Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

jank

Remember the time Universities was bastion of free speech and where vigorous debate was encouraged? Well that as so last century. Welcome to 21st century Britain where left wing group think is official university policy, sensitivity courses are 'mandatory' in an effort to screen out 'pre-rape' criminals, page 3 or a pop song can damage students mental wellbeing and where denying people a platform to speak is welcomed.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’

Their eyes glazed with moral certainty, they explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour and that is why it is right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus. ‘We have the right to feel comfortable,’ they all said, like a mantra. One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Pre-rapists! Had any of them read Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals, I asked? None had.

Barely a week goes by without reports of something ‘offensive’ being banned by students. Robin Thicke’s rude pop ditty ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned in more than 20 universities. Student officials at Balliol College, Oxford, justified their ban as a means of ‘prioritising the wellbeing of our students’. Apparently a three-minute pop song can harm students’ health. More than 30 student unions have banned the Sun, on the basis that Page Three could turn all those pre-rapists into actual rapists. Radical feminist students once burned their bras — now they insist that models put bras on. The union at UCL banned the Nietzsche Society on the grounds that its existence threatened ‘the safety of the UCL student body’.

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style

Turtwig

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

Absolam

Well, I'd certainly be dubious of anyone who said ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’
It's sounds like fascist tactics from hippies... the mind boggles. Maybe I just need some coffee.

jank

It seems that young university types who would think themselves as liberal are actually quite conservative. Banning the Sun newspaper, pop songs and books that does not fit their moral compass or outlook. It sounds like the 1950's only with extra bandwidth.

I would certainly be against mandatory sensitivity training brain washing as portrayed here.

Absolam

National service will sort them out. Digging a few ditches in the Sudan never did anyone any harm.

Peregrinus

Adolescents are notoriously conformist. There is nothing new in this. They think of themselves as radical, independent, etc because they reject the expectations or demands of parents and authority figures, but in fact the real pressure is to conform to the expectations or demands of their peers. And they generally do conform, and demand conformity from their peers.

But so what? This applies to the right and the left equally.

MrPudding

Turtwig wrote: »

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

Yeah, I think the pre-rapist term is unhelpful, but I would support helping people to realise just now easy it is to get on the wrong side of current consent rules.

I distinctly remember, when I was much younger, guy saying 'I pulled a drunk bird last night' or even 'go for the drunk ones, easier to get a shag'. Whether one approved or not, and this is not the place for that discussion, pulling 'drunk birds' and having sex with them is pretty risky now, and just how risky might not be apparently to horny 18 year old students.

For what it's worth, whilst I am relatively happy with this consent training, I do agree with some of the other points in the OP. There does seem to be a trend, or at least a risk of a trend, of people trying so hard to be liberal and PC the effect is one of conservatism and intolerance, or tolerance of that which should not be tolerated. Perhaps an example of one of my favourite sayings 'go far enough to the left and you will meet someone coming round from the right.'

MrP

magicbastarder

i got as far as the second quote box, and with the first line - 'Their eyes glazed with moral certainty' - i quit reading. sounds like the journalist is on his own little campaign.

fisgon

Just wondering why this is in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? Maybe it is just my impression, or is the OP expecting some kind of defence by atheists of the students' tactics and attitudes?

Firstly I think it is obvious that the writer of the piece does have a very clear agenda. He went looking for certain phenomena, and found what he was looking for.

Secondly, I have no doubt that some of the intolerance and PC taken too far is happening on British campuses, it has been on some American campuses for years now. There is a kind of conformity, that is not liberalism at all, in certain universities, an unquestioning acceptance of dogma that is almost religious among certain student bodies.

Again, I find it interesting that the OP has put this here, in A&A. I have no problem with it being posted, I just think it is amusing that there seems to be an assumption by the OP that we are all liberals, that we would all be on the side of intolerant students. If this is not the case, then why is it here? There is nothing in the story about religion or atheism. It seems to be some kind of answer to the "Republican fruit cakes" thread, but that is mainly about religious Republicans and so is more relevant.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Welcome to 21st century Britain where left wing group think is official university policy

Far as I can make out, this seems to be an instance of what I suppose you could call "extreme feminism" which I think most people here find objectionable. Though I should say that the article, insofar as I read it, appears to be an opinion piece and not a piece of factual journalism documenting some instance of religious silliness.

