Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted June 10, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 10, 2016 Brevsoulwit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted June 11, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 11, 2016 I've not read Pats post because, well..... Â Â Anyway from skimming it this may be semi on topic. I would say people's sexual preference seems to have no bearing on people in the social group and working world I've been in. I think I'm very lucky there, and it's not indicative of every where, but people were always very liberal and excepting of personal choice. They might not like it or want to hear about it in detail all the time, but then that's the same for any sexual preference and any topic really. Theres a limit to how much people want to hear or will tolerate droned on and on about for any one topic. Â There did seem to be some class elitism from some though. In the middle class populated white collar profession at one company many moons ago it did seem you can put your willy in, on or near who or what you like as long as you don't slum it on a council estate after 5:30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Boycie Posted June 12, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/we-must-have-the-freedom-to-hate1/18445#.V11vDWrTXbN. An interesting take on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Brendan O'Neill is disgusting, though. A professional troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Boycie Posted June 12, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 It does seem like he's trying to get a reaction a lot of the time, though I do agree with a lot of what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I take it you don't agree with his "Brevik was a product of multiculturalism"? Him and Rod Liddle are two cheeks of the same Arse in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Boycie Posted June 12, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 I've just read his comments on Anders Breivik. I have to say I don't agree with him there, multiculturalism is obviously not to blame for the actions of a lunatic. Where I do agree with him is usually in regards to free speech issues, an example being that free speech should be for everyone, not just those you agree with, even idiotic comments about Breivik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Yep, totally. The thing with professional trolls is the majority are white and straight, then when they are called out on something they say for a reaction, they blame political correctness. Plus they tend to confuse the aforementioned no platforming and free speech. Â I'm sure I say a lot of things that people find inflammatory and offensive to their ideals and beliefs, I'm not going to cry when called out on them. If I'm in the wrong, I'll learn from it. As much as I try, I am sometimes informed by people that something I said could be offensive to a minority group, so I take it on board. Â EDIT. Recently I joked on Twitter that I wish Hitler HAD won if it meant people stopped idolising Churchill, who I despise. A friend who is Jewish pointed out that while the sentiment was ok, it was pretty offensive to European Jews. I took it on board and apologised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 12, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 12, 2016 Churchill, who I despise  Good to hear someone else doesn't buy the bullshit about that cunt.  I agree that, in principle, people should have freedom of speech provided it doesn't give rise to people attacking or oppressing others, but it's difficult to know where to draw the lines. I've always had it as "my rights end where yours begin", but it requires a definition of what those rights are. If verbal discrimination starts having physical effects, there needs to be a distinctive recognition of that.  For example, under the whole "total freedom" model, an argument could be made that, in a workplace, one person could openly say something like "all black people are lazy", and face no consequences. But surely his/her colleagues have a right to work in a place without being insulted by that person? Or the employer has a right to not want someone like that working in his company, because it's not what he wants his company to be seen to approve of/stand for?  Under a "total freedom" model, there could be no legal framework to dismiss someone who makes racist, sexist or misogynist remarks, even if it affects their colleagues' peace of mind at work. That's why there's a very strong argument for laws that criminalise discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLowdown1987 Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Just don't post shit on social media, simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Out of curiosity, why don't you like Churchill? I'm just beginning to watch the World At War series someone on here recommended as I'm not clued up enough on the World War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 He was racist, when he was Home Secretary he wanted the army ordered to fire on striking workers. He was as much a populist politician as Blair, hence him starting as a liberal and finishing with the conservatives. And that's just for starters. Utter scumbag of a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I'll deffo echo the hate for Churchill, recognised as a complete cuntbag during his first term as first Lord of The Admiralty. The escapades included throwing one of his predecessors 'under a bus' over Dreadnoughts and then some small disaster at Gallipoli, which was his masterplan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 If you look into Churchill's history you will find plenty of stories about how much of an utter cunt he really was. Proper imperialist scumbag. Â Good luck to any poor soul that decides to publicly point that out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted June 12, 2016 Awards Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2016 I remember reading once that he wanted to jump straight into a war with Russis almost as soon as WW2 was over, but was met with understandably aghast reactions and backed down from it, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.