FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The weaponising of offence

The weaponising of offence

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The average person, miniscule and unimportant compared to the vast machinery of society, has historically been ignored and trodden over in the push towards progress. Frustrated by this voicelessness, some have turned to terrorism, others protest and cultural rebellion. But a new weapon has come along, something which immediately empowers them and launches them into the news. They can take offence to something.

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

My view is that people take offence, it isn't given (most of the time). I feel that some people enjoy taking offence and that fits into the growing victim culture...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

Not sure what can be done... teach the next generation to be self-sufficient and resilient

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You mean there are more snowflakes now than ever before?

I suggest aversion therapy to cure them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *VineMan over a year ago

The right place

I think that there is a dangerous trend of people taking offence when no offence is intended.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My view is that people take offence, it isn't given (most of the time). I feel that some people enjoy taking offence and that fits into the growing victim culture..."

So you’ve never taken offence at anything?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horecruxCouple over a year ago

SE4

Lions do not trouble themselves with the opinions of sheep.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A man with a hammer solves all his problems with nails.Whatever tool is in your box is ok with me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You mean there are more snowflakes now than ever before?

I suggest aversion therapy to cure them

What I'm getting at is more that taking offence can be used as a deliberate tactic to get yourself heard. It's a tool to obtain power. So it's not that people are becoming increasingly sensitive. More that they're increasingly turning to it as a mechanism to get the upper hand.

At least I'm asking if people think that's happening or not

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes, I think people taking offense has been weaponised.

You can see it here daily in how people respond to comments. While some do set out to offend, many others don't. Even asking questions can result in you being labelled as being on the wrong side. It's a shame, as it stifles debate.

It seems all you can do is some virtue signalling early on and then jump ship for fear of being misinterpreted.

I think if people said what they were actally feeling; hurt, angry, upset etc. things might not escalate in the way they do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Not really - people have always been offended by things, it's just that the things that offend them change over time and perhaps older generations fail to understand why younger generations take offence.

For example: my grandad would have taken offence to the point of offering someone outside if they had sworn in front of a lady.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *VineMan over a year ago

The right place

An interesting podcast from Sam Harris and Jonathan Haidt discusses this.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/137-safe-space/

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *VBethTV/TS over a year ago

Chester

There are definitely offence hunters out there. Those who seem to come to life just in order to say "I find that offensive". I agree with Steve Hughes (search him plus "offended" for an amusing video).

Basically, who gives a toss what people say. Words are just words and if people are vindictive or nasty with them then it's great proof of their poor qualities as a human being. If they are a crap human then they're not worth your time or attention.

People trying to offend are usually attention seeking which is sad but they may have nothing else in their lives.

I've received some very creative insults over the years. The delete and block buttons work on here and many other sites. And laughing at the attempt to offend is fun too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *cousesubsallyWoman over a year ago

Somewhere out there

Yup and I don’t know. I don’t think it’s necessarily synonymous with snowflakes but a weapon of the far left (and I am a leftie too). Around American university campus’ over the last few years, there was a growing trend of students protesting for certain lecturers to be dismissed because they have said something deemed ‘offensive’, given lectures on literature without giving ‘trigger warnings’ beforehand etc. Its the reaction to the offence on both sides what matters. To blindly listen and accept it as ‘their truth’ so the offender is automatically deemed guilty, is dangerous. This closes down debate between people and accepts their truth as an absolute, which isn’t so.

You only have to read a tabloid now and see headlines saying the public are going and getting all offended by something or other, when really, it’s a handful of twitter uses who’ve taken to airing their displeasure... but all this goes towards validating and encouraging people to become offended...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rincess peachWoman over a year ago

shits creek

My opinion, rightly or wrongly, is this. It's also what I'm thinking just now, whilst on the bus home from work, stuck in traffic and needing a poo. It may change once the affliction is sorted.

Blame.

People like to blame others instead of looking internally.

I reckon since the "where there's blame there's a claim" culture has exploded, people struggle to take responsibility for their own actions, and their own feelings.

Yeah, sometimes people really are offensive dicks, but other times, people look for anything to throw back at another to validate their own insecurities or lack of maturity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hatYorkLadMan over a year ago

York

Social media has let the genie out of the bottle with regards to offence and people being triggered, and there's no putting it back now. It will be interesting to see which way it goes in 10 - 20 years time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

"My view is that people take offence, it isn't given (most of the time). I feel that some people enjoy taking offence and that fits into the growing victim culture...

So you’ve never taken offence at anything? "

Of course... mainly it is because of my experiences/thoughts/pre-conceptions not their intention

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

"Lions do not trouble themselves with the opinions of sheep."

Boom

love this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

"stuck in traffic and needing a poo"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rincess peachWoman over a year ago

shits creek

"stuck in traffic and needing a poo

I'm on the home straight. The turtle head is nearing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *cousesubsallyWoman over a year ago

Somewhere out there

"stuck in traffic and needing a poo

I'm on the home straight. The turtle head is nearing "

Ha ha good luck

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Step 1. See through it

Step 2. Call it out for the Marxism it is

Never pander to it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tingly ByronMan over a year ago

In a town Fab forgot

"stuck in traffic and needing a poo

I'm on the home straight. The turtle head is nearing "

Touching cloth?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hatYorkLadMan over a year ago

York

Facebook in the run up to an election is a fucking awful place!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Facebook is a fucking awful place!

