[Alf]

Originally Posted by Elliot

i feel like the right is making a bit of a resurgence and is starting to get taken more seriously for whatever strange and bizarre reason

Nanny state, Political correctness, they're oppressive things, and human beings don't like being oppressed. I wouldn't even call them "the right" they're just normal people who mainly come from usual Labour heartlands.

[Beso]

Why is it taken more serious if the right gets more popular..as opposed to the left!


We are in a day and age that no way will another war be fought because of fascism...to think that, you might as well have a tin foiled hat over your head.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nanny state, Political correctness, they're oppressive things, and human beings don't like being oppressed. I wouldn't even call them "the right" they're just normal people who mainly come from usual Labour heartlands.

How can you be oppressed by nonsense terms?....They don't mean anything, up to a few years ago those phrases didn't exist.
They were invented by right wing commentators to demean, ridicule and reduce the impact of what was being said in defence of any socioeconomic political progressive argument.
'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..
'Political correctness'.. law and order, Justice.. what could be wrong with that? We brits love rules and regulations when did they become taboo? 'Snowflakes' ? What's that? It may have a definition now because the inventor managed to get the use of it global due to its viral appeal of being a generic insult to mostly young left leaning people who take an interest in social issues.

The traditional labour heartlands have been targeted by and bombarded with these negative labels. They mean nothing and I for one don't expect the use of these derogatory terms to survive one the conservatives have lost the next election.
It is on their best interest to keep the pressure on to subdue progressive groups and individuals by any means necessary.

[James]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

This isn't actually supported by the facts though. Left wing users generally (but not completely) aren't promoting conspiracy theorists, misogyny, racism etc, which is why they are banned less.

Also, there was a recent report showing twitter actually gives leeway to far right users, because in order to blanket ban their bigotry, they'd also have to ban US conservative politicians for espousing the same views.

It is now, and always has been a content rather than the loudest voice issue


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a...oliticians-too

https://www.businessinsider.com/twit...19-4?r=US&IR=T

Interesting article, possibly accurate. Though the source is a single anonymous employee. There's no official statement from the company or much other factual evidence to support the claim.

Vice.com as a whole definitely has a left or centre-left point of view. Business Insider is mainly just an aggregator site that repeats the original article.

More about news organisations political leanings - https://www.google.com/search?q=vice...obile&ie=UTF-8

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by James

Interesting article, possibly accurate. Though the source is a single anonymous employee. There's no official statement from the company or much other factual evidence to support the claim.

Vice.com as a whole definitely has a left or centre-left point of view. Business Insider is mainly just an aggregator site that repeats the original article.

More about news organisations political leanings - https://www.google.com/search?q=vice...obile&ie=UTF-8

That's fair, however there are a couple of glaringly obvious counter points that spring up from your post.

Considering that conservatives take turns in kicking places like twitter for banning their far right opinions, which they then feed into their grievance movement, how likely are right wing sites to then report on issues like this? I've seen this reported on MSNBC previously, which admittedly is a primarily centre left news org, but they are a news org nonetheless.

Again, I agree on your point concerning the lack of concrete facts, but then then your original post that I was replying to was also guilty of that same flaw. You made a speculative assertion that was lacking in anything to back it up other than the whines and cries of those banned. Are they likely to be the most level headed of complainants?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That's fair, however there are a couple of glaringly obvious counter points that spring up from your post.

Considering that conservatives take turns in kicking places like twitter for banning their far right opinions, which they then feed into their grievance movement, how likely are right wing sites to then report on issues like this? I've seen this reported on MSNBC previously, which admittedly is a primarily centre left news org, but they are a news org nonetheless.

Again, I agree on your point concerning the lack of concrete facts, but then then your original post that I was replying to was also guilty of that same flaw. You made a speculative assertion that was lacking in anything to back it up other than the whines and cries of those banned. Are they likely to be the most level headed of complainants?

Lol at you being ever so politely rude to the big man...nice to see all the same.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Lol at you being ever so politely rude to the big man...nice to see all the same.

What does this mean?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

What does this mean?

Apparently Parm thinks a forum admin is akin to an authority figure of some sort ...

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you took issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilanant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you ook issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

Sure, that's what its supposed to mean, but it seems used at every opportunity, and never for its intended purpose.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dia.

Sure, that's what its supposed to mean, but it seems used at every opportunity, and never for its intended purpose.

Well yeah I get that, massively overused, like most words/phrases these days I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her. She didn't seem to get that its a very specific thing..and assumed it was just a way of putting blokes down. Like, some may see it that way, but its a very real (and specific) phenmenom.

I have never really understood what 'snowflake' was meant to be about though tbh. And these days, its just used for anyone (left or right, or centre) who gets pissed off about anything at all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her.

I didn't know that you and Kizzy were friends...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by James

I find the BBC to be fairly neutral. They try to report both sides of an argument. I guess programmes and sites like Sky News and ITV News too.

In terms of freedom of speech we have probably never had more of it, and never more access for people to get their views out into the world. However that is causing some problems.

Sky News blatantly favours the right wing of Politics imo.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

What does this mean?

It means you are very selective regarding who you insult when you disagree with them.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Sky News blatantly favours the right wing of Politics imo.

You are well out of Date
SkyNewsHD is now owned by NBC/Comcast USA

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It means you are very selective regarding who you insult when you disagree with them.

I don't insult anyone.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I don't insult anyone.

The trouble is some people think that when you disagree with them it is insulting
My way or no way basically

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

The trouble is some people think that when you disagree with them it is insulting
My way or no way basically

Some probably do...not me though.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her. She didn't seem to get that its a very specific thing..and assumed it was just a way of putting blokes down. Like, some may see it that way, but its a very real (and specific) phenmenom.

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

Are you mansplaining to Vicky

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

Well men have been patronising women for centuries so

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Are you mansplaining to Vicky

Would I do such a thing?

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well men have been patronising women for centuries so

Then use the word "patronising"

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Would I do such a thing?



Then use the word "patronising"

Mansplaining is more than just general patronising though, it's a whole sentence rolled into one handy word

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Mansplaining is more than just general patronising though, it's a whole sentence rolled into one handy word

tbh it just makes the user sound like a dismissive twat, thanks to its overuse, as you alluded to.

Plus, the origin of the word patronise clearly means the same thing

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

tbh it just makes the user sound like a dismissive twat, thanks to its overuse, as you alluded to.

Plus, the origin of the word patronise clearly means the same thing

Sure but that's not what patronise means today, is it? It's a general term and can apply to male/female/child/dog