Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

One eyed Jack

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I just told you. It removes discretion.

If a woman has two or more regular sexual partners and refuses to allow a paternity test, who will be named as the father?

It's easier to make it mandatory for all.

But it only matters in cases where paternity is in question?

Your idea, rather than making things easier for anyone, suggests making things more difficult for everyone.

s1ippy

Drop in school pupil numbers could threaten small schools (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/drop-in-school-pupil-numbers-could-threaten-small-schools-1.4406629

This is because the world is sh!t and anyone who brings a child in it is a masochistic, self-obsessed megalomaniac. Older generations feel an entitlement to have children and get them cared for by others. The children of those awful parents now have more self awareness and a shocking lack of means so they don't want to inflict the same pain on a child.

They're right to think this, and hopefully the species will die out soon as a consequence of amoral governance and lack of incentive to look to the future.

Sardonicat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t ever use it myself because it’s straight-up the very definition of racism -


Many critics, both whites and non-whites, of the term object to its lack of specificity and find the phrase racially offensive. It has been argued that the term lessens the focus on individual issues facing different racial and ethnic groups. Preserving "whiteness" as an in-tact category while lumping every other racial group into an indiscriminate category ("of color") can replicate the very marginalization the term was intended to counter. Several people, whites and non-whites alike, have compared it to the terms "colored" and "negro".


Person of colour


And as for “BAME” used in UK academic circles, well that’s just as bad -


'Don't call me BAME': Why some people are rejecting the term

That would essentially be my issue with it. It still lumps all white people into one homogeneous grouping and anyone who isn't into another, even though that group is even more diverse again. It's still essentially 'us and them' and still uses 'white' as the measuring stick against which everyone else is measured.

km991148

Gervais08 wrote: »

I had a moron Sociology teacher a while back who didn’t use fat but “ultra nourished”. Told him that was ridiculous and I was fat!

Late 80s this - woke before woke was a thing.

I don't think you know what woke means.. that's just a smart arse...

Gervais08

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I just told you. It removes discretion.

If a woman has two or more regular sexual partners and refuses to allow a paternity test, who will be named as the father?

It's easier to make it mandatory for all.

Yeah mate you don’t get up control anything about who we sleep with so give it up.

Gervais08

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think you know what woke means.. that's just a smart arse...

I do know what it means - and he was a sad twat of an SJW again before it was a thing.

He wouldn’t use any “negative” words. There was no “unemployed” just “seeing their right path in life” etc. Crushing ****ing bore of a man!

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t ever use it myself because it’s straight-up the very definition of racism -


Many critics, both whites and non-whites, of the term object to its lack of specificity and find the phrase racially offensive. It has been argued that the term lessens the focus on individual issues facing different racial and ethnic groups. Preserving "whiteness" as an in-tact category while lumping every other racial group into an indiscriminate category ("of color") can replicate the very marginalization the term was intended to counter. Several people, whites and non-whites alike, have compared it to the terms "colored" and "negro".


Person of colour


And as for “BAME” used in UK academic circles, well that’s just as bad -


'Don't call me BAME': Why some people are rejecting the term

That's really interesting. I wonder who came up with these things? The aim seems to be to highlight and isolate the enemy - white people.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

That's really interesting. I wonder who came up with these things? The aim seems to be to highlight and isolate the enemy - white people.

I have lived all over the world. Not once have I ever had to describe someone by the colour of their skin. It is strange that racist people constantly get caught out by using incorrect and offensive language denoted to skin colour. And furthermore start blaming their offensive language on being victims themselves because they feel that 'white people' are being made into enemies.

Simply, avoid colour. Use other descriptors like 'name' and don't be in positions where out of date dinosaurs are no longer welcome. Simples.

gormdubhgorm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. It wasn’t supposed to be a choice they were supposed to be alternative scenarios so I’ll clarify the scenario: you say “disabled” to a fella with a disability and he say he prefers the term “differently abled”. What term would you use when speaking to this guy in the future? (for the sake of argument, you’re going to be talking about the topic with the guy so you’ll need to use some term to denote people with disabilities and he’s told you how he prefers to be described)

I have never met an Irish disabled person like that in my life fortunately. But it will mean most like!y a few things:

1) likely very young and influenced by american culture
2) Is trying to prove a point
3) Views themselves as an 'activist'

So I would thread very carefully. An able bodied person could speak in generalities such as 'disabled people'. And also question do they not find the term 'differently abled' patronising and silly?
However, for me the scenario would be slightly different as I have a disability. So at best I would make a shocked face and query why. At worst I would crack up laughing.

Related to that and PC culture terminology gone wrong:

Once in a gym a wheelchair user cracked up laughing when a well intentioned young member of staff said 'there are able bodied members of staff to help wheelchair users if you need it'. The poor fella explained that it was what he was taught on his college course!

Able bodied people tend to do that, they over compensate instead of treating people like people. Especially if they are not used to dealing with anyone with a disability.