Corrected for you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rincess peachWoman over a year ago

shits creek

"stuck in traffic and needing a poo

I'm on the home straight. The turtle head is nearing

Touching cloth?

Nope, it's gone back up, I'm off the bus and able to stroll instead of a monty python silly walk of doom. Good times

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rincess peachWoman over a year ago

shits creek

Aaaaaand relax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tingly ByronMan over a year ago

In a town Fab forgot

"Aaaaaand relax

I heard the splash from here!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Take my fence il throw u off a bridge

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove3funCouple over a year ago

Cheltenham

"Aaaaaand relax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it? "

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Yup and I don’t know. I don’t think it’s necessarily synonymous with snowflakes but a weapon of the far left (and I am a leftie too). Around American university campus’ over the last few years, there was a growing trend of students protesting for certain lecturers to be dismissed because they have said something deemed ‘offensive’, given lectures on literature without giving ‘trigger warnings’ beforehand etc. Its the reaction to the offence on both sides what matters. To blindly listen and accept it as ‘their truth’ so the offender is automatically deemed guilty, is dangerous. This closes down debate between people and accepts their truth as an absolute, which isn’t so.

I guess what I'm saying is that a weak little student in the past needed to organise a protest and hope enough people turned up to get their voice heard. Today it's far simpler for the student to simply take offence and suddenly they can get staff fired, school policy changed, and visiting lecturers canned.

Taking offence is just so much more powerful than any other option now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity. "

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Conflation my dear boy. I'm not denying that there are offensive things out there. The question is whether it has been weaponised meaning that there's an insincerity and imbalance to it all. The answer is resoundingly yes. We can discuss what a reasonable person would find offensive, but our current culture panders to whatever anyone thinks could be offensive. Big difference.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Step 1. See through it

Step 2. Call it out for the Marxism it is

Never pander to it. "

Even though it's famously attached to the political correctness of the left, I don't think taking offence is limited to Marxism or "femininity" (did you mean feminism?). Taking offence is simply a powerful new tool that anyone who feels their voice isn't getting heard can reach for.

Recently, for example, there's been complaints about how there are no brexit-friendly teachers in some university. It's only a small step before right wingers start taking offence at this in order to try and push policy change for the sakes of diversity through. That's a classic left wing tactic

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hechapMan over a year ago

Derry

I met a lorry on my side of the road and i had no other option but to take offence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Step 1. See through it

Step 2. Call it out for the Marxism it is

Never pander to it.

No i meant femininity as opposed to masculinity. Feminine is highly agreeable and panders to complaint in order to be conflict avoidant. It is also highly protective and smothering, rather than believing that people should manage on their own two feet. Further reading see the big 5 personality traits and hofstedes cultural dimensions.

It is the Marxists who have weaponised offence, not that they are the only group who take offence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Lots of things caused offence in other times, it's just that it was expressed differently. I'm pretty sure lots of people were offended by homosexuals - ask my dad's generation who used to go "gay bashing" on a Saturday night....

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?"

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't. "

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

Another example relating to the above: my father's and grandfather generation were extremely offended by sexual swear words. My generation (and younger) generally are not, but are offended by racial swear words.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

But that's not the problem! The problem is when a comedian is in front of an audience of 3,500 people and 1 complaint of offence is deemed equal to 80% of the audience saying they shouldn't have said something.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?"

Do you not think there has been a sharp increase in what can be garnered by claiming offence today compared to the past? Sticks and stones may break my bones, they used to say. If you said you were offended in the past the usual advice was to just get over it. Today the whole world has to reorganise itself around your needs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lenderfoxMan over a year ago

Leeds

I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there. "

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lenderfoxMan over a year ago

Leeds

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage. "

Out of interest, can you give examples?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

It’s too much soy I tell you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

Go and speak to an older person. Sticks and stones may have been the advice their mothers gave them, but they settled things with their fists far more often than kids do now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples? "

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think too many people use preferences and and opinions and think it’s ok to say what they want.

When I reality that’s fine, but I think you also have to respect others opinions and preferences and keep neutral kind of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

So what? They can, and did say it.

If people don't want to go and see the comedian again, that's their prerogative.

"Tell Laura I Love Her" was banned from terrestrial airplay, you know....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think it's being used as a tool, for some folk to feel they have been listened too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime "

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Only on social media, which is virtual so therefore doesn't really exist.

Personally I seldom take offence and if I am offensive will consider the possibility of apologising.

Fashion seldom has power but attitudes hopefully March forwards to a better future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Only on social media, which is virtual so therefore doesn't really exist.

Personally I seldom take offence and if I am offensive will consider the possibility of apologising.

Fashion seldom has power but attitudes hopefully March forwards to a better future."

You say if your offensive! Are you aware that things you say may be taking offensively?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"No.

Simple but effective

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We live in an age that people are prepared to set fire to their own nikes because they are offended by a Nike advert .It reminds me of those flag burners in the Middle East except their trump fans and super patriots . The worlds gone mad.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

So what? They can, and did say it.

If people don't want to go and see the comedian again, that's their prerogative.

"Tell Laura I Love Her" was banned from terrestrial airplay, you know....

But they don't just not go back. They demand the comedian is thrown off every TV network and unpersoned.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)"

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Only on social media, which is virtual so therefore doesn't really exist.

