Topic: Re: "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" (Read 299 times)

That's an interesting point. Thanks for raising it.

I wouldn't say it's a paradox, but there are certainly areas of conflict between the two ideals of making sure that people are treated fairly, and making sure that different cultures are valued. I don't think it's possible to have a perfect solution for this. The hijab ban in France is perhaps one of the most prominent examples and illustrates the distinction between people and cultures. Presumably France do not want to ban the hijab in Muslim-governed countries, in that culture... but they do in their own country... for their own people (and, of course, their own culture). Which then provokes the question of whether a Muslim migrant to France from say Iraq is part of a Muslim culture, or a French culture, or an Iraqi culture (or a Muslim person, French person, Iraqi person). The answer of course being all three (or all six)... which is where a conflict can arise. Often in practice the thing that takes precedence is the culture of the country in which the person resides, in this case French culture supersedes Iraqi or Muslim culture. Which then provokes the question of whether a nation can truly be multi-cultural in the fullest sense of the word. I suppose a good answer to this question is how that nation resolves (or attempts to resolve) these conflicts.

The path to treating everyone equally and fairly is not always clear, but progress is certainly being made. We are moving slowly in the right direction.



I've not looked into it, no. It might be an interesting investigation for the future.

Regarding what we have been talking about, I would like to ask your opinion about a curious phenomenon that I have been observing for years and that I have come to call the leftist paradox. On the one hand, we must be tolerant of other cultures. And on the other hand, we have to adopt measures to achieve 100% equality between women and men or between gays and straights, for example.

I don't know how this is compatible with the growing muslim population in the UK and other countries. I know that not all Muslims are as radical as others, but I would say that in general they don't exactly have an egalitarian view of the roles of men and women, not to mention homosexuals. The Muslim world has not overcome the conflict between reason and faith, which in the Western world began to be overcome with the condemnation of Galileo and I would say that had its highest peak during the Enlightenment.

When I see criticisms of patriarchy, I see that they are more directed at patriarchy of Judeo-Christian origin, but not so much at the Muslim worldview.

So, this is the paradox that I see: we are tolerant of other cultures, but in this case the Muslim culture has a vision that is not egalitarian of the roles between men and women or of homosexuals, something that conflicts with our principles, but in this case we either keep quiet or minimize it.

I don't know if you have any statistics in this regard. You do have some good reasoning for sure.

Yes, that's right. And I would suspect as with demonstrations on many different subjects, that any violence would be due in large part to people who just want any excuse to cause trouble and so will attach themselves to anything where there's a chance of conflict with the police.


I understand completely. When moon? Where lambo?

That is precisely what is supposedly wrong. It is taken as a symbol of the so-called heteropatriarchal society, macho, therefore. Add to that the fact that the road to equality is being taken more as a fight than a collaboration, and we see senseless consequences like this.

Maybe I am too old for this, but this doesn't seem like a taboo too me. For the last few hundred years this was a common way to start a speech. What should be wrong with it now? The only thing that comes to mind would be that we are offending all these "non binary" sexes which came to life recently. It doesn't matter that biology only has the male and female gender for the human race, if someone feels like something complete new than of course we need to respect it. This is so wrong in our society.

I don't say that.


Of course and just this week I donated money in person to a person who needed it.


Yes, of course I know. As I was saying, statistics do not serve to prove in most cases but if you support your arguments on them at least you give them more strength.


Yeah, well, I don't know if you think that 220 violent demostrations are not many. Although I understand that you don't support the violent demonstrations, but you do support the majority that were non-violent, is that right?

Going back to what I was saying, they went out to the street to demonstrate and I don't demostrate. I'm just expressing my opposition in writing.

By the way, I enjoy the debate although in this case it does not look like we are going to reach points of agreement. The only thing is that you give me a lot of work to answer you, and I am tempted to stop debating with you and start shitposting instead.

 

I wouldn't use the word 'victim'.
But surely it is better to be concerned about those who are oppressed or treated unfairly than to simply say 'This doesn't affect me personally, so I'm not interested'?
Have you ever donated money to a charity?



We may appear to have digressed, but I'd argue that it is all relevant to the thread. Regardless of whether the "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" issue is simply an anti-SJW tactic to rile people up and create outrage out of nothing, it's interesting that people are outraged - or at least irritated. I'd suggest that there is a considerable overlap between those irritated/outraged by the "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" issue and those who equate BLM with, as below, the phrase 'vandalize and riot'.  



You know how much I love posting charts and links to data...

