Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Ghostrider said:

Round here the Shetlink Mods set the bar, and that's fine, that's what they're there for. For some that bar probably isn't set high enough, for some that bar is set far too high, like me. As it excludes comments that I completely fail to see or understand how they could possibly 'offend', but that may just be my stupidity/ignorance/lack of empathy whatever, I don't really care, it is what it is.

Dat's pretty much it in a nutsheel @Ghostrider! It's fair to say you and I have had our disagreements and robust exchanges of views over the years, but I value your opinions, POV and the time you take to consider and write your posts.

I'll be honest and say that many a time I've hovered over the 'delete' button ;-), but simply disagreeing with someone doesn't meet any kind of moderation criteria, and it would make for a rather dull discussion forum if everyone just agreed with each other and 'liked' each other's posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I assure you you're wrong. If we deleted everything we didn't agree with then there wouldn't be much discussion 'round here! Most moderating goes on behind the scenes, and it's pretty unglamoro

I'm not using 'age as an excuse', rather pointing out that with it age brings the benefit of having heard countless arguments over the years as to the ethical/moral/legal etc 'unacceptability' of a in

Facebook haes the market cornered there!

On 09/04/2021 at 11:02, Roachmill said:

Age isn't an excuse for feeling entitled to stop learning, being mindful and / or respectful. Lord knows I've been guilty of unthinkingly using certain language through my years; until someone somewhere pointed out the derogatory, disrespectful or hurtful origins or connotations of such language. So I stopped.

That's not to say there aren't individuals out there preaching extreme views e.g. if you're not vegan you should kill yourself, give all your money to God or burn eternally in Hell and even evangelical iPhone owners. I certainly wouldn't dismiss normal vegans, religious folk or someone who just get a cheap upgrade off the back of them.

I'm not using 'age as an excuse', rather pointing out that with it age brings the benefit of having heard countless arguments over the years as to the ethical/moral/legal etc 'unacceptability' of a infinite number of behaviours and terminologies, which tends to give a more comprehensive  understanding of which may be genuine and valid and what may be weak or spurious.

Just because someone claims they're 'offended' doesn't necessarily prove they are, they could be lying for ulterior motives, or they could be genuine, but have very weak reason(s) for being so.

Claiming to be 'offended' does not give anybody the right to force change, only a robust argument with sound verifiable supporting evidence does. The establishment of validity and a justifiable, proportionate viable response is paramount to the legitimacy of the 'solution' and its success.

Every opinion has its fair share of extremists, the 'lunatic fringe', and unfortunately in the global culture of the present the 'lunatic fringe' of being 'offended' seems to have acquired far more power than it has any business having. Rightly or wrongly the impression given is that all you need these days is one voice shouting loudly enough about it, regardless how (un)justified or (ill)informed to launch a tidal wave that is hi-jacked and acted upon by people who should have more intelligence and sense of responsibility.

If any individual on an individual level wishes to heed all claims of 'offended' and modify their own lives accordingly, that is of course their prerogative to do so. Its when its forced upon others that that kind of thing becomes a problem, especially in today's apparently apathetic (self-centred?) attitude of the vast majority, of just going along with whoever shouts loudest for the sake of peace and to appear to 'care. 'nsofar as it creates an open season for those who have no scruples about abusing the 'offended' tag for their own ends, to create a tail wagging the dog situation where a tiny minority control the majority entirely through intentional manipulation, and the majority don't sense it until its too late and they've already committed themselves. Who's abusing who come that stage? As that's the stage we're at with a lot of it right now

While social reformation in the past has done a very great deal to address some dreadful abuses, and no doubt worldwide there's many, many more going on every day that desperately needing their attention, it comes across very much these days that they have largely been hi-jacked by, or so it appears, an ever increasing number of selfish people who just simply want their own way and will do or say anything to achieve that.

Any reasonable person, I would hope myself included, would respond positively to where any soundly based and reasoned case was put forward, but when you start getting to the stage, as some of us old duffers are now, of hearing the same minorities putting forth the same argument repeatedly over the decades, just inserting a new word they're offended by, it all gets to be a bit suss.

'Professional victim' is a thing.

The use of the 'n' word being 'offensive' is a classic example. Fine, it was pointed out that it was a corruption of a legitimate word so that it had derogatory connotations from the start which had just increased over time with usage. We got that, and stopped using it, it was a sound argument. It was made known that instead we should use 'black', again fine, despite misgivings on account of other usage of the same word elsewhere, we, out of politeness went along with that. A little time passed, then they took umbrage to 'black', they wanted 'African American', but some wanted 'people of colour' and they've been bickering amongst themselves ever since. Meanwhile the rise of their lunatic fringe sees random eruptions of destruction and vows to destroy everything that is not of their own kind. Yeah, well forgive me, but when on one hand an ethnic group cannot seem to have enough sense of self-identity to be able to know what to call themselves, and on the other hand are vowing to destroy everything not of their own kind while at the same time just destroying indiscriminately whatever kind's it is, I can't take very seriously, its attention slut behaviour as it stands.

Similarly and one I can speak of from both sides of the fence, is the number of different words that have been applied to 'disability' and certain specific 'disabilities' over the years as over time in use ones have been deemed 'offensive'. Anyone with a 'disability' was used to universally be known as a 'cripple'. That became un-PC and was outlawed. I actually prefer and use cripple as a self-description, primarily due to the slightly different meaning for cripple in Shetland being someone who cannot walk properly, and that 'disability' in my mind implies that which has been purposely and intentionally had batteries/components reoved, wires disconnected etc by another and is very impresonal and dehumanising.