Personally I seldom take offence and if I am offensive will consider the possibility of apologising.

Fashion seldom has power but attitudes hopefully March forwards to a better future.

You say if your offensive! Are you aware that things you say may be taking offensively?"

Not often intentionally, but I am sure someone could at some point be offended by words I use. If so then I will consider if they are right to be offended in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist. "

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason "
no no no in this instance he's an idiot ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason no no no in this instance he's an idiot ..

Well she doesn't have a dyed streak at the back so he was exaggerating that feature. The umpire also looks nothing like the real one and he has the wrong colour hair. At the end of the day, it's not newsworthy or racist, it's just a shite cartoon

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason no no no in this instance he's an idiot ..

Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason no no no in this instance he's an idiot ..

Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that "

Let's assume it was deliberate, what does it mean when you make a dark haired woman blonde?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist. "

And skin....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

So what? They can, and did say it.

If people don't want to go and see the comedian again, that's their prerogative.

"Tell Laura I Love Her" was banned from terrestrial airplay, you know....

But they don't just not go back. They demand the comedian is thrown off every TV network and unpersoned. "

Which doesn't happen.

However, in the past things have been entirely censored. Like porn for example.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I've said this before, but I notice those that complain about "snowflakes" are often those who get offended the easiest

It's just a little easier to get heard in the social media age and I welcome having a broader range of voices out there.

I don't. If I wanted to hear stupid people speaking in the 90's then I'd put Jerry Springer on. Now i just open the BBC homepage.

Out of interest, can you give examples?

People suggesting the serena Williams cartoon was racist, why is such a nonsense idea being given airtime

Because she was drawn on exactly the same way as early "negro" cartoons, minus only the bone in her nose? Or because the "reasonable" other player was drawn white and blonde, when she is neither.

(Clue: it's mostly the second one)

The one of those I agree with is the other person has the wrong colour hair. That makes the artist a fucking idiot, not a racist.

But surely he’s not an idiot ! He’s knowingly done this and purposely for one reason no no no in this instance he's an idiot ..

Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

Let's assume it was deliberate, what does it mean when you make a dark haired woman blonde? "

But this wasn’t the case. And you fully know this. This isnt a court room ! You don’t have to put across every other extremity and compare it. It’s a forum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

"A man with a hammer solves all his problems with nails.Whatever tool is in your box is ok with me.

What happens if the tool in your box is a gun?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Lions do not trouble themselves with the opinions of sheep."

And up until now sheeple (rightly) only got a bare minimum of influence.

Now if they bleat with just the right tune they can gather an army of fools (but an army nonetheless).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that "

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenscentitCouple over a year ago

barnstaple

Do you think offence has become weaponised in this way? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

Yes it has. It's the epitome of toxic femininity.

So; given my earlier example, do you think that my grandad was a "toxic feminist" ?

Is a punch in the face any better than expressing yourself verbally?

You're still not addressing the difference between things that there is broad consensus around and things there aren't.

I did - generations change, they get offended by different things.

My ex wife would have been livid if I'd taken offence at someone swearing in her presence, she would have found it patronising and mysogynisic.

Is that really a problem !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey."

Ahhh right, silly me. My bad

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Lions do not trouble themselves with the opinions of sheep.

And up until now sheeple (rightly) only got a bare minimum of influence.

Now if they bleat with just the right tune they can gather an army of fools (but an army nonetheless). "

Lions think tasty army

pass the mint sauce

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey."

A dark haired, dark skinned woman, who, when being portrayed as the "reasonable" one was somehow randomly Aryan ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rontier PsychiatristMan over a year ago

Coventry

The trouble I find with hypersensitive offense culture despite the obvious is: That like every overused tool is quickly becomes blunt and thus drowns outs more worthy complaint. Also that it give people a blanket reason to shut down any reasonable offense as people being wining snowflakes.

I wish we could find an equalibiam of mutral respect and common sense. That's what we need, not speech and thought policing. When you make a culture of fear around expression you also remove the tools for people to make a positive change and to question the status quo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The trouble I find with hypersensitive offense culture despite the obvious is: That like every overused tool is quickly becomes blunt and thus drowns outs more worthy complaint. Also that it give people a blanket reason to shut down any reasonable offense as people being wining snowflakes.

The boy who cried wolf effect amplified by internet tribes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey.

A dark haired, dark skinned woman, who, when being portrayed as the "reasonable" one was somehow randomly Aryan ..."

I think you're trying very hard to see something that isn't there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *vilgasamWoman over a year ago

The dot in the i

You know what, I’m just going to leave this here, have a watch, it can explain a very valid view point of what I think the op may mean, people using this to make themselves heard in negative ways

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

Also it’s a good giggle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Quite. If someone at work thinks I'm a sick freak for example, I'd far rather they just said so openly than think I'm hiding behind and protected by nannying hate laws and workplace policies. Which in the long run surely just breeds more resentment, alienation, and mad ideas about cultural Marxism or whatever.

Bullying and ostracisation by groups of anyone who doesn't conform, this is an age-old social problem that does real damage to people's lives. But I think the OP is right, that efforts to deal with it have allowed a minority to weaponise the issue.

I'd hope that some common sense will eventually prevail and find some middle ground, rather than returning to a culture where people can be bullied and ostracised with impunity. I don't think I'll hold my breath though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You know what, I’m just going to leave this here, have a watch, it can explain a very valid view point of what I think the op may mean, people using this to make themselves heard in negative ways

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

Also it’s a good giggle

Haha

perfect

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey.

