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

Sonics2k

Briefcases are handbags for men in suits.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

"Nobody cares if a man is carrying a handbag" they say, moaning about a man carrying a handbag.

Well, that’s a simplistic interpretation of my post. I’m always amused at the idea that saying something about something is considered equivalent to moaning about it. When you comment upon something here on boards, is that you moaning about it? I bet you don’t think so. But, yes, others are moaning, not just, ya know, discussing things.

AdrianBalboa

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, that’s a simplistic interpretation of my post. I’m always amused at the idea that saying something about something is considered equivalent to moaning about it. When you comment upon something here on boards, is that you moaning about it? I bet you don’t think so. But, yes, others are moaning, not just, ya know, discussing things.

But you are moaning about it. What’s to discuss? “It was cooler in my day when David Bowie did it?” Okay, boomer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

But you are moaning about it. What’s to discuss? “It was cooler in my day when David Bowie did it?” Okay, boomer.

Okay, we’re done here. Two years ago wants its lame insult back. What next, calling me a Karen?

Potential-Monke

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Maybe men should have handbags. They have backpacks, why not.

But a handbag is a smaller, inferior version of a backpack... Most men don't need much more than a wallet and a couple of pockets. Maybe womens clothes should have more pockets so they don't need handbags?

AdrianBalboa

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay, we’re done here. Two years ago wants its lame insult back. What next, calling me a Karen?

Tell it to take “woke” back with it, Karen.

jam_mac_jam

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But a handbag is a smaller, inferior version of a backpack... Most men don't need much more than a wallet and a couple of pockets. Maybe womens clothes should have more pockets so they don't need handbags?

Yes. I completely agree. More pockets.

Elmo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes. I completely agree. More pockets.

Bring back combats

For anyone who thinks men have not had fancy-pants handbags for aeons, I have one word for ye - sporran. Great big hairy tassels on them and everything.

AdrianBalboa, rein it in or you'll get a threadban along with that yellow.

Leg End Reject

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But a handbag is a smaller, inferior version of a backpack... Most men don't need much more than a wallet and a couple of pockets. Maybe womens clothes should have more pockets so they don't need handbags?

Phone, wallet, keys, make-up, hairbrush, mirror, tissues, water, tampons, deodorant, perfume, trolley tokens, pen, notebook, handcream. I'd need to be Fortycoats to have enough pockets.

Still, it would be better than Harry strutting about like a miscast 80s pimp in his fur coat and Gucci bag.

Elmo

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Phone, wallet, keys, make-up, hairbrush, mirror, tissues, water, tampons, deodorant, perfume, trolley tokens, pen, notebook, handcream. I'd need to be Fortycoats to have enough pockets.

Still, it would be better than Harry strutting about like a miscast 80s pimp in his fur coat and Gucci bag.

but are you happy? I'd pimp myself out for Harry's Money. I'd even go on TLLS with Corden and maybe even join my Irish friend (what's his face) for a sit down with Tubs, as long as he shares his coke!

I'd be so woke.... I'd be down with the yuff

"yo... when I drive through the city I slow down... just for those vulnerable people you know like.... em.... women"

Leg End Reject

Elmo wrote: »

"yo... when I drive through the city I slow down... just for those vulnerable people you know like.... em.... women"

It's the handbag that's vulnerable.

Real Donald Trump

Great stuff, Academy awards ratings plummet to all time low. Glad to see that the general public are sick of these morons, with their virtue signaling nonsense


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/oscars-2021-academy-award-ratings-plummet-to-all-time-low-.html

EddieN75

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Great stuff, Academy awards ratings plummet to all time low. Glad to see that the general public are sick of these morons, with their virtue signaling nonsense


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/oscars-2021-academy-award-ratings-plummet-to-all-time-low-.html

Since the world is all screwed up at the minute with the pandemic, climate , the growing wealth divide and the common people too distracted with race and gender.