GLaDOS

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style

This seems like a clear case of twats getting pulled up on being twats.

Tabnabs

ScienceNerd wrote: »

This seems like a clear case of twats getting pulled up on being twats.

That's just a token of what they are accused of doing:

Allegations

As well as the practices detailed within the booklet and the current investigation, the LSE’s student union has allegedly reported they’ve previously received four complaints made against the men’s rugby club dating back to 2010, these allegations include:

‘Blacking up’, dressing as Guantanamo Bay detainees and imitating prayers as Muslim students exited Friday prayers.

Taking part in Nazi themed drinking games on tour, leading to a Jewish student’s nose being broken.

Causing significant damage to university property.

Running naked through the university and urinating on university buildings.

http://www.artefactmagazine.com/2014/10/23/lse-rugby-team-disbanded-for-offensive-leaflets/

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Far as I can make out, this seems to be an instance of what I suppose you could call "extreme feminism" which I think most people here find objectionable. Though I should say that the article, insofar as I read it, appears to be an opinion piece and not a piece of factual journalism documenting some instance of religious silliness.

"Extreme" anything is wrong, just like the weather being "too hot" or "too cold". If it's "too" anything, it's objectionable.

That being said, the article in the OP reads more like "I have to take other people's feelings into account when I say or do something? What is this? Nazi Germany?!" rather than making a coherent, salient point about whether some of the measures to promote tolerance and prevent offense have gone "too" far.

RayM

One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

I'd personally find that quite patronising and unnecessary... but then, I'm not a clueless seventeen-year-old undergraduate, fresh out of secondary school, having received only the most rudimentary sex education - most of which involved being told to stop sniggering whenever the word 'vagina' was uttered. It's aimed towards educating those who might not fully understand the concepts of consent and boundaries.

Links234

Posted this before about the whole Blurred Lines being "banned" thing...

Can I just point out that in no meaningful way has Blurred Lines been banned? Because really, has anyone's ability to purchase the song been taken away? Or has their ability to listen to the song been curtailed? Just read some of the links you provided, and the so-called "ban" amounts to little more than removing it from a playlist:

Derby and the University of the West of Scotland follow Leeds and Edinburgh and remove 'degrading' song from playlists in student bars

UCLU women's officer Beth Sutton tweeted: "UCLU have just passed motion to not play blurred lines in union spaces & events. Solidarity with all survivors!"

A student union deciding that they're not going to play it at their events is the big bad nasty real world impact that extremist feminism has brought about? Despite sensationalist use of the word banned, the song hasn't actually been banned or censored at all, nobody has been stopped from buying the song or listening to the song. Saying that Blurred Lines has been banned would be like if I rang up a radio station and asked them to play Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse, and they said erm, no we're not going to play that and me throwing a tantrum saying they've banned Hammer Smashed Face!

The whole article reads like right-winger circlejerking about "liberal fascists"

jank

Penn wrote: »

"Extreme" anything is wrong, just like the weather being "too hot" or "too cold". If it's "too" anything, it's objectionable.

That being said, the article in the OP reads more like "I have to take other people's feelings into account when I say or do something? What is this? Nazi Germany?!" rather than making a coherent, salient point about whether some of the measures to promote tolerance and prevent offense have gone "too" far.

Taking feelings into account is something most people do everyday when dealing with people face to face in their daily lives. Banning a pop song from a campus because it may 'interfere' with a students mental wellbeing is just plain ol authoritarianism.

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wade through any delusionist propoganda written in the speccie. That magazine is the soi-disant intellectual rightists version of the Daily Heil

@Ray, I've read in a number of places (not least in the Graun's Life & Style and Education sections) that these are a considered a very valuable inclusion to the curriculum both by instructors and students (after they've done the course). When you consider the state of sexual education in the UK, which can range from the worst of fundie excesses to very good depending on how bolshie the principal is in the secondary you send the kids to, but is on average only slightly better than Ireland's, these are probably a necessary item.

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

Penn

jank wrote: »

Taking feelings into account is something most people do everyday when dealing with people face to face in their daily lives. Banning a pop song from a campus because it may 'interfere' with a students mental wellbeing is just plain ol authoritarianism.