A dark haired, dark skinned woman, who, when being portrayed as the "reasonable" one was somehow randomly Aryan ...

I think you're trying very hard to see something that isn't there."

It is definitely there, in glorious Technicolor. I'm sure you'd rather not see it, but that's not my problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey.

A dark haired, dark skinned woman, who, when being portrayed as the "reasonable" one was somehow randomly Aryan ...

I think you're trying very hard to see something that isn't there.

It is definitely there, in glorious Technicolor. I'm sure you'd rather not see it, but that's not my problem."

The cartoonist said he had no idea what the other player or umpire looked like, drew the cartoon from the news about the outburst and then added the background.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Ok, but we both know what it’s insinuating. We can say all kinds about other parameters not being correct but it wasn’t or isn’t about that

I think you will find it was about a bad tempered famous sports woman, losing to an almost unknown player and getting stropey.

A dark haired, dark skinned woman, who, when being portrayed as the "reasonable" one was somehow randomly Aryan ...

I think you're trying very hard to see something that isn't there.

It is definitely there, in glorious Technicolor. I'm sure you'd rather not see it, but that's not my problem.

The cartoonist said he had no idea what the other player or umpire looked like, drew the cartoon from the news about the outburst and then added the background. "

So like I said, he's a fucking idiot. Takes 2 seconds to Google it. I did notice the umpire looked absolutely nothing like the real one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Offense was weaponised in closing my thread about gender and the tyranny of the minority.

I have an opinion some people fail to get, but it comes from love not hate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Offense was weaponised in closing my thread about gender and the tyranny of the minority.

I have an opinion some people fail to get, but it comes from love not hate. "

I for one enjoy hearing your opinions. We share some similar views. But I'm not sure if I agree on the whole "tyranny of the minority" thing. But there you go. That's part of having debate. It's thought provoking and you get to develop and refine your views

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then... "

It doesn't bother me that two "lesbians" kissing on TV is no longer considered offensive. It bothers me that if 1 person on the left thinks something is offensive then it's banned and shut down, heads roll. If everyone on the right finds it offensive then it's because they are bigots and their hate needs dismantling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Offense was weaponised in closing my thread about gender and the tyranny of the minority.

I have an opinion some people fail to get, but it comes from love not hate.

So let's debate it...You don't agree about the effect itself?

Or you don't agree about the subject matter?...in this case...accidental misgendering of gender fluid people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

That's politics. In the seventies, it was the other way round. But at least these days all you get is a monstering. When the right were in charge of morality people got sent to prison for saying rude things about Jesus.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then... "

This is great...in the 70s you had the tyranny of a conservative minority (although probably a bigger one)...busybodies and the church trying to hold people to their own unachievable standards.

Now we have the the same situation flipped on its head...an intolerant group trying to hold society to their own high standards of what's offensive e.g. gender pronouns.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

This is great...in the 70s you had the tyranny of a conservative minority (although probably a bigger one)...busybodies and the church trying to hold people to their own unachievable standards.

Now we have the the same situation flipped on its head...an intolerant group trying to hold society to their own high standards of what's offensive e.g. gender pronouns. "

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"? "

But why is it that we now laugh at what was offensive then but take it seriously now?

Let's be real...they were silly and backward then but felt they right, what's changed about humanity and public conciousness since?

You especially...as we've clashed opinions on these things and you seem to support the liberal viewpoint more (which carries it's own intolerance).

I tend to deride both hard left and hard right.

Politicalised tribes are the new religion in a secular world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"?

But why is it that we now laugh at what was offensive then but take it seriously now?

Let's be real...they were silly and backward then but felt they right, what's changed about humanity and public conciousness since?

You especially...as we've clashed opinions on these things and you seem to support the liberal viewpoint more (which carries it's own intolerance).

I tend to deride both hard left and hard right.

Politicalised tribes are the new religion in a secular world. "

The thing about the hard right is that at least they are honest. They kill you because they hate you and at least they let you know that they are coming for you. The hard left will tell you that everything they do is for your own benefit, right up to the moment they kill you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think that there is a dangerous trend of people taking offence when no offence is intended. "

This

I can honestly say I cannot remember ever being offended. The trick is to know your audience. I have people i can say absolutely anything to I also have people I know would take offence at things. I see threads on here and on Facebook and even though I may have the same view I think why the hell would you post that!! It’s just asking for trouble!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

You three. I just don't find these opinions nuanced. You're all unconvincing. For a start it isn't the minority who holds us to ransom. It is those in positions of power who are effecting the change. In the case of the "boy" who changed the all girls school policy. It wasn't really the "boy" who did that. It was the school's administrators. Just as it was the moderators who closed that other thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors. "

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

It's the usual case when any group believes it has a system of morality that is universally and permanently true that it tries to impose it on others. As I say, at least these days we don't tend to kill and imprison people to get them to accept our morality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lbert_shlossedMan over a year ago

Manchester

It's endemic in society now, you could see that even with Serena Williams who couldn't deal with losing or being seen as a cheat (by the rules she was) so she found and looked for excuses.

I'd have given her respect if she'd just said in the press talk afterwards, I lost my shit and I apologise to the umpire.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"?

But why is it that we now laugh at what was offensive then but take it seriously now?

