last Jedi, with its obvious and heavy-handed social justice messages, had one of the worst second week showings of all the Star Wars movies (adjusted for inflation) and only generated a little over half of the revenues brought in by The Force Awakens. Not to mention the highly critical audience reviews and the complete bomb the movie suffered in the Chinese market, which was supposed to help elevate revenues that were expected to be much higher.

I haven't seen the latest Star Wars, don't really have any desire to either - it's been hijacked and turned into an agenda - Star Wars FFS! That is a crime against humanity...

[woohoo]

This is a good read:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...social-justice



I haven't seen the latest Star Wars, don't really have any desire to either - it's been hijacked and turned into an agenda - Star Wars FFS! That is a crime against humanity...

I think what will happen is that some excuse for the failure of these PC films will be found. Something like it's the culture in western society that brainwashes people to not go an watch films with female leads. Then legislation will be introduced to ensure that films have a 50-50 female lead ratio.

[WTFH]

I'm happy to read stuff that challenges my viewpoint.

But I'm not going to tease out your points when you can't be arsed putting any effort into your post.

OK, in simple terms:

OUTRAGE at women wearing bikinis/burkas
or
OUTRAGE at people complaining about women wearing bikinis/burkas.
Which DM headline matches which piece of clothing?

Is one piece of clothing something you think women should be made wear, but another piece of clothing something you think women should not be made to wear?

[Jog On]

They should take this a bit further and ban everything that involves women providing services predominantly to men, especially to men who are past their twenties.
Some professions come to mind. Escorts, waitresses, massage providers, etc.

"Instagram models", "Social influencers" - virtually every female recording artist and the hordes of 'professions' that involve getting paid to just hang around looking nice and not doing very much. What about lads mag glamour girls?

[Jog On]

OK, in simple terms:

OUTRAGE at women wearing bikinis/burkas
or
OUTRAGE at people complaining about women wearing bikinis/burkas.
Which DM headline matches which piece of clothing?

Is one piece of clothing something you think women should be made wear, but another piece of clothing something you think women should not be made to wear?

I'm for let them wear and do WTF they like and anyone complaining (including feminists) can foxtrot oscar.

[original PM]

OK, in simple terms:

OUTRAGE at women wearing bikinis/burkas
or
OUTRAGE at people complaining about women wearing bikinis/burkas.
Which DM headline matches which piece of clothing?

Is one piece of clothing something you think women should be made wear, but another piece of clothing something you think women should not be made to wear?

Rule 1 People should be allowed to wear what they want where it does not contravene decency standards.

Rule 2 If a person takes a job which has s specific uniform to wear and that is clearly stated in the job description then it is not a problem - if you do not want to wear it do not take the job.

Rule 3 If a person is forced to wear something because their society says they have to and not wearing it will cause comment at the very least or exclusion from society with a potential for more sinister punishments then see rule 1.

That makes it pretty clear I guess?

[WTFH]

Rule 3 If a person is forced to wear something because their society says they have to and not wearing it will cause comment at the very least or exclusion from society with a potential for more sinister punishments then see rule 1.

That makes it pretty clear I guess?

But if the person chooses to wear something, and someone, without asking that person, decrees that they are being forced to wear it, then the person making that decree is wrong, in my opinion. What about your opinion?

[Jog On]

But if the person chooses to wear something, and someone, without asking that person, decrees that they are being forced to wear it, then the person making that decree is wrong, in my opinion. What about your opinion?

This - people decreeing and getting offended in general is the problem, be they religious fanatics or progressive fanatics.