_{https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020}

I would add to this that any prominent and well-publicised demonstration, on whatever subject, is likely to be joined by some people who don't care about the cause but just want to fight the police.

its not making laws to force mixing
its repealing laws that forced segregation

but if you want to have new laws.here is a simple few
have banks actually get vetted regularly.. if mcdonalds can do 'mystery shopping' then banks should too.. send in some undercover regulators both with the same credit rating. one white. one black.
and see if they are given the same mortgage offer.. fine the bank if not
or skip the mystery shop and go straight to the audits
have auditors check all mortgage contracts based on race. and look at their credit rating to find comparable black vs white contracts.

we are in the 21st century of AI. sifting through 50million mortgages can be done in like 7 minutes or less

I have also been stopped in my car when I was young simply for being young, playing loud music and looking a certain way.

If we do not have reliable data, we can only speculate.


You don't feel you are a victim but you tend to see others as victims, women, blacks, Amazon workers...


Well, I guess we are not going to agree on this, unlike other times. For me, this loose statistics thing proves little. Certain statistics can be used to support an opinion but little else. It would be necessary to see what the difference is due to.


It goes to your original point but not the point of this thread. Do you support the BLM movement? If they can vandalize and riot I don't see why it is wrong that I and others express our disagreement with the politically correct trend.

I'm not sure if this has been studied much, so the evidence is largely made up of many individual cases, such as the gold-medal winning black athlete who was stopped by police because 'black people in fancy cars are suspicious', or when black billionaire Oprah Winfrey was looking at an expensive handbag, and was told she couldn't afford it.



I would say I'm left-wing, but I don't feel that I'm a victim at all.



'Better than ever' is relative, and as you say we are not yet 100% equal... for which the evidence is overwhelming. As an example, some data released today on the situation in the UK:

Which I think just goes back to my original point. People being irritated by revised terminology is not the biggest problem here.

I partly agree, but how would you do it? I'm far from believing that the solution lies in a politician making laws to force mixing people in neighborhoods.


I think this is the first time in all this time that I completely agree with you.

chicken or egg
blacks fear cops in their neighbourhood more then white folk fear cops in white neighbourhoods
the solution is not about black or white neighbourhoods.. the solution is integrating people together and uniting people so that there is no separate neighbourhoods
..
putting aside that debate
there is also aot of pressure being put on about slavery.. and yet there is not one single person alive today that was a slave or slave master.
100+ years ago. all living slaves got compensated. and all slave masters no longer had slaves.

yet 150 years later its being pressured to act like its a common problem of the 21st century that needs solving
.. a problem that was solved 100+ years ago

most blacks do not actually care about slavery because they know they are not slaves. but its the SJW and media portraying that its a current event

people cant move forward if the SJW and media are playing games that have nothing to do with current realities

the message of wanting real world current event equality gets misrepresented by the crap SJW and media blare out about non current events.

blacks dont want segregation. LGBTQ dont want segregation... but the SJW are the idiots who are promoting labels and classifications to segregate people

First of all, you are only comparing feeling annoyed by one thing or another but you are not comparing the reaction. BLM caused riots in the streets, with arson, looting, etc. I am just complaining in an internet forum. I don't know if you mean my reaction is overreacting or something.

Moreover, do you really think this is going to make blacks feel less upset about having a higher probability of being killed?



Source: Billy Porter reinvents the fairy godmother as 'the Fab G' in Kay Cannon's Cinderella: First look

The problem is more complex than boiling it down to statistics like assuming it is simply due to racism, which I suppose it will be in some cases, but if you are a cop patrolling in a mostly black hood I say you will be more nervous and fear for your life than if you are in a predominantly white middle class neighborhood.

How many of those blacks killed were NBA players? Or doctors of quantum physics? Maybe we don't have to count only the variable of ethnicity but take into account socio-cultural and economic factors as well.


You'd better have a socialist mentality, or left-wing, or liberal in the US, whatever you want to call it. That way you will feel a victim no matter what your condition is (female, gay etc.) and you'll believe that the state has to come to rescue you.


Not really. Are you talking about Afghanistan? I don't think so, and neither do I, since I referred to developed countries. In the vast majority of developed countries, such as the UK where you say you live, gays are better off than ever, have more rights than ever, are harassed less than ever and are treated better than ever. This is not the case in all developed countries, and we are not yet 100% equal, but we are on the way.


I don't know if you have noticed but I am not a traditionalist, at least I don't consider myself one. I am an atheist, and in moral issues, I could be considered a leftist, because, for example, I think it is good that two people of the same sex can marry on equal terms as other marriages (of opposite sexes).