Let's be real...they were silly and backward then but felt they right, what's changed about humanity and public conciousness since?

You especially...as we've clashed opinions on these things and you seem to support the liberal viewpoint more (which carries it's own intolerance).

I tend to deride both hard left and hard right.

Politicalised tribes are the new religion in a secular world.

To extend your point..it's not about killing but credibility...everyone knows that the hard right are scum, it's obvious and like you say they don't hide it but the hard left have developed credibility through well polished half truths and lies (e.g. radical feminists fighting father's rights who tell you that feminism is "simply about equality")

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"?

But why is it that we now laugh at what was offensive then but take it seriously now?

Let's be real...they were silly and backward then but felt they right, what's changed about humanity and public conciousness since?

You especially...as we've clashed opinions on these things and you seem to support the liberal viewpoint more (which carries it's own intolerance).

I tend to deride both hard left and hard right.

Politicalised tribes are the new religion in a secular world.

What you mean like the Russian Boksheviks used to say how much they loved capitalists, tsarists, kulaks etc, right up until the moment they started killing them?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Yes but offense is becoming weaponised with legal tools...e.g. misgendering laws in California.

Or ideas like "believe all women" translate into at least a few more innocent imprisonings at the hands of a woman scorned .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

My point is that will there always be governing social mores and that people who offend them will be unpopular.

Who was it who said. "if only people read history"?

But why is it that we now laugh at what was offensive then but take it seriously now?

Let's be real...they were silly and backward then but felt they right, what's changed about humanity and public conciousness since?

You especially...as we've clashed opinions on these things and you seem to support the liberal viewpoint more (which carries it's own intolerance).

I tend to deride both hard left and hard right.

Politicalised tribes are the new religion in a secular world.

What you mean like the Russian Boksheviks used to say how much they loved capitalists, tsarists, kulaks etc, right up until the moment they started killing them? "

Well it's normally for your own safety but recently in this country the conservatives are every bit as guilty of using that logic. Maybe not to kill you, just to strip away your personal liberty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You three. I just don't find these opinions nuanced. You're all unconvincing. For a start it isn't the minority who holds us to ransom. It is those in positions of power who are effecting the change. In the case of the "boy" who changed the all girls school policy. It wasn't really the "boy" who did that. It was the school's administrators. Just as it was the moderators who closed that other thread."

That's a bit silly...obviously the minority use their undue influence (squeaky wheel gets the oil).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

You can't have a system that relies on common sense from the type of monkeys that become school administrators. I do have a nuanced view, I don't think it's a grass roots movement of minorities on a power trip. It's a coordinated group of powerful Marxists using them. When you see these stupid protests, half of them are paid to be there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods. "

That's what I said. The more a ruling group is convinced it's morality is the only valid one, the more likely it is they will persecute people who don't agree with them. The problem is people taking seriously universaling ideologies. Hence medieval Christianity, communism, national socialism, Islamism etc etc etc

Obviously there have been times when there has been a flexible attitude to the governing ideologies. In other words people nominally adhere to them but don't take them too seriously. Then you get tolerance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I think that's silly. There are a whirl wind of factors contributing. The rise of litigation culture and the loss of public space in return for privatised "public" space with rules and moderators like this forum. Some of that is definitely the right wing's doing. To attribute it to a cabal of Marxists is silly imo... and probably just plays into the machinations of certain right wing academics who are complaining and feigning offence to try and shift campus culture. Students have always been lefties. They, like me, are idealists rather than pragmatists. You want them to start leaning right? Start devising a more visionary view of the right

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods.

I think the flexible attitude are the more prevalent throughout history, especially since people holding other religions was a valid reason to tax them. You only have to look at Jewish history to know how often intolerance raised its ugly head, so I'm not deny that. But money /power usually speaks louder than religion. Henry VIII was as devout as they come...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

You often find that with right wing types. They find it impossible to understand how anyone can genuinely disagree with their obviously common sense views, so it must all be a shadowy conspiracy by demonic types. . It's a tradition in right wing thought going back to the French revolution.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years? "

Capitalism is the common sense ideology because every country that tried something else ended up poorer. There are rich people and countries that hate capitalism and they fund these so called grass roots movements, literally paying them to protest in many cases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes but they soon grow out of idealism...if the trajectory of a generation of former hippies is to be believed.

I'm very much an idealist but temper that with pragmatism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Some good points but I'm saying that it's a fact many groups like BLM, Antifa and the like are funded by anti-capitalists.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods.

From 1400 until 2008. It was a criminal offence in England to say anything scurrilous or contemptuous about Jesus God or the Bible because Christianity was considered part of the law of England.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's not on any one side...look at the greatest conspiracy theory of all..."the patriarchy"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The French Revolution was right wing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

I also note there are millions of Christians in the world and conclude from that there is something in the doctrine that speaks to and resonates with many people. I'd be a bloody idiot if I argued it was all a conspiracy by priests to con a gullible public.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Yes but they soon grow out of idealism...if the trajectory of a generation of former hippies is to be believed.

I'm very much an idealist but temper that with pragmatism. "

Where's the fun in that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods.