Brussels Sprout

1. I believe Irish citizens living abroad should have the right to vote, so long as they have been resident in Ireland in the recent past.
2. I believe in birthright citizenship
3. If Ireland is reunited (which I support) then I think that we would have to change both our flag and national anthem.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

I have lived all over the world. Not once have I ever had to describe someone by the colour of their skin. It is strange that racist people constantly get caught out by using incorrect and offensive language denoted to skin colour. And furthermore start blaming their offensive language on being victims themselves because they feel that 'white people' are being made into enemies.

Simply, avoid colour. Use other descriptors like 'name' and don't be in positions where out of date dinosaurs are no longer welcome. Simples.

That's how 99.9% of people behave - they treat others based on content of character rather than the colour of skin. That should be it. The best way to get rid of racism is not to constantly highlight our differences. The best way to get rid of it is to stop talking about it all the time.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

That's how 99.9% of people behave - they treat others based on content of character rather than the colour of skin. That should be it. The best way to get rid of racism is not to constantly highlight our differences. The best way to get rid of it is to stop talking about it all the time.

I agree completely.

dubstarr

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Naming two women or two men on a child's birth certificate is bollocks.

A birth certificate is a historical document and should not be altered. These documents and similar archives have helped my mam's cousin and me research my mam's side of the family back to 1790. Altering these so Adam and Steve can be "mammy and daddy".

A child has two biological parents and only they should be on the birth certificate.

Furthermore, it should be compulsory to name the father on the birth certificate, a paternity test should also be compulsory even for monogamous or married couples.

No it should not.What if theres abuse and women flees.Still think the mans rights trump the womens.

If paternity is requested it should be on a case by case scenerio.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

That's how 99.9% of people behave - they treat others based on content of character rather than the colour of skin. That should be it. The best way to get rid of racism is not to constantly highlight our differences. The best way to get rid of it is to stop talking about it all the time.

It is when people try to be 'inclusive' and only end up accentuating difference that is part of the problem as well. In a way the people trying to be 'inclusive' with changing terminology celebration of 'difference' are doing the job of the racist. Separating people in boxes and highlighting difference and other. I think those PC activists are just as much of eejits as racists only on the other end of the spectrum. No common sense!

Definitely an unpopular opinion I bet no one has compared ultra PC people to racists! Divisive in a different way.

joeguevara

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is when people try to be 'inclusive' and only end up accentuating difference that is part of the problem as well. In a way the people trying to be 'inclusive' with changing terminology celebration of 'difference' are doing the job of the racist. Separating people in boxes and highlighting difference and other. I think those PC activists are just as much of eejits as racists only on the other end of the spectrum. No common sense!

Definitely an unpopular opinion I bet no one has compared ultra PC people to racists! Divisive in a different way.

But the issue is that if racists/dinosaurs didn't use offensive language or even stopped referring to colour in the first place then they wouldn't be called out on it. In all fairness when does a 70 year old white man from the UK ever need to describe a person by their colour. More often than not, when they cause offense, they will defend themselves by saying its PC gone mad.

You don't need to keep up with changing terminology. Stop using colour as a descriptor.

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

I have lived all over the world. Not once have I ever had to describe someone by the colour of their skin.

Stating a fact does not make you a racist. Perhaps the single most obvious descriptor you can apply to a person is their colour or their race.

You need to go and speak to that black guy over there, is not a racist statement. It's a brief and effective way of describing who it is someone may be looking for. It's no more racist than saying "see that redhead over there, that's who you're looking for"

It's idiotic to pretend there is no difference between black skin and white skin. It's even more idiotic to say it's some kind of insult to suggest there is. It's as stupid as saying that blue car and that red car are exactly the same.

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Stating a fact does not make you a racist. Perhaps the single most obvious descriptor you can apply to a person is their colour or their race.

You need to go and speak to that black guy over there, is not a racist statement. It's a brief and effective way of describing who it is someone may be looking for. It's no more racist than saying "see that redhead over there, that's who you're looking for"

It's idiotic to pretend there is no difference between black skin and white skin. It's even more idiotic to say it's some kind of insult to suggest there is. It's as stupid as saying that blue car and that red car are exactly the same.

How about saying 'you need to go speak to John over there'. Then if you are not up to date with what is offensive or not, you wont offend. I never read anywhere where millions of red heads were slaves'.

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

How about saying 'you need to go speak to John over there'. Then if you are not up to date with what is offensive or not, you wont offend. I never read anywhere where millions of red heads were slaves'.

Which one is John?

It is just not an insult to a say a black man is A: a man and B: black.

History doesn't change that.

Go speak to that black man, does not equate to go speak to that slave over there.

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Which one is John?

It is just not an insult to a say a black man is A: a man and B: black.

History doesn't change that.

Go speak to that black man, does not equate to go speak to that slave over there.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone black.

It is when someone uses an offensive term like 'the coloured guy over there' and then is upset when called out on an offensive term. These dinosaurs, if they are not aware of their language should stick to terms like 'john, in the blue jumper'

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with calling someone black.

It is when someone uses an offensive term like 'the coloured guy over there' and then is upset when called out on an offensive term. These dinosaurs, if they are not aware of their language should stick to terms like 'john, in the blue jumper'

But they're all wearing identical uniforms?

