How is that picking on her. The story has nothing to do with political correctness, and i explained that to her... unless you read that wrong and thought I was calling Brillo a bit of a dick? But that’s you picking on her, not me. Brillo being against what this woman has to say does make her more PC than her. And that is okay.

I am glad I am not the only one to pick up on this ,surprised he gets away with it all the time (or am I)

And obvious.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Christ. This has nothing to do with political correctness. We dont just all pretend that everything Brillo says is correct to make her feel good, shes a grown woman ffs :joker: it isnt picking on her by telling her shes wrong once in a while.

I see that lumping Serious Debates and News together with Celebrity (now we have two celebrity sections!), not much has changed apart from the name. However, I look forward to The World Cup with Ru Paul's Drag Race and other unlikely pairings.

i don’t think it had a PC bias :skull:

I think you miss my point (not unusual). Her comment which indicated her definition of a Christian group was ‘right-wing’ and racist was not only an assumption, not only based on her own bias - it also strongly suggested an attempt at shutting-down opinions she didn’t like by the usual labelling (right-wing racist) thus also making her a PC gigantic hypocrite!

I think you're actually incorrect about your point. In the article, she wonders "what right wing Christians" would think of harry marrying a mixed race divorcee. It's your inference from that, that all Christians are right wing. It's this context that makes the question valid, when we take into consideration that the Christian right has had more issues with divorce and diversity in the church.

Christians are not one monolithic group where everyone thinks the same, just as any other religion for that matter. She was also brought on to add a slightly different perspective than the continuous fawning that was probably going on throughout the rest of the day.

I'm just baffled by this thread altogether if I'm to be honest.

I see your point regarding what she actually meant by ‘right wing Christians’. I took it to mean (my inference) that she was describing all Christians as right wing - whereas you took it to mean (I believe) she was describing those Christians known to be right wing. It is ambiguous and open to interpretation I think.

I was clearly speaking from my perception of her words and if indeed I was correct in my perception then I believe I was not incorrect. If indeed you are right in your perception then I am still not convinced I was exactly incorrect because right wing does not automatically equal racist. That was very much an assumption on her part in my book. Without clarification of her definition of the phrase it is difficult to say.

I do however appreciate your articulate and polite presentation of your perception and thoughts on this. It does demonstrate to me how easy it is for someone to make an ambiguous statement.

Calling somebody a ‘right wing racist’ isnt politically correct at all. I think you’re confused about what the phrase is supposed to mean.

Isn't the bit in bold a bit "heads i win, tails you lose?"

I think the full phrase "right wing Christians" pretty much spells out which of our opinions is a fact, and which is just inference and conjecture. I don't mean to keep hammering the point at you here, but she tells us exactly who she is wondering about.

I also don't think there is any ambiguity in her words; I just think sometimes we all project our own biases into our opinions without really spending the time and thought to work out what is actually being said. I know I do in certain situations and i think you have here. It's not a huge issue, and I'm glad we could share our thoughts in a way that is conducive to polite discussion and debate.

It wasn’t meant to be - I was just saying it as I see it. She is suggesting in my opinion however that ‘right wing Christians’ are likely to be racist - I have no doubts about that.