From 1400 until 2008. It was a criminal offence in England to say anything scurrilous or contemptuous about Jesus God or the Bible because Christianity was considered part of the law of England. "

Remind me which law was removed in 2008 because i remember a back of a lot of popular contempt for Christianity in the 90's. The 90's were the coolest and rebellious decade there's ever been. Have you forgotten shock rock?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The French Revolution was right wing? "

No, it sparked a conspiracist right wing reaction. See Burke, de Maistre etc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A Marxist conspiracy ahahahaha omfg. Hilarious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Thinks that people were so highly offended by in the seventies that people were found guilty of criminal offences for doing them.

1. Doing a cartoon of Rupert bear with a penis.

2.publishing a magazine with escorts adverts.

3. Gay men advertising to meet other gay men

4. Writing a poem suggesting Jesus's may have been gay.

But of course, no one was easily offended back then...

The oppressed always become the oppressors.

Indeed as we saw when the persecuted Christians of the Roman empire got their hands on state power.

Bit of selective historical reading and interpretation there. Throughout history there have always been tolerant and intolerant places to live. The Ottoman Empire had very tolerant periods.

From 1400 until 2008. It was a criminal offence in England to say anything scurrilous or contemptuous about Jesus God or the Bible because Christianity was considered part of the law of England.

The common law offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008. The offence involved exhibiting a scurrilous or contemptuous attitude to Christianity (but not other religions) . The law was pretty much a dead letter by 2008, but late as 1979, the editor of Gay Newswas convicted of the offence for publishing that poem about a gay Jesus.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes but they soon grow out of idealism...if the trajectory of a generation of former hippies is to be believed.

I'm very much an idealist but temper that with pragmatism.

Where's the fun in that?

I don't torture myself over the things I don't like but can't control like climate change.

Too much idealism is bad for your mental health ..look at the state of the typical 21 year old blue rinser doped up on angst and idealism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lenderfoxMan over a year ago

Leeds

[Removed by poster at 19/09/18 12:04:52]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"A Marxist conspiracy ahahahaha omfg. Hilarious "

We've been rumbled... Do you still have that volume 5 of Lenin collected works, I lent you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rank n BettyCouple over a year ago

Not meeting

"You mean there are more snowflakes now than ever before?

I suggest aversion therapy to cure them

At least I'm asking if people think that's happening or not

Pretty much spot on!!

Frank

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"A Marxist conspiracy ahahahaha omfg. Hilarious "

It's a compliment. I'm at least giving some logical explanation as to how people could believe such stupid shit as you can change your gender just by thinking it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west). "

It's not a conspiracy theory when we have all the details of our own psychological operations over time, are we the only countries that run psychological operations? I know they do it to us, because we do it to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

What's your point about Lenin? Lenin had been against the war ever since it started in 1914, but no one in Russia paid him any attention as the war was hugely popular to begin with. It was onky after three years of death, privation and military disasters that his ideas started to resonate with Russian people and the Bolsheviks were able to get sufficient support to effect a successful revolution and defend it in a three year long vicious civil war.

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Once we think of anyone as little people and unimportant then we have already lost our way.

If we act in a manner that fails to value the individual then we have lost our compassion

If we believe that the little people don't matter we get social breakdown, discontent, lose touch with our humanity and create a climate for an outpouring of all the negativity "little people" are subjected to, in whatever way they can express their discontent.

When those things happen and the "little people" are disconnected or feel like they are disconnected from society then they will lash out in many ways where they can. Being offended costs nothing but the incipient rage of people on behalf of others is just a way to exercise the power they believe they don't have in their lives.

Where is the

We are all "little people" but often it only takes one little person to change how we see ourselves, see others, see the world....and change it for the better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I also believe that the majority of this nonsense is grassroots from insane whackademics through to petulant teenagers and people with too many cats and not enough friends.

The Russians can't believe that they struck gold when their mission kept going from strength to strength all on it's own

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know. "

Ok but when you eventually get former protesters admitting they got paid, you do have to make some assumptions about where the money came from. I recently did a thread on blaire white and her dissolution with right wing news because of how fake it was. It's hardly exclusive property of the right to generate fake positions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected. "

So why are you surprised by me saying that what does appear on the surface to be grass roots, may in fact be funded by rich special interest groups when you admit there's a pool of money to be spent on such things and I can give you concrete examples of it happening.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once we think of anyone as little people and unimportant then we have already lost our way.

If we act in a manner that fails to value the individual then we have lost our compassion

Where is the

We are all "little people" but often it only takes one little person to change how we see ourselves, see others, see the world....and change it for the better.

I like this.

Can I change the world for the better by mocking the shit out of the zanier side of progressive liberal ideas?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Have lefties replaced the Jews as the secret masters of the world .

The right seem to have give all tin foil again.

What does Alex jones think about all this or have the lefties removed has platform ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Once we think of anyone as little people and unimportant then we have already lost our way.

If we act in a manner that fails to value the individual then we have lost our compassion

Where is the

We are all "little people" but often it only takes one little person to change how we see ourselves, see others, see the world....and change it for the better.

You wanna know how I know you're gay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know.

The only sensible position is to see it all as bollox...both sides and then admit your ignorance to the machinations behind closed doors.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Have lefties replaced the Jews as the secret masters of the world .

The right seem to have give all tin foil again.

What does Alex jones think about all this or have the lefties removed has platform ..

Maybe he got a fab account. I don't appreciate them putting chemicals in the water that turn the figgin frogs gay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have lefties replaced the Jews as the secret masters of the world .

The right seem to have give all tin foil again.

