• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Are you a thin skinned ninny ?"

Collapse

  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    He is right. the tactic is to set a narrative (new word for me ) that in itself is sacrosanct. Once you own the narrative you can impose anything as long as you can loosely link it to the story. For example if you criticise someone who happens to be black for carrying out FMG, it can be linked to racism and thus stamp out any debate.
    That narrative presumes that no one who fits into group you are criticising will turn up and agree with you.

    In your example an Indonesian could turn up, agree with you and argue FGM is wrong. Neither you or the black person you are criticising would probably know that FGM happens in that part of the world as well.

    I've done similar on a few occasions and the first response is you or the other person who is introduced doesn't know what they are talking about. Once it's is explained to confirm you/they do, the next response is either silence or saying that it's "culture" then a refusal to talk.

    To be fair people who want to keep their narrative sacrosanct try to argue in places where they think no one will be bothered to point out they aren't making sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zero Liability
    replied
    The lines between simply being polite and taking offence on behalf of others at every conceivable turn do seem to have blurred...

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    The solution that I suggested some months ago which is a geotechnical method of using photosynthesis to remove CO2 las year was instantly dismissed by you without you even bothering to consider the science - until I pushed you. This of course is because by removing the problem you and your ilk would have to find some other way of "controlling" the freedoms of people. As for the "beloved free market" that you are so keen to sneer at, I ask is this the same "free market" that enables you to sell your skills to the highest bidder and enable you to be amongst the richest 1% of people on this planet?
    More fantasy. The method you Googled up, was a variant on a Ocean Fertilisation, which I knew had been thoroughly investigated and found inadequate for the task.

    If the aim is to control the narrative, then the Right have been hugely successful, dating back to the notorious Frank Luntz memo to George Bush and earlier,

    "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
    they knew they could not win the popular/political debate on the science, they set out to cast doubt on it, by means of propaganda, fake grassroots organisations and experts, tactics borrowed from the tobacco lobby. Indeed, many of the same 'experts' lent their name$ to both lobbies. Deniers for hire. They, and their 'useful idiots' created a political environment that delayed action by 10-20 years, time we could ill-afford.

    Markets are fine in their place, but they are not infallible.

    Frank Luntz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    So you like being offensive to people? Are you surprised if someone beats the crap out of you for insulting their mother?
    He is right. the tactic is to set a narrative (new word for me ) that in itself is sacrosanct. Once you own the narrative you can impose anything as long as you can loosely link it to the story. For example if you criticise someone who happens to be black for carrying out FMG, it can be linked to racism and thus stamp out any debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    But there certainly does seem to be a link between climate change denial and a right wing or conservative political perspective, which is interesting. Some have estimated that the efforts of the deniers and 'Merchants of Doubt' have delayed action on the problem by as much as a decade. It seems to be a refusal to believe that their beloved free market has failed and a fear that the problem will require international co-operation and a common provision, hence the paranoid and fevered language about imposition of 'control ', and dark warnings of a world socialist government.

    Clarkson, though is a denier of the vanilla variety.
    The solution that I suggested some months ago which is a geotechnical method of using photosynthesis to remove CO2 las year was instantly dismissed by you without you even bothering to consider the science - until I pushed you. This of course is because by removing the problem you and your ilk would have to find some other way of "controlling" the freedoms of people. As for the "beloved free market" that you are so keen to sneer at, I ask is this the same "free market" that enables you to sell your skills to the highest bidder and enable you to be amongst the richest 1% of people on this planet?

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by unixman View Post
    Political Correctness is simply the placing of your own opinion beyond any question,
    blah blah blah.
    So you like being offensive to people? Are you surprised if someone beats the crap out of you for insulting their mother?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dactylion
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    I don't despise him.

    HTH.
    Does that make you a denier?

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    But there certainly does seem to be a link between climate change denial and a right wing or conservative political perspective, which is interesting. Some have estimated that the efforts of the deniers and 'Merchants of Doubt' have delayed action on the problem by as much as a decade. It seems to be a refusal to believe that their beloved free market has failed and a fear that the problem will require international co-operation and a common provision, hence the paranoid and fevered language about imposition of 'control ', and dark warnings of a world socialist government.

    Clarkson, though is a denier of the vanilla variety.

    Leave a comment:


  • TestMangler
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    TM you are such a Jooooeeeyyyyyyy
    That's not very PC NLUK. I'm offended I find your comment baby kangarooist.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I have made the point about exploiting a situation to impose control on people it is how religions work, it is how the the climate change "movement" works, it is how the Green party work and it is how political correctness works. Jeremy Clarkson takes the p*ss out of these people and he ridicules the sanctity of their "beliefs. This is why people like you despise him and why people like me like him.
    I don't despise him.

    HTH.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    You are seemingly unable to construct a cogent line of argument without resorting to flights of paranoid fancy. Why?


    Denier

    noun

    A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:

    a prominent denier of global warming

    a climate change denier


    denier - definition of denier in English from the Oxford dictionary
    I have made the point about exploiting a situation to impose control on people it is how religions work, it is how the the climate change "movement" works, it is how the Green party work and it is how political correctness works. Jeremy Clarkson takes the p*ss out of these people and he ridicules the sanctity of their "beliefs. This is why people like you despise him and why people like me like him.

    Leave a comment:


  • unixman
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Being politically correct is just about having good manners.
    Political Correctness is a technique for placing a received opinion beyond any discussion or argument, by enginering the language (so that expressing a counter view is difficult), gagging the opposition, and using fear based techniques to prevent debate from taking place. In PC culture, only one view is available, legitimate or allowable, and dominates all. The punishments for having any counter view are severe.

    Sometimes people think that Political Correctness is their friend. Perhaps because it is used to promote a view they agree with. Political correctness is nobody's friend. Not left, not right, nobody.
    Last edited by unixman; 12 March 2015, 23:21. Reason: made the rant slightly less tedious

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    that was it. A bit pathetic really
    I was going to post a link to the major in fawlty towers

    but best not. seeing these poll results
    We'll let you off with Alf Garnet.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by TestMangler View Post
    Where did the term 'political correctness' even spring from ?

    In my day, we called it 'Spazzy Poof Talk'.
    TM you are such a Jooooeeeyyyyyyy

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    There's only a few votes in, but it looks like the ninnies have it.

    I might have to tone down my jokes a bit
    Hang on a minute.. Ah there you go. 5 more votes.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X