Giardiasis said:
antman said:
Giardiasis said:
antman said:
:hihi
olice:Come on Gia you got pwned.
P.S. How good is snopes?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
:hihi
olice:Come on Gia you got pwned.
P.S. How good is snopes?
Whether the story is true word for word is irrelevant to the point I was making, but I fail to see how one phone call to an unnamed representative disproves the validity of it. In any case what seems to be true is that the school calls the police to deal with disciplinary issues which involve things said by students.
Regarding things PC, I found this article interesting ....
http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/english-commentator-slammed-over-comments-about-tennis-sensations-girlfriend/news-story/bcad4ffd8958821b4f0e0240990b5251
OK, what he said is a little irrelevant to the tennis on which Castle was supposed to be commenting, but I'm just wondering how it is any worse than the comments made in the article itself that Bate is "genetically blessed" and a "stunner".
Or is it just that the comment could be construed as being insulting to Castle's own dentist?
Have to admit I struggle to deal with certain aspects of "PC".
http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/english-commentator-slammed-over-comments-about-tennis-sensations-girlfriend/news-story/bcad4ffd8958821b4f0e0240990b5251
OK, what he said is a little irrelevant to the tennis on which Castle was supposed to be commenting, but I'm just wondering how it is any worse than the comments made in the article itself that Bate is "genetically blessed" and a "stunner".
Or is it just that the comment could be construed as being insulting to Castle's own dentist?
Have to admit I struggle to deal with certain aspects of "PC".
E
easy_tiger
Guest
So you've watched or listened to every broadcast game in history then? Good effort.antman said:
Coburgtiger said:
Yep. It's just not funny. Nothing to with its un PCness.
American Dad and Family Guy are funny and they poke fun at all sorts of people....mainly by deflating them. Is it PC or non PC?
What IS un PC is the question in the Hun Footy Fan Poll. Who is the most glamarous Wag?
I missed the one about who is the most intelligent WAG?
And with the women's league about to be launched I assume next year the Hun will be asking us to rate the boyfriends of the female players?
And that's doubly unPC because the female players could well be lesbians.
And that's triply un PC because of the stereotype that all elite sportswoman are butch.... And so it goes.
I missed the one about who is the most intelligent WAG?
And with the women's league about to be launched I assume next year the Hun will be asking us to rate the boyfriends of the female players?
And that's doubly unPC because the female players could well be lesbians.
And that's triply un PC because of the stereotype that all elite sportswoman are butch.... And so it goes.
Well then perhaps you should retract your earlier statement. My statement was a judgement based on past experience of women commentators/reporters etc. commenting about the attractiveness of men, which seems to receive none of the outcry you hear from the pic crowd when the shoe is on the other foot. I have then transferred this broad experience to the specific example under discussion. I can't help but notice how you have tried to keep the point of topic quite specific to "male partner of a female player", rather than just women fawning over men. I take this to mean that you have seen examples of women fawning over men, and know that you can't win the argument that way. Here are some examples that I guess you probably know exist in some form:antman said:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS9VH_yseM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/david-freese-awkward-interview-lovestruck-reporter-goes-viral-172244089.html
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1qMOf8KBdH0
The argument is that men fawning over women is politically incorrect and the guilty as charged need to be flogged to an inch of their life and they must change their behaviour lest they offend someone. In the opposite case, nothing to see here. Now tell me honestly, do you think this would have been any where near as big a story had the commentator been a woman rather than a man?
Giardiasis said:
Thanks G-Man, you made my point for me. In those examples - the yahoo story for one - people were pretty quick to point out how inappropriate the reporter's actions were. Likewise the female host harassing the guest. Plenty of comments the same.
Now that is sophistry. The comments in the main point out the double standard, they don't spout outrage about how inappropriate their actions were.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
Just proves you see what you want to see G-dawg. In your world it's PC gone mad, women can do whatever they like and men get howled down for stepping out of line. It's so unfair, boo-hoo. You are so oppressed.
The truth is that both women and men say and do stupid things, and both get criticised for it. Just how much and by who is probably best judged on a case by case basis.
At least you've moved on from representing the National Inquirer as a bastion of truth though ;D
More sophistry. The truth is that there are rules for some, rules for others, and the whole campaign to shout down those that offend others has a real cost to society. It leads to the introduction of laws that regulate what you can and can't say based on offence it may cause, it leads to affirmative action to impose hiring quotas on employers, it leads to the suppression of ideas (and facts), and it leads to the substitution of ad hominem for arguments. Basically it is anti-civilisation.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
IMO this crosses the line between PC and discrimination. I hope you do understand that there is a world of difference between what women have experienced over centuries and what you linked to.
The systematic persecution of women has a long history and though in some countries the ledger has started to be levelled the job is not done. You sound like ScoMo. A bit of flirting versus actual documented discrimination in pay and conditions and the perpetration of actual violence and sexual assault on women by men is a different thing all together and is wrapped up in this whether you like it or not.
Why? Because blokes feeling that there is nothing wrong with publicly (you can't get more public than doing it on live TV) fawning over a sportsperson's wife or girlfriend is a power-play. It is so easy because of the dominance of blokes both in sport and in sports media. It is knuckle-dragging at its worst and showing a few clips of female presenters being salacious as though that evens things up is pretty silly
Sorry I'm very confused about the position you are taking here. Before you were saying that we shouldn't worry about offending people, know you're saying what exactly?KnightersRevenge said:
Giardiasis said:
I'm saying that there is a huge difference between "offending" people and pretending that there is no difference between the level and extent of persecution between the sexes (if that means anything anymore?). That is like saying that there is no difference between two skinny kids in the playground punching each other. And Mike Tyson landing an uppercut on Leigh Sales. Both are wrong. But one is definitely more wrong.
What I most certainly did not say is that no one is ever justified in taking offence. I maintain that it is personal when they do and does not mean society must at all costs avoid everything that causes offence. And I certainly dont think that it ought to be legislated. I disagree with the wording of 18C as I think any legislation should consider only disadvantage. If people are offended that is one thing, if the thing or action that offends them is also discriminatory then fair enough. If not. Tough *smile*.
What you are trying to do is pass off a false equivalence. No dice Gia.
And how do we decide what is considered discriminatory? By your reasoning anyone that takes offence to something can argue they are being discriminated against. "That physics professor said that women aren't as good physicists as men, he is discriminating against women! We need a government appointed team of workplace equality experts to review the professor's hiring practices and if he can't prove otherwise he must face legal prosecution!". Regardless of whether or not the professor is right or wrong in his judgement (it's not really open to objective measurement in any case), he should be entitled to his opinion, and be free from fear of prosecution for having an opinion. Chris Nelson potentially facing jail time for sending NPK a racist tirade is a recent example of how far backwards we have gone as a society.KnightersRevenge said:
The idea that past discrimination needs to be counterbalanced by more discrimination is absurd. It treats people as abstract ideas instead flesh and blood individuals. It means that people that haven't discriminated against anyone their entire life faces counter discrimination because of the colour of their skin, or the tackle between their legs. What we need is to treat people like people. If someone wants to discriminate against someone else based on their sex, race, sexual preference etc. then that really is to their own detriment. Given the subjective nature of discrimination/taking offence, any attempt to create rules to regulate behaviour is left open to arbitrariness, vagueness, abuse of power and blow back from extremists.
The only right someone has is to private property, and it is only by respecting private property can civilisation flourish.