What does Alex jones think about all this or have the lefties removed has platform ..

No one cares

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know.

The only sensible position is to see it all as bollox...both sides and then admit your ignorance to the machinations behind closed doors.

No because we need to make decisions and hold beliefs. We can't just throw our hands in the air and say "oh i don't know what to believe, anything is possible", we're not post modernists. We make assumptions and update them when we get new information.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know.

The only sensible position is to see it all as bollox...both sides and then admit your ignorance to the machinations behind closed doors.

Agreed but where are you going to get reliable current information son?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If I was to position a conspiracy theory I'd say that Russia is fuelling the liberal fires (because they know how much self harm it can inflict on the west).

Sure but I hate people who say shit like "it's the Russians" when the truth is they will never actually know.

The only sensible position is to see it all as bollox...both sides and then admit your ignorance to the machinations behind closed doors.

Agreed but where are you going to get reliable current information son?"

You have some facts and then you use logic, reasoning and debate to fill in the gaps. History is a great starting point too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Because I am not disagreeing that people can finance movements for nefarious reasons. What I am disagreeing with is the bizarre idea that a small group of conspirators can create significant social movements our of nothing.

The common vulgar left wing theory re Hitler in the thirties was that he had been financed by evil capitalists who wanted him to crush the left. George Orwell pointed out that whilst this financing was true, no one would be wasting their money on a radical agitator if he had not already created a significant movement that addressed real concerns.

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You have some facts and then you use logic, reasoning and debate to fill in the gaps. History is a great starting point too. "

The thing about knowledge is you can only know something for sure using disconfirming evidence.

Your own logic (prone to your many biases), a random sprinkling of "factoids" and extrapolation from history (which mimics itself but rarely repeats) is not a recipe for the truth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory. "

From scratch is doubtful, but they could easily be riding on the shoulders of dwarfs (the fledgling gender studies academic scene).

I think it's more organic to be honest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What are people's genuine concerns in a world of implanted nudged opinions?

Does anyone really think for themselves?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory.

From scratch is doubtful, but they could easily be riding on the shoulders of dwarfs (the fledgling gender studies academic scene).

I think it's more organic to be honest. "

Indeed. In my day, the far left would latch on to any strike going, leading Tories to say it was all a Marxist plot etc etc

As if a miner or a steelworker would go to on strike and lose money because some Trot told him to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory. "

But I'm not saying it's created out of nothing. What we call Marxism is a belief that has been there as long as human writing exists. That those who either aren't getting much from hierarchy or get guilt tripped, create an argument against hierarchy. The idea will endure as long as we have hierarchy. But I'm saying the true appeal of that view is massively amplified and funded by others. So when i went to occupy london, I found 1 genuine guy for every 9 utter cunts. I don't honestly know how many of the cuts were paid to be there, but it wasn't 0.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"What are people's genuine concerns in a world of implanted nudged opinions?

Does anyone really think for themselves? "

I'm concerned our country will become shithole like all the other countries that tried "alternatives" to capitalism. Shithole is the norm in the world, successful countries are not the default.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory.

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Even if they might be paid to be there but those occupy marches never change anything so it's a waste of money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory.

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey. "

His fundamental ideas weren't new, just rehashed ideas that Socrates had already crushed thousands of years earlier. Reading history is the best antidote to left wing ideology.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Even if they might be paid to be there but those occupy marches never change anything so it's a waste of money.

Hitler didn't win either. It still bothers me that he tried.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey. "

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Seriously you think a handful of "Marxists" could get such traction?

If these Marxists have such power can you explain how free market capitalism has been the common sense ideology in the West for the past forty years?

I am really very surprised that you seriously think this. To me any belief that any broad social movement can possibly be created by a handful of conspirators is infantile.

Take Christianity. I think it's ideological basis is fundamentally wrong. I also note that many people have a vested material interest in promoting the doctrine.

Tell me which of these statements isn't true:

1. Britain has enemies

2. Britain and it's enemies have military budgets

3. Some of those military budgets are used to perform operations with the intent of generally fucking over the other country (psychological operations)

4. The Germans helped Lenin get to Russia when Germany was the enemy of Russia, because they knew how toxic his ideas would be to whatever country he was in

5. Lenin found his way to Russia safely, helped start a revolution and Russia dropped out of the war against Germany

Yes and?

Hence the operative cause of the revolution was not Lenins ideas but a change in objective social conditions which led millions of people to accept ideas they had previously rejected.

Do you really believe that the social justice movement was created de novo by a handful of Marxists and doesn't address people's real concerns? That's David Icke territory.

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

His fundamental ideas weren't new, just rehashed ideas that Socrates had already crushed thousands of years earlier. Reading history is the best antidote to left wing ideology. "

I thought you didn't believe in making up definitions. Could you refer me to one definition of Marxism that does not refer to the ideas of Marx.

Perhaps you'd also like to tell me where Socrates dealt with the following fundamental elements of Marxism.

1. The materialist conception of history

2. The theory of the class struggle

3. The labour theory of value

4. The theory of capitalist crisis depending on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

If he just means. "left wing ideas I don't like" that's not Marxism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

.Ive always voted green but not next time I'm going go and vote corbyn and labour for the first home in my life.Power to the people and hopefully they'll save Mother Earth also.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

If he just means. "left wing ideas I don't like" that's not Marxism. "

Anyone left of Tony Blair is a Marxist according to some. It's not the most nuanced world view.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

If he just means. "left wing ideas I don't like" that's not Marxism.