Wouldn't it be great to see common people from all over the world and every colour and creed to come together and turn on the wealthy and powerful. To just reset the whole thing. Burn the whole thing down

Elmo

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Great stuff, Academy awards ratings plummet to all time low. Glad to see that the general public are sick of these morons, with their virtue signaling nonsense


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/oscars-2021-academy-award-ratings-plummet-to-all-time-low-.html

I only caught some of it. The introductions were painful. No humour, even her piece for Sacha Baron Cohen was very forces after over the top praise for the rest of the actors, she tried to lightly dig him for playing someone so unlike what he has played before :rolleyes:

Dr. Bre

EddieN75 wrote: »

Since the world is all screwed up at the minute with the pandemic, climate , the growing wealth divide and the common people too distracted with race and gender.

Wouldn't it be great to see common people from all over the world and every colour and creed to come together and turn on the wealthy and powerful. To just reset the whole thing. Burn the whole thing down

The great reset

EddieN75

Dr. Bre wrote: »

The great reset

Yes but the opposite way around. The minions take out the wealthy.

Fight club- project mayhem style

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

.
Wouldn't it be great to see common people from all over the world and every colour and creed to come together and turn on the wealthy and powerful. To just reset the whole thing. Burn the whole thing down

Yeah it’d definitely work this time and the leaders of this reset definitely wouldn’t just subsume the positions of influence of those they sought to remove.

Fair enough breaking up a few bloated multinationals or putting enormous taxes on the Uber rich (no individual should have a billion euro for example).
That said I’ve always found the “those people have more money/influence than I do, we should murder them” aspect of socialist revolutions to be a bit sinister tbh.

EddieN75

Batrachotox wrote: »

Yeah it’d definitely work this time and the leaders of this reset definitely wouldn’t just subsume the positions of influence of those they sought to remove.

Fair enough breaking up a few bloated multinationals or putting enormous taxes on the Uber rich (no individual should have a billion euro for example).
That said I’ve always found the “those people have more money/influence than I do, we should murder them” aspect of socialist revolutions to be a bit sinister tbh.

I just want to see a few smug celebs given the Gaddafi treatment

rightmove

EddieN75 wrote: »

Since the world is all screwed up at the minute with the pandemic, climate , the growing wealth divide and the common people too distracted with race and gender.

Wouldn't it be great to see common people from all over the world and every colour and creed to come together and turn on the wealthy and powerful. To just reset the whole thing. Burn the whole thing down

A good few years back 'class' was the main word and it was much closer to the issues at hand in that it was focused on wealth distribution, workers rights and attacking the position of the rich and powerful.

With the decline of unions etc and increased globalisation the rich and powerful decided the best way to deal with the class war threat was to spin themselves to look like the good guys and introduce gender, race and sex politics to divide and conquer the 'workers'. From being told by HR it doesnt matter if someone is gay or a woman or from roscommon if they can do the job. this then changed and now it is of major importance and we would have emails from our betters and talks and posters and sponsorships and cake to celebrate diversity. And now diversity has replaced class as the driver and we are much further from the issue of fixing wealth inequality and having a fairer society that values ppl on merit whilst the tech companies control the world and pay very little tax anywhere (but ofcourse they are the good guys who like diversity!!!) and CAKE!

Yeah_Right

chimpsoup1016 wrote: »

I'm unsure if this is the right place but I've been asked to leave a committee organising Pride ths year because I disagree that as scientists we should be forced to blindly accept "multiple possible gender identities".

Gay people are being sidelined for the trans lobby and it is very wrong.

What you don't understand is that if you don't accept absolutely everything that the most extreme liberal believes, you are a nazi. You need to come to terms with the fact that no matter how liberal you are and what sort of work you do to support minority groups, theres a good chance that you will still be classified as evil by the super-duper woke if you disagree with them on one thing. Even if you are actually a member of one of those groups. Sorry mate.

mohawk

chimpsoup1016 wrote: »

I'm unsure if this is the right place but I've been asked to leave a committee organising Pride ths year because I disagree that as scientists we should be forced to blindly accept "multiple possible gender identities".

Gay people are being sidelined for the trans lobby and it is very wrong.

Diversity is super important. Except for diversity of thought or opinion that is not okay.

Also scientists should never accept anything without evidence otherwise it’s not science.

Strumms

EddieN75 wrote: »

Since the world is all screwed up at the minute with the pandemic, climate , the growing wealth divide and the common people too distracted with race and gender.