I wasn't specifically linking "taking other people's feelings into account" or mental wellbeing with the Blurred Lines song. I was speaking more generally.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wade through any delusionist propoganda written in the speccie. That magazine is the soi-disant intellectual rightists version of the Daily Heil

Well if you are not going to read it why comment?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

Oh, don't worry. There is plenty of more material to cover.

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

I wasn't specifically linking "taking other people's feelings into account" or mental wellbeing with the Blurred Lines song. I was speaking more generally.

We need not care for the "feelings" of "special snowflakes", Rand be praised!

Really enjoyed the thread title.

Also agreed with some of the article. The worry about the 'political compass' is that just like on the planet, you can head West and end up East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPcjm-X5GQ

pH

Turtwig wrote: »

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

So you don't find the concept of generalising this rapeyness to "a lot of men" disgusting? So you're also happy that a lot of black men don't understand the concept of no meaning no, and also traveller men, muslim men and jewish men?

As long as we're not dealing with the specific individuals that actually commit sex crimes, but we're happy to generalize to a "lot of men", I'm sure you'd support the idea of having awareness programs for muslims not to suicide bomb and also black people not to steal, I'm sure you'd agree that a "lot" of black people steal?

Or are men the current acceptable hate group, where it's totes OK to harass, mock, "re-educate", castigate and belittle all men, and none of this is exactly the same thing as blacks, jews, muslims and women have been fighting for for years?

fisgon

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

shruikan2553

I'm a student myself so see this kind of crap now and again. Thankfully in Ireland it isnt as bad as other places but there can still be elements of it. What you'll find is the people pushing for these things tend to be the only people who cares, hundreds if not thousands of students couldnt care less and just try to avoid their petty rants. I have seen the kind of crap idiots like this do, they try to get in charge of societies just to push their own agenda. Get someone on their side into power and then use that connection to get the opinion of less than 50 people put forward as an idea.

What people also need to realise is there are rules for societies and clubs, they are seen as representing the college or university and what they do can have an affect on how people see the university. If they allowed a KKK society then the college would be afraid of being seen as a racist place but if such a thing was stopped you have people like the writer of the article going "ohhh, no free speech eh? Oppressing people just because they have a different viewpoint?".

The whole consent thing is stupid and incredibly condescending. "Now shruikan, I see you managed to get into college but you are probably a bit thick, and youre a man so we better remind you that rape is bad"

Peregrinus

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

I think that's the point that Jank is making. Over on the long-established right-wing loonies thread there are plenty of instances of people drawing attention to right-wing silliness that seems wholly unrelated to religion, perpetrated by people whose own religious stance is either unknown or irrelevant. Nobody ever seems to comment on the fact that the silliness being laughed at has nothing to do with religion.

Laughing at stupid white people is good clean fun for all the family; I like to feel superior as much as the next guy. But the hosting of such a thread on the A&A board, with no expectation that posters will link the silliness to religion, plays to a certain stereotype of atheists as inherently liberal and moderate, and theists as inherently reactionary and conservative. These stereotypes are of course crude generalisations, and atheists who should be promoting scepticism and critical awareness should be more interested in challenging them than in affirming them.

I think both the left-wing silliness and the right-wing silliness threads are misconceived. They should be replaced with a single thread on silliness in public policy, whether right, left or less easily classified, but which is demonstrably related to religion, or attitudes to religion.

robindch

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged?

It's not being ignored

Part of the problem appears to be that people who self-describe as "right-wing" or "conservative", and sometimes "religious", appear believe that people who don't share their views can be described with disjunctive terms like "left-wing" and "liberal" (in the strange, restrictive sense of the term common in the US).

In all of this, there appears to be little interest in reaching any common, realistic understanding of who people are, what they do, how they believe society should be structured, and much more interest in constructing terms to refer to people, the better to be able to reform the complex reality of a three-dimensional person with complex opinions as two-dimensional cutouts, cardboard if possible, the better to be able to poke holes.

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

The article must be considered in the context of which it is written. We're getting at best a second hand account of events that occurred with all the efforts in the world to make it sound as nasty and as a terrible as possible.

So you don't find the concept of generalising this rapeyness to "a lot of men" disgusting? So you're also happy that a lot of black men don't understand the concept of no meaning no, and also traveller men, muslim men and jewish men?

I hate the word disgust. I do find it strongly disagreeable. No to the second question.

As long as we're not dealing with the specific individuals that actually commit