The problem I see is not that there is a small compensation with respect to traditional discrimination, but that in a historical moment where minorities are less discriminated against than ever, and where even if the public authorities did nothing, they would be increasingly normalized, certain measures that are taken, are a rather big compensation.

no one gives a crap

SJW just want to poke at something hoping that particular SJW gets to be famous for being the 'founder' of a new trend

they have no desire to actually go to court and change laws. no desire to actually get politicians to change
they just want to start a community group on social media of people with certain aggression topics. just to make themselves feel relevant

the funny part is transgenders want to just be treated as the after surgury gender. they dont want a label of limbo gender in the middle. they jut want to be treated as normal
they are not fighting for new labels as that just segregates them. they want inclusion not exclusion
and so trying to get people to define dozens of labels is not the acts of those just wanting acceptance and get on with their lives.

the SJW trying to define new labels are not doing it for the trans/non-binary community. they are doing it for their own fame of founding their new label

Yes, that's my point, really. The distinction about feeling annoyed because of political correctness and feeling annoyed because you are more likely to be murdered.


Nowadays if you want to experience victimisation, harassment, bullying and general unfair treatment because of your sexuality, you better be trans or gay.

... that kind of distinction, between the importance of things in movies and the importance of things in reality.

There is an unpleasant trend whereby when any minority group seeks empowerment, fairness, representation, then there are those who oppose it. There are people who, when they are told 'black lives matter', decide for some unknown reason that the phrase is preceded by a silent 'only', when that is quite obviously not the case. This is why the phrase 'all lives matter' is so obnoxious... because BLM already means all lives matter. I have a fundamental moral objection to the 'what-about-me'ism from majority groups whenever a minority attempts to be heard.

The purpose of 'political correctness' is not to evoke slight annoyance from the traditionalists who like bias because it's in their favour. The purpose is to address historic wrongs, and if sometimes there is an inadvertent degree of overcompensation, then surely this is a price worth paying?

Love your sarcasm, even in a matter as sad as this one.

I was obviously talking about the media and political correctness and not so much about painful realities like that.

Also gays are still discriminated against in many parts of the world, sometimes even in developed countries, which I am obviously against.

Yes, exactly. And it's quite an indictment of humanity that the tactic is so successful.



Unless you want to be attacked or murdered by the actual police instead of Dirty Harry, in which case statistically it's much better to be black...

Not really a taboo i think, The scope of english language and it's use has evolved, there are some new context that need and require a specific kind of English word to describe it. Hence the need to constantly upgrade and update your vocabulary so as not to use an outdated grammar for a modern day description or situation.
  Instead of using "Good morning ladies and gentlemen", use " Good morning distinguished guests" which is more appropriate for modern day use and less gender selective.

not necessarily, but it is in the trend, so definitely the producers will ride this trend. It is like what do we call it "ENTERTAINMENT 101".

You can't just disregard the trend when making something, you must ride the trend and let it do some works for the movie to be a click.

Though Like what I said, it is not necessarily.

You are not addressing all of the genders. You will need to address all 58 genders. Even the number of genders is fluid.

I imagine it goes along the lines of the criminalization of the white heterosexual male that we can see for a few years now. Kind of like Clint Eastwood. Nowadays if you want to be the protagonist of a movie you better be trans or gay, vegan, mulatto and with hair of various phosphorescent colors.

It is not really a taboo, just to be sure that you are ready to defend yourself whenever you encounter some people who will fight for "How about the transgender, gay, lesbian, etc"

I support the community for giving them rights that is supposed to be given to them but being taken. But it is too much, and I'm ready to fight back whenever this would happen to me 

It's a common anti-SJW tactic to claim that SJWs (which are a poorly-defined group in the first place) are trying to "ban" certain practices on the grounds that they're "offensive" to certain minorities (in this case transgender and non-binary people), despite said minorities usually not actually being offended or wanting anything banned. They're just trying to make SJWs look bad by stirring up drama where none exists. See also: the "War on Christmas" and the more-or-less complete lack of fucks given by actual religious people of various denominations about whether people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays", for example.

it's not really taboo to say it. but it is somewhat taboo or offensive in some parts of the world because of the identity politics and SJW stuff going on in the US or other western or European countries. if a well-known person or almost anyone says that at public gatherings and such, there is ought to be someone who is going to complain about it and say discrimination for leaving out other genders that exist.

Can someone explain to me exactly how this is taboo? It sounds very illogical to me.

(Did not want to derail main topic)