It is when someone uses an offensive term like 'the coloured guy over there'

What's offensive about that?

joeguevara

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmmm...


But yeah, when you’re Greg Clarke, and it’s part of your role as the Executive Director of the English FA to promote diversity, you might have reason to refer to people by their ethnicity or colour of their skin when you’re talking about encouraging more diversity in the game. It’s important how you do it of course, and I don’t think his age, sex, colour of his skin had any influence on the fact that he just wasn’t suitable for the role.

The colour of ones skin which is an indication of their ethnicity is also important in discussions about racial disparities. For example to take the webinar I mentioned earlier, while I watched it I couldn’t help but get the impression that the black women giving their presentations were more than a bit salty about the fact that there is such a disparity in terms of pregnancy related deaths between black and white women, with black women experiencing three times the rate of pregnancy related deaths than white women (see attached screenshot).

The only white woman in the webinar giving it welly about “pregnant and birthing people” while the rest of the presenters were talking about the effects of the disparity on black women, demonstrated exactly who’s priorities were where - the white woman choosing as you suggest to glide blithely over the disparity, while the disparity in outcome based on skin colour and ethnicity was exactly what the black women were focusing on.

Then learn the correct terms and stop b1tching if you are sacked for causing offense and homophobe and being a mysoginist and being an out and out dinosaur. Until then stay away from colour.

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But they're all wearing identical uniforms?

Bring them over and introduce them.

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

Bring them over and introduce them.

Sorry, i can't leave the desk.

One eyed Jack

joeguevara wrote: »

But the issue is that if racists/dinosaurs didn't use offensive language or even stopped referring to colour in the first place then they wouldn't be called out on it. In all fairness when does a 70 year old white man from the UK ever need to describe a person by their colour. More often than not, when they cause offense, they will defend themselves by saying its PC gone mad.

You don't need to keep up with changing terminology. Stop using colour as a descriptor.

Hmmm...


But yeah, when you’re Greg Clarke, and it’s part of your role as the Executive Director of the English FA to promote diversity, you might have reason to refer to people by their ethnicity or colour of their skin when you’re talking about encouraging more diversity in the game. It’s important how you do it of course, and I don’t think his age, sex, colour of his skin had any influence on the fact that he just wasn’t suitable for the role.

The colour of ones skin which is an indication of their ethnicity is also important in discussions about racial disparities. For example to take the webinar I mentioned earlier, while I watched it I couldn’t help but get the impression that the black women giving their presentations were more than a bit salty about the fact that there is such a disparity in terms of pregnancy related deaths between black and white women, with black women experiencing three times the rate of pregnancy related deaths than white women -

https://postimg.cc/hJBfb2yV

The only white woman in the webinar giving it welly about “pregnant and birthing people” while the rest of the presenters were talking about the effects of the disparity on black women, demonstrated exactly who’s priorities were where - the white woman choosing as you suggest to glide blithely over the disparity, while the disparity in outcome based on skin colour and ethnicity was exactly what the black women were focusing on.

joeguevara

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmmm...


But yeah, when you’re Greg Clarke, and it’s part of your role as the Executive Director of the English FA to promote diversity, you might have reason to refer to people by their ethnicity or colour of their skin when you’re talking about encouraging more diversity in the game. It’s important how you do it of course, and I don’t think his age, sex, colour of his skin had any influence on the fact that he just wasn’t suitable for the role.

The colour of ones skin which is an indication of their ethnicity is also important in discussions about racial disparities. For example to take the webinar I mentioned earlier, while I watched it I couldn’t help but get the impression that the black women giving their presentations were more than a bit salty about the fact that there is such a disparity in terms of pregnancy related deaths between black and white women, with black women experiencing three times the rate of pregnancy related deaths than white women -

https://postimg.cc/hJBfb2yV

The only white woman in the webinar giving it welly about “pregnant and birthing people” while the rest of the presenters were talking about the effects of the disparity on black women, demonstrated exactly who’s priorities were where - the white woman choosing as you suggest to glide blithely over the disparity, while the disparity in outcome based on skin colour and ethnicity was exactly what the black women were focusing on.

Is this the same post as above?

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But they're all wearing identical uniforms?


What's offensive about that?

Are you serious - the whole discussion is about Greg Clarke using the offensive term 'coloured'. If you dont know what is being discussed why are you asking quesitons.

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry, i can't leave the desk.

Change jobs.

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

Are you serious - the whole discussion is about Greg Clarke using the offensive term 'coloured'. If you dont know what is being discussed why are you asking quesitons.

Do you have an answer or not?


What exactly is inherently offensive about it?


I'm sitting in work right now, in the room with me are 2 women, and 6 men. 1 of the men is black.


That's just a fact. It's not offensive to say that, it's just a mundane fact about the people around me.

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

Change jobs.

But without me at the help desk, who would direct the customers to my friend and colleague John?:D

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you have an answer or not?


What exactly is inherently offensive about it?


I'm sitting in work right now, in the room with me are 2 women, and 6 men. 1 of the men is black.


That's just a fact. It's not offensive to say that, it's just a mundane fact about the people around me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

There is nothing offensive by saying someone is black.