If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
I don't know why you would think that is unpopular - I would say the default position of the majority of people is to assume that people who hold a different opinion from them are ignorant and misinformed (which is not to say they are).
What would be unusual (if not neccessarily unpopular) would be if you had said, "many opionions are, apparently, actually based on ignorance - including mine"
its not age, this forum is simply inclined towards the Guardian-reading left. plus ideological fanatics tend to make the most noise wherever you go so perception can be skewed. ultimately, the level of debate here is pretty shit these days but unfashionable ideas and ideologically touchy subjects have always been given a free hearing by the mods... hardline rightwingers, where they appeared and engaged, did spark some of the better threads and most interesting discourse that I can recall.
I think it is age, as a trend younger people are more progressive and older people more conservative
That's more what I was aiming for I think.
The impression I get from a lot of the younger people on here is if you aren't totally in favour of something then you're clearly 100% against it and should be vilified for it which in all honesty I think is utter BS. As well as this if you make a statement or comment which (if you had to rate such things) was say 90% giving a particular message there will always be some who will automatically assume you're saying the other 10%. It's like if you don't give long, detailed and verifiable reasons for your viewpoint then you're obviously some sort of narrow-minded '-ist'.
An example, some people get up in arms when a tv programme shows 2 men kissing. Although I don't go writing in a complaint to the BBC or anything, I don't like to watch that.
Does it mean I think it should be banned from tv? Of course not. Does it mean I hate (or dislike) gay people? Does it mean I'm against gay marriage? Nope? I just don't like to see it, in the same way I wouldn't want to watch an 80 year olf man and woman having a tongue sandwich on tv. Not saying either couple should be allowed to do it and if there IS a problem then it's with me.
But no, if I just said on here "I don't like watching gay men kissing on tv" then I'm sure I'd get the usual "Ooooh you gayist!!!" BS comments first. I guess it's just easier for some people to dive in with pre-conceived ideas first, rather than facts.
younger people are certainly idealistic and have more liberal attitudes towards sex, drugs and the like...but in terms of adherence to 'political correctness', I see a decline in hardline adherents. people who are constantly out to attack those who do not pay lip service to the dictats of neo-marxist ideology are a minority, young or old.
Sorry, "a lot" who exactly? Which "younger people" on here are you talking about?
I am one of the youngest, and I know most the other young people on here and hardly any of them have got involved with this thread. Shikari is one of the only ones, and he's 18 which is hardly "young" in comparison to some of us.
This doesn't mean I judge people or have prejudices against them for having any particular opinion but, it does tell a lot about them as a person.
So, maybe I haven't met any of you personally. It was nice to know a little bit about you all. :d
P.S: I enjoyed the debate along with popcorn and coke.
Not sure I said or implied I was referring to this thread. In fact I'm sure I made it clear I was talking about the forum in general.
Citing an example: I remember being about 8 (so we're talking circa 1982) and we had this half-caste/mixed race/whatever-the-least-offensive-expression-is lad in our class at school. As far as I can remember he joined in with all the games, there was nothing to suggest anyone had any sort of problem with him or vice versa but one day another kid (white) got in to an argument with him and called him 'blackie-sambo'. I doubt the kid was necessarily racist or even knew what the expression meant, but just wanted to be as offensive as possible.
Anyway the teacher came over, shouted and ranted at the white kid for what he said (she was a VERY scary woman, trust me a bollocking from her was more effective than any other school-approved punishment at the time) and the matter ended there.
Nowadays I'm sure the reaction from the school would have been VERY different.
would depend on the teacher's decision to either leave it at a bollocking or take it further though, surely? either way, its an older generation responsible for enforcing harsher discipline in response to 'discrimination'. ideological fanatics have been pushing this since the '60s generation after generation, over time they have ratcheted it up to what we have now but that doesn't mean kids generally are becoming more egalitarian. it's a top-down process pushed by what was both then & now a small political cadre with a sinister agenda hidden by a veneer of 'equality' and 'humanitarianism' with a hefty dose of moral self-righteousness providing what you could say is the carrot on the stick. that carrot does not entice the majority, never has and never will, although for some the stick is threatening enough to pay lip service when required.