Wouldn't it be great to see common people from all over the world and every colour and creed to come together and turn on the wealthy and powerful. To just reset the whole thing. Burn the whole thing down

Why ?

If I had an idea, started a business, funded by remortgaging my property and my savings..... in fifteen years I become a millionaire from hard work, sacrifice, 50 hour weeks... then that gets partly stolen ?

I have a cousin who is... let’s just say... seriously wealthy, studied for years, became a lawyer, worked his way up to becoming a partner in seriously successful and respected practice on the US east coast, one of the top 150 practices according to one list, in the entire US... He retired at 61 but is keeping a solitary client who is a friend of his, as a favor and for pocket money.. we presume him or know him to be a seriously wealthy individual now, talking xxxxxxx, his gaff is unreal, holiday home ... cars, the whole lot...

I remember staying in his gaff as a teenager, he was out the door at 7.30am, returning at 7-8pm... put in the hard yards and reaped the rewards...

Turning on people who have accrued wealth by hard work or even luck ? No... make things happen to support your own successes and enjoyment of life. Should he be penalized ?

EddieN75

Strumms wrote: »

Why ?

If I had an idea, started a business, funded by remortgaging my property and my savings..... in fifteen years I become a millionaire from hard work, sacrifice, 50 hour weeks... then that gets partly stolen ?

I have a cousin who is... let’s just say... seriously wealthy, studied for years, became a lawyer, worked his way up to becoming a partner in seriously successful and respected practice on the US east coast, one of the top 150 practices according to one list, in the entire US... He retired at 61 but is keeping a solitary client who is a friend of his, as a favor and for pocket money.. we presume him or know him to be a seriously wealthy individual now, talking xxxxxxx, his gaff is unreal, holiday home ... cars, the whole lot...

I remember staying in his gaff as a teenager, he was out the door at 7.30am, returning at 7-8pm... put in the hard yards and reaped the rewards...

Turning on people who have accrued wealth by hard work or even luck ? No... make things happen to support your own successes and enjoyment of life. Should he be penalized ?

He is not remotely close to the 1% bracket that I'm referring to

FileNotFound

Strumms wrote: »

Why ?

If I had an idea, started a business, funded by remortgaging my property and my savings..... in fifteen years I become a millionaire from hard work, sacrifice, 50 hour weeks... then that gets partly stolen ?

I have a cousin who is... let’s just say... seriously wealthy, studied for years, became a lawyer, worked his way up to becoming a partner in seriously successful and respected practice on the US east coast, one of the top 150 practices according to one list, in the entire US... He retired at 61 but is keeping a solitary client who is a friend of his, as a favor and for pocket money.. we presume him or know him to be a seriously wealthy individual now, talking xxxxxxx, his gaff is unreal, holiday home ... cars, the whole lot...

I remember staying in his gaff as a teenager, he was out the door at 7.30am, returning at 7-8pm... put in the hard yards and reaped the rewards...

Turning on people who have accrued wealth by hard work or even luck ? No... make things happen to support your own successes and enjoyment of life. Should he be penalized ?

This is something that always gets me, most people who are doing well (that i know of) have all worked extremely hard for it. Sure the odd one got a lucky break, but even then the hard yards were put in.

This sense of self entitlement to have what others have worked for when in many cases unwilling to make the same commitments is madness.

Now I do agree that earnings over (Insert whatever crazy number takes your fancy) should be taxed heavily for the common good. But these are few and far between in reality.

Strumms

EddieN75 wrote: »

He is not remotely close to the 1% bracket that I'm referring to

Well you used the term wealthy and powerful. He wouldn’t be powerful at all, but certainly he has serious wealth.

EddieN75

Strumms wrote: »

Well you used the term wealthy and powerful. He wouldn’t be powerful at all, but certainly he has serious wealth.

But he isn't powerful. So not relevant. The 1%.

Individuals who have direct lines to politicians and can influence national policy with their opinions

FileNotFound

EddieN75 wrote: »

But he isn't powerful. So not relevant. The 1%

Do you have a more specific definition of wealthy and powerful so people can understand what exactly should be torn down?

Just curious as to what people mean, at least then we could see the potential positives and negatives of the dissolution of a more specific group.

EddieN75

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesCultr/status/1387278802141675522?s=20

Racist, sexist choice in music