Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Once again, this is largely due to the importation of American identity politics. Wealth privilege is a real concept. But discuss wealth privilege in America and you'll get the usual nonsense cry of "communism". So, it gets reduced down to "white privilege", which is easier for everyone to understand and harder to dismiss.

The Americans tend not to do complexities, so everything gets boiled down to easy to digest titbits and unfortunately, due to proliferation on the web, it gets exported easily.

For.

Fuck.

Sake.

:rolleyes:

rossie1977

Soothing Electronica wrote: »

Who knows? Who cares? All we can do is laugh at the mentally ill far left.

So Kim Jong Un is responsible for all this?

Invidious

Geuze wrote: »

I'm assuming this is a joke?

Food and clothing are basic human needs, but the State does not intervene in the production or allocation of food or clothing.

We leave it to the market.

If somebody can show that the market isn't providing these goods, fair enough.

But as far as I know, all the supermarkets are well stocked.


I think they actually mean the provision of these goods in public toilets, in schools, colleges, etc., etc.?

The left as usual relies on inflated numbers when pleading its case, as when Labour MP Danielle Rowley claimed in the House of Commons that the average British woman spends £500 a year on costs associated with her period.

But that number, according to Channel 4 fact-checkers, turns out to include spending on chocolate, sweets, crisps, magazines, DVDs, and other items that women may buy to boost their moods during their periods, but that hardly meet the definition of basic human needs.

The article points out that a woman can buy a pack of 20 Tesco's own-brand tampons for £0.95, or a box of 20 Tampax for £1.90. All brought to us, of course, by the free market in goods.

kildare lad

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

No it's not that difficult sweetie.

Inclusionary intersectional feminists have no issue with this. Awards are great, but not when they totally exclude minority caregivers like LGBTQ+ couples.

Lol....

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Geuze wrote: »

Could somebody explain this to me?

The market produces these products, they are in all the shops.

I presume a range is available at various prices.


Why would the State intervene to make them cheaper or free?

Girls can get their periods really young. 12 would be a pretty commonplace age to start menstruating. I personally was 11 and a girl in my class was 10. Girls that age might not necessarily have the money to buy menstruation products and they are from a family below the breadline, maybe their parents can’t afford them either. And whether or not the parents are squandering money isn’t the child’s fault so they shouldn’t be punished.

Things get messy pretty quickly with periods so menstrual products are not something that can be done without. Do we want young teens and preteens worrying about walking around with bloody underwear and trying to stem the flow with toilet tissue which, trust me, does not work very well?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

You obviously don't know much about anatomy if you think we bleed "profusely" during periods, but that isn't surprising.

You know well that having periods is not limited to just women, as trans folk can also have periods.

In any case, my post was about period poverty. Have you any views on that or the proposed legislation by the government?

I did when I had periods. My periods were very heavy. Why do you think there are so many different products available?

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Maybe just cancel everything to avoid offending anyone ever.

That's essentially the endgame of the woke movement. Nobody can be different in any way, because it might offend someone else. So everything will look the same, sound the same, smell the same, again, because someone might take offense, or be hurt by the difference.

Although, the wokies will get to act as thought and behavior police so I suspect their brand of double standards will allow them a lot of leeway to be different.

Rodin

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

Because it's inequitable that almost half of the population are forced to pay for a basic human need. Some vulnerable people who have periods literally have to choose between hygiene and feeding themselves. Period poverty is a serious issue and I'm glad to see it being addressed by the government, but I agree with Una Mulally that the original Labour party bill was superior.

Nobody who manages money in any responsible way chooses tampons over food.
And so-called "period poverty" is not a serious issue. It just isn't.
Is anyone choosing food over bogroll?
"Oh I can either eat or have a clean arse...." and an arse needs wiped all month. Not just for a few days. Such nonsense.