I also self-describe as knackered, a crang, a corpse, the liiving dead, totally fxxked, zombie and any number of similar terms for my 'disability'. Yet I am repeatedly told by 'society' that I must not use such terms for 'disability' as they offend the 'disabled'. WTF!  I AM, according to society, 'disabled', but society, the vast majority of whom aren't 'disabled'  apparently gets to dictate to me how I self-describe. FXXK THAT!

To get to the point, the above two examples of constant changes in terminology attempting to address a perceived 'offend' in previously used terminology just suggests one thing, that it is not necessarily the terminology itself it 'offends', but the meaning that is established for the term, and consequently it won;t matter how many times names get changed, as long as the thing or act it describes exists negativity is going to be associated with it. Some things will always remain 'negative' in the eyes of the majority, no matter how prettily you try to dress it up, better to accept that and deal with it than keep on doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

There is also the added negativity of all this renaming everything, particularly for charaties, who rightly or wrongly usually lead the vanguard of future name changes. Is that in attempting to find increasingly benign and 'unoffensive. names for themselves, they've now reached the point that long gone are the days where a charity name made it crystal clear who they were trying to assist, and consequently people are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and identify charities they are seeking, either for assistance or to donate to.

'The Spastics Society' worked, 'Scope', not so much.

Apprarently Mongolism, Downs etc is no longer a thing with charaties, as such things are all lumped under a cryptically named umbrella organisation 'Enable'.

Some 'Disability' charities seem to already be feeling 'disability' is no longer an 'unoffends' term, choosing things like 'enable' instead, again diminishing quickly establishing their MO from their name.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Black", "African American", and "People of colour" have different meanings. For example, while Obama manages to be all three, Lenny Henry isn't African American, and Gok Wan is a person of colour, but is neither black, nor African American.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Britain we no longer live by Christian values, our churches are empty ,many being sold off, yet other religions are thriving, Mosques are plentiful for instance and as far as I am informed well attended.

Now I'm never been a regular church goer but many of the Christian values I do agree with, but society is drifting away from those values, to me it would seem to appease groups whose believes and moral standards are unacceptable  to many of us, but society will no longer let us voice our opinion.

We are all gradually being forced to accept "standards" that in principle we are opposed to.

This country is now under middle eastern influence, whether we like it or not. 

That is not being racist or anything else but a real fact IMHO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, which Christian values do you agree with that you feel are in opposition to the values of other religions? (from my understanding, most religions are based on very similar core values)

And what is preventing you from voicing your opinion? Is that not what you're doing here?

Edited by Davie P
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Davie P said:

Out of interest, which Christian values do you agree with that you feel are in opposition to the values of other religions? (from my understanding, most religions are based on very similar core values)

And what is preventing you from voicing your opinion? Is that not what you're doing here?

No one can voice there true personal points of view nowadays, such is the restrictions regarding almost if not all that one discuss, without being branded ,racist ,homophobic ,selfish ,greedy the list is endless .

To discuss the morals that I accept from Christianity would certainly open up a can of worms, I'm not going there. 

The point is many of our freedoms are being taken away ,we really do have to be careful when we "express "ourselves .

We are all different with our own points of view ,that's what makes life more interesting, but you can only do that in ones own home, or with friends certainly not in public.

Good old days folk were able to speak freely and have a fun, but not now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Urabug said:

To discuss the morals that I accept from Christianity would certainly open up a can of worms, I'm not going there. 

I'm guessing it's not the "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth", and "love your neighbour" bits, then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No one can voice there true personal points of view nowadays, such is the restrictions regarding almost if not all that one discuss, without being branded ,racist ,homophobic ,selfish ,greedy the list is endless .

In my experience, one is perfectly able to express one's true personal points of view without being called these things. Might it have something to do with the opinions being expressed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Urabug said:

No one can voice there true personal points of view nowadays, such is the restrictions regarding almost if not all that one discuss, without being branded ,racist ,homophobic ,selfish ,greedy the list is endless .

 

On 08/04/2021 at 11:57, Urabug said:

I was brought up to believe "sticks and stones could break my bones but words could never hurt me. 

Du'll no be fussed whit folk brand dee as den ;-)

I'm intrigued as to whit views du has dat are so controversial dat dey canna be uttered in public. If du writes dem in a private message tae me I promise I'll no tell onybody else or call dee ony names ;-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muckle Oxters said:

Du'll no be fussed whit folk brand dee as den ;-)

Can't spaek fur idder fokk, bit I certainly dunna. Hinderin fokk ta utter it publically dusna hinder fokk tinkin and believin whatever hellery dey tink fit. No allooin it sed is just a pointless facade, its aa still dere, sensitive fokk can juist pretend its no as dir no haein ta hear ur see it.

What real odds whidder sumeen glowers you straight idda eye an tells you dey wiss you wir dead, ur glowers you straight idda eye an tinks it. I wid prefer ta ken wha me enemies wir, an I wid prefer da shance ta gie back ta dem da sam is dey wir haundin oot, an tell dem I wissed dey wir da sam, sae I cud dance a mirry jig upoa dir grave whinever I laekit.

Is dey say, opinions ir laek er*ehols, everybody haes een, an dir damn few you want ta ken mair aboot is you absolutely must.

Life is no a popularity contest, nidder is it ta be lived ta please idder fokk, so whit idder fokk tink o' you budders dem mair is it budders you.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doot dat @Ghostrider. I hae nae budder we folk sayin whit dey tink - you keen whaur you staand. But da mair folk dey say it tae, da mair chance dir is o somebody disagreein we dem.

Dirs pleny o wet folk aboot who will be offended by onything. And dirs plenty of folk who get offended by idder folk being offended by somethin offensive dey've said! "I demand to be able to say things I know will offend other people and I will, in turn, be offended if they take offence to my knowingly offensive comments"

I hiv some pretty traditional, old fashioned, or unfashionable views but I seem tae be able to express dem in wyes dat dunna offend idder folk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...