That's Labour councils for you.

What's Labour got to do with the University of Michigan? :conf:

[Comparing Sir Winston Churchill to Adolf Hitler
is a 'disgrace', says top historian Sir Anthony Seldon]


Woke Nutters

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ny-Seldon.html

No
it was a tweet on Camden Council I posted
but it vanished

Only just seen this, but i'm sure I've spoken abut picnics on here before. It's actually 2 issues at play here. First off, the association of picnics, including cannibalistic and trophy collection from black lynchings, but it's also coupled with a bit of a myth that popped up within former slaves, and it's been passed on down their descendants. Namely that the word picnic is derived from "pick a n*****"

So its due to the Horrors of 200 years ago.


Picnic is a normal thing for a family today.



What is Next avoiding roads?
as Roman slaves built them?

..as I said, it’s interesting that the DM will carry this 6 month old story with their interest in the university but a current story attached to the same university of historic student abuse by a professor being investigated …and no interest…


…I think the question, Arista would more be…what the hell is wrong that the DM feel their readers ‘outrage’ would be sparked more with a ‘word task force’ story than student abuse…outrage culture is quite outrageous atm and becoming more and more so…

Its a Worldwide top site
Legit

No, lynchings were still happening as late as the early 1980's but more widespread only 20 years earlier in the 60's. People are alive today that would have lost family members to lynchings.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/12...8791614179.jpg

:laugh2:

no wonder people do not take the woke-squad seriously

OK
but it does not matter now, I can still buy an M&S picnic set

https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon...._QL70_ML2_.jpg


This Set
on amazon UK

They are Bonkers

Yes Dezzy we must say sorry to India

…Arista takes it very seriously I’ll have you know…it’s a worldwide top thing, legit…

India have so much to thank this country for

Yes
but the World is Split.

I say Dig up all History
but do not change our ways now,
Publish all the horrors.


Does not mean we will change.

.

To be honest some of the list I agree with and some I don't, and the reasoning for picking the words seems really haphazard and sometimes in reverse? For example, there's nothing wrong with the word "handicap" used as intended, the offensive part is that it was EVER then used to describe people with disabilities "as handicapped" (presumably, in comparison to the average). The complicated part there, I suppose, is that you could argue the same for "disabled".

I personally totally agree with stopping using terms and phrases that are unambiguously linked to slavery.

I also agree with using gender-neutral terms in place of the male default (police officer over policeman, etc.) however I don't agree with forcing gender neutrality where it isn't warranted.

On principle I agree that people shouldn't use terms like "crazy", "insane", "sanity check" as throwaway words though I think the meanings of those have possibly shifted to the point where that's unrealistic.

That's sort of what I mean about the reasoning and it seeming to come from both angles.

Some words that have had the meaning totally change over time, they want to ban because of the etymology. Others they want to ban completely IGNORING the uncontroversial etymology, because of current word associations. I find it hard to see how we can have it both ways without ending up with an untenable list of "not ok words and phrases" with volumes A-Z.

Picnic is a bit of a bizarre standalone example because the offense taken to the word is based on an imaginary etymology that never actually existed in the first place...

Woke is fine sometimes. If you're fighting for inequality.

The reason why it becomes a problem is because some people who are 'woke' become too PC. You can't say anything these days!

if we had to stop using picnic it would end yogi bear, and i'm not having that :fist:

There is something wrong with the word 'handicap' and it's to do with the connotations of the word. I work in this sector and it's just not a word that is used. Not saying that you think there isn't just saying. It's contextual to how you use the word as certain words have numerous meanings.

The issue for me will always be simply in ability to debate and justify a stance. If someone can do that then I'm more than willing to hear them out no matter what their stance happens to be. If they start parroting mantras and insisting on what "is and isn't right and wrong" but on a little prodding are clearly just repeating a script rather than having any real thought or logic behind it... then to me that's really just a different flavor of ignorance.

I know a lot of people believe that if someone accidentally happens to fall on "the right side of the fence" then that's all good for strength in numbers and it doesn't really matter if they have a clue what they're talking about or not... but I would counter that their mindset is a bigger problem than the beliefs. Put that person in a different echo chambre for a month or two and they're going to come out humming a completely different tune. Because if they don't have the critical reasoning skills to form and back up their own genuine opinion, then they don't have the structures in place to avoid indocrination full stop.

In a nutshell that is my main issue with a lot of "woke people". Throw a couple of tougher questions at them and it becomes evident that there's absolutely **** all reasoning behind their opinions.

My point was that the word is fine used in its intended context (levelling the playing field between players of different skill levels in sports/competition). That is the etymology of the wors and I think it's still fine to use the term in that way, e.g. "your golf handicap". It should of course NEVER have been used to offensively describe people with disabilities, and has never/will never be OK in that context.