46 Long

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Girls can get their periods really young. 12 would be a pretty commonplace age to start menstruating. I personally was 11 and a girl in my class was 10. Girls that age might not necessarily have the money to buy menstruation products and they are from a family below the breadline, maybe their parents can’t afford them either. And whether or not the parents are squandering money isn’t the child’s fault so they shouldn’t be punished.

Things get messy pretty quickly with periods so menstrual products are not something that can be done without. Do we want young teens and preteens worrying about walking around with bloody underwear and trying to stem the flow with toilet tissue which, trust me, does not work very well?

Tesco have boxes of sanitary towels for as little as €0.45

If a household cannot afford that it would raise serious doubts on the parents ability to provide food, schoolbooks and other basic toiletries such as toothbrushes, soap, shower gel etc.

COVID

The generosity of spirit on this thread is truly overwhelming.

whisky_galore

Rodin wrote: »

Nobody who manages money in any responsible way chooses tampons over food.
And so-called "period poverty" is not a serious issue. It just isn't.
Is anyone choosing food over bogroll?
"Oh I can either eat or have a clean arse...." and an arse needs wiped all month. Not just for a few days. Such nonsense.

Just another emotionally charged bandwagon. You'd swear we are like Bangladesh the way activists are going on.

You can't even keep a necessity like bog roll in a jacks without someone robbing it or stuffing it down a bowl to flood the floor, I can't see toilets on public premises stocking tampons just to be robbed or fcuked all over the place.

When I'm travelling, I always bring my own bog paper as I'm not guaranteed to have it conveniently provided for me.

Rodin

COVID wrote: »

The generosity of spirit on this thread is truly overwhelming.

People tired of bull5h1t and lies.

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I did when I had periods. My periods were very heavy. Why do you think there are so many different products available?

I'm sorry. I obviously don't speak for all people who have periods and the level of flow varies from person to person. I took issue with the description as I thought they were trying to be funny.

Annasopra

Geuze wrote: »

Could somebody explain this to me?

The market produces these products, they are in all the shops.

I presume a range is available at various prices.


Why would the State intervene to make them cheaper or free?

Why does the state put toilet paper in loos in public buildings?

Geuze

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why does the state put toilet paper in loos in public buildings?

Fair enough, putting these products into toilets in public buildings, ok so.

Yes, grand.



I was a bit confused, I thought the proposal was for the State to somehow get involved in the production or allocation of these products.

Just so we are clear - if the market is producing the goods efficiently, then there is no justification for State intervention in the production.

The State does not produce toothpaste for example, as the market does it well enough.

The State does transfer income to people to allow them to buy toothpaste.


Ok so, the proposal here is for public buildings, etc. to install these products, fair enough.

Quantum Erasure

Free speech campaigners today blasted Police Scotland over its decision to charge a man over an offensive tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "On Friday 5 February 2021, we received a report of an offensive tweet about Sir Captain Tom Moore who died on Tuesday 2 February.

"A 35-year-old man has subsequently been arrested and charged in connection with communication offences and is due to appear at Lanark Sheriff Court on Wednesday 17 February."

A tweet sent shortly after war hero's death last Tuesday read: 'The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn.'

Invidious

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Free speech campaigners today blasted Police Scotland over its decision to charge a man over an offensive tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "On Friday 5 February 2021, we received a report of an offensive tweet about Sir Captain Tom Moore who died on Tuesday 2 February.

"A 35-year-old man has subsequently been arrested and charged in connection with communication offences and is due to appear at Lanark Sheriff Court on Wednesday 17 February."

A tweet sent shortly after war hero's death last Tuesday read: 'The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn.'

Ridiculous that someone is facing charges over this.

Annasopra

Geuze wrote: »

Fair enough, putting these products into toilets in public buildings, ok so.

Yes, grand.



I was a bit confused, I thought the proposal was for the State to somehow get involved in the production or allocation of these products.

Just so we are clear - if the market is producing the goods efficiently, then there is no justification for State intervention in the production.