Gramsci's 'march through the institutions', the redefinition of marxist class war by the Frankfurt School and the postmodernist project have had their heyday tho' - the consequences in practice of that bullshit is clearer than ever and and those otherwise inclined to accept it to whatever extent are now turning against it. eg. 3rd wave feminists and of course the younger generations of gay and jewish people increasingly flirting with the populist hard-Right as as a means to safeguard their liberties and rights against the demographic implications of uncontrolled mass immigration and imminence of Islamic voting blocs.
a victim of their own success, the lunatic left has fucked itself on various fronts - a failure in its own superficial terms undoubtedly, as was communism in the 20th Century with mass-democide the result. and yet, both served their function in the 'bigger picture'...something those who cannot understand PC as anything beyond a courtesy to avoid hurt feelings will likely never comprehend.
I didn't mean it in a direct correlation, but rather on aggregate that seems to be the understood trend. Hence why politics generally is more conservative than a broad cross section of society, because older people are more heavily represented in democracy (voting demographics and funding).
But that's not to say that younger = automatically more progressive.
Yo don't be throwing round my person details
I don't think you should abandon your beliefs. There are three worldviews people often hold about the systems we have in place:
1. They're there because they work. Would we have become the industrial power we were if we were tied up with gay rights and unions? It was the brutal focus on bring the best that enabled us to be the best in a dog eat dog world.
2. The systems are there because they work, but they won't change themselves even for the better. Women's suffrage and workplace participation has brought about an increase in standards of living for everyone. The system works but we need to use our judgement as well to make changes where necessary.
3. The systems are broken. Over the last several thousand years the same exploitation has always occurred and even as things change, the more they stay the same. At the current rate of progress, it will be at least 500 years before we have equal representation in the house of commons. And that's ignoring race. We have seen time and time again as society goes to war the powerful gain and the disenfranchised die. Even today in effectively a depression now the most powerful are getting wealthier at a faster rate than they ever have. The largest companies are sitting on piles of cash so big they can't physically spend it whilst more and more people are made homeless, unable to afford to eat and keep themselves warm, and mortality rates are rising for the poor. The cycle can only be broken by radical intervention.
Of course, none of these worldviews are wrong, it just depends how you see the world.
Is gingerism racism? If so, why? If so, why not?
because gingers aren't a race
I think a lot of it was driven by an inverted snobbery, with the wrong belief that it's only toffs that did it. I think those that believe they've actually saved any foxes from suffering are kidding themselves.
I kind of agree. I was anti fox hunting based on the burns inquiry which stated pretty much it inflicted 'cruel and unnecessary suffering' on Foxes. I've always been an animal lover, so that was my angle.
Has the ban changed anything? Not really. Most hunts still hunt Foxes as the people involved are not the kind who are worried about the law. The police have better things to do. There was a recent hunt master who was convicted of illegally and deliberately hunting foxes (accidentally killing them if you're pretending to trail hunt is fine), he got a fine for a few thousand. I'm sure that will hurt considering being landed gentry is pretty much a prerequisite for being a hunt master.
It's still cruel and it's still wrong. But people are going to flaunt the law and get away with it. I think it's very much a case of picking the right battles.
There's nothing, I repeat, nothing that people should never joke about.
Certain individuals might be affected by certain kinds of jokes and that's why someone telling a joke should mind the "audience"; for example you wouldn't tell a joke about an old man in heaven to someone whose grandfather recently died, unless you knew they were ok with it.
If there's no reason to expect that someone in your "audience" is sensitive to a specific thing there is no reason to avoid telling a joke that mentions it or even uses it to produce humour.
If you think about it, there's practically no joke at all that couldn't conceivably be offensive to someone because of their personal sensitivities. It's all about how many people who have such a sensitivity you expect to see it.
Example: "Why did the chicken cross the road?" "To get to the other side."
That's offensive to Jason who had a pet chicken he loved as if it was a child and got killed by a car while crossing the road. Who are you to tell Jason that it's not a good enough reason robe offended, even if it applies only to him in the entire world? Is it really more ok to joke about this because it offends fewer people than other things?
That doesn't seem like a lot of fun
Nor is criticising the Israeli government anti-Semitism, while we're at it.