Anyone left of Tony Blair is a Marxist according to some. It's not the most nuanced world view. "

Indeed, one of the strange things about some right wingers is their inability to distinguish between different schools of left wing thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

" .Ive always voted green but not next time I'm going go and vote corbyn and labour for the first home in my life.Power to the people and hopefully they'll save Mother Earth also.

"mother earth" will be just fine! Its everyone else who has to worry.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

If he just means. "left wing ideas I don't like" that's not Marxism.

Anyone left of Tony Blair is a Marxist according to some. It's not the most nuanced world view.

Indeed, one of the strange things about some right wingers is their inability to distinguish between different schools of left wing thought. "

Same as people who think that be sure you disagree with the left that you are on the left. Just general confusion.

To see stove talking about nuance just makes me laugh. He is one of the most dogmatic and predictable on these forums.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can someone give an overview of left wing schools of thought and where they differ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

So Marxism existed before Karl Marx existed. Blimey.

I think his point was wider than the definition of a concept that Marx's name became attached to.

I hate heirarchies too...but I'm not naive enough to try fight them from the bottom

If he just means. "left wing ideas I don't like" that's not Marxism.

Anyone left of Tony Blair is a Marxist according to some. It's not the most nuanced world view.

Indeed, one of the strange things about some right wingers is their inability to distinguish between different schools of left wing thought.

Same as people who think that be sure you disagree with the left that you are on the left. Just general confusion.

To see stove talking about nuance just makes me laugh. He is one of the most dogmatic and predictable on these forums. "

Feel free to give an example of my predictability.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" .Ive always voted green but not next time I'm going go and vote corbyn and labour for the first home in my life.Power to the people and hopefully they'll save Mother Earth also.

"mother earth" will be just fine! Its everyone else who has to worry. "
I prefer a holistic approach to us and the planet .People aren't ready for a green PM so I've decided to throw my lot in with the socialists and corbyn.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What are people's genuine concerns in a world of implanted nudged opinions?

Does anyone really think for themselves?

I'm concerned our country will become shithole like all the other countries that tried "alternatives" to capitalism. Shithole is the norm in the world, successful countries are not the default. "

If you look at the broader cycle ...the UK is very much on the decline from its former glory, especially given the recent harikari.

The original success came about mostly from stealing resources and labour around the world.

It does not seem true to say that the UK is currently a model of a successful country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Feel free to give an example of my predictability. "

This for one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

Feel free to give an example of my predictability.

This for one

Yeah, asking people to substantiate and back up what they say is awfully predictable. I can see how that would be hard for you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Feel free to give an example of my predictability.

This for one

Yeah, asking people to substantiate and back up what they say is awfully predictable. I can see how that would be hard for you. "

Everything about this response is predictable too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

" .Ive always voted green but not next time I'm going go and vote corbyn and labour for the first home in my life.Power to the people and hopefully they'll save Mother Earth also.

"mother earth" will be just fine! Its everyone else who has to worry. I prefer a holistic approach to us and the planet .People aren't ready for a green PM so I've decided to throw my lot in with the socialists and corbyn.

About time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

You lot

Is it me or are you guys getting worse with every debate? More entrenched. More ridiculous. More polarised. It's all just sounding unrealistic now. Just feels like a soap box more than a curious investigation

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You lot

Probably but at least we're having fun. Don't come in here pretending you are any better...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Can someone give an overview of left wing schools of thought and where they differ?"

Ok.

Socialism was invented around 1825 in France and England. It started off early with various utopian theories. (hence utopian socialism). Marx came along and tried to put socialism on a more scientific basis (hence Marxism or scientific socialism)

By the late 19th century Marxism became the dominant form of socialism, but a group arose who believed socialism should be achieved via destruction of the state. (anarchists). A sub section of the anarchists believed society should be administered by workers organised in trade unions (anarcho syndicalists).

Meanwhile, in Britain, most socialist rejected Marxism and either based their socialism on Christianity. (Christian socialism) or on general ethical precepts. (ethical socialists).

After world war one, Marxism split between those who thought socialism required violent revolution (communists) and those who thought it could be achieved by Parliament. (democratic socialists) .

The communist movement then started to splinter. After the Russian revolution, those who thought socialism could only be achieved world wide and not in one country split off. (trotskyism). After the Chinese revolution those who adhered to maos views re peasant revolution became a separate tendency. (maoism).

Meanwhile, Marxist democratic socialists, ethical socialists and Christian socialists effectively merged and pretty much dropped Marxism. . This group then tended to morphe into a group no longer committed to socialism, but only to reforms within capitalist society (social Democrats).

By the time Tony Blair came around, social democracy looked like the only game in town in the UK , with the other schools of thought being marginalised. These days democratic socialism has seen a strong revival, less so far the more esoteric branches mentioned above...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

Feel free to give an example of my predictability.

This for one

Yeah, asking people to substantiate and back up what they say is awfully predictable. I can see how that would be hard for you.

Everything about this response is predictable too."

Well, that was a useful and enlightening exchange for me and everyone else, I'm sure. Thanks for meeting your usual high standard of debate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You lot

Probably but at least we're having fun. Don't come in here pretending you are any better...

I have no idea what you're talking about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)