The State does not produce toothpaste for example, as the market does it well enough.

The State does transfer income to people to allow them to buy toothpaste.


Ok so, the proposal here is for public buildings, etc. to install these products, fair enough.

Yes to put them in schools, colleges, libraries, local councils, garda stations etc

Curse These Metal Hands

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes to put them in schools, colleges, libraries, local councils, garda stations etc

They should consider doing the same with nappies.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone is facing charges over this.

This.

Whilst his tweet was objectionably crass and insensitive, it is not a criminal offense.

That's one of the core problems with woke-ism: namely, that comments otherwise considered objectionable are now becoming increasingly considered criminal.

This is a shocking development.

Necro

Mod:


Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_, that's quite enough trolling for one day out of you. Don't post in this thread again

biko

twitter. com/Lanarkshire_Pol/status/1358734342684610560?s=19

RIP sir Tom, but to be arrested for a tweet?

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

That's one of the core problems with woke-ism: namely, that comments otherwise considered objectionable are now becoming increasingly considered criminal.

This is a shocking development.

Agreed.

The woke want to create credible fear that any objectionable, derogatory or off-colour remark will result in criminal charges -- and thus make people afraid to speak their minds in the first place. Authoritarian movements (of which wokeness is one) have long used such tactics to suppress dissent.

We urgently need greater protections around free speech. Unless it's a clear case of threats, incitement to violence, etc., nobody should ever have the police knocking on their door over an "objectionable Tweet."

biko

biko wrote: »

twitter. com/Lanarkshire_Pol/status/1358734342684610560?s=19

RIP sir Tom, but to be arrested for a tweet?

Ironic when you consider that he and most WWII fought to allow free speech.


I agree that the tweet was offensive, but to arrest someone for that is OTT, he should have simply been left to see the negative responses it deserved.

MisterAnarchy

Invidious wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone is facing charges over this.

We could see something similar here in the future with the proposed Hate Speech legislation.

Scotland is trying to pass a controversial Hate Crime Bill
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18844317.warning-hate-crime-bill-will-make-offence-insult/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

46 Long wrote: »

Tesco have boxes of sanitary towels for as little as €0.45

If a household cannot afford that it would raise serious doubts on the parents ability to provide food, schoolbooks and other basic toiletries such as toothbrushes, soap, shower gel etc.

It sure does. There are welfare worries there but the immediate issue has to be dealt with. Personal hygiene is really important.

COVID

COVID wrote: »

The generosity of spirit on this thread is truly overwhelming.

We went through the exact same discussion a few pages back, and various people supported it. Myself included, since I don't believe it should be a worry/concern in a first world nation, considering the crap the government already spends on. Subsidizing tampons to make it easier for people to avail of wouldn't be a bad thing.

Now... on the other hand, I probably wouldn't be the most generous of spirit on a wide range of other topics.

Mike Murdock

Invidious wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone is facing charges over this.

Huge swathes of the British public revere their Armed Forces. And particularly a decorated veteran like Tom Moore. You can't say a word against them.

It is not ridiculous in that context.

Necro

Mod:

Can we leave the discussion of Travellers and the Roma out of this thread folks - as with all discussions that go in that direction it will inevitably end in the thread being shut down because people are unable to be civil.

It's completely off topic in any case.

Mike Murdock

Mike Murdock wrote: »

Huge swathes of the British public revere their Armed Forces. And particularly a decorated veteran like Tom Moore. You can't say a word against them.

It is not ridiculous in that context.

It's still nuts. It gives the police/govt license to arrest people for anything deemed offensive online. I had a look at the tweet. I've seen far worse on the Trump threads on CA.

People complain about the PRC control over their domestic internet, and social media.. and yet, that's where we're going with Western laws/arrests over internet speech/behavior. Maybe not immediately, but within 20 years, I doubt there will be much freedom on the internet unless it matches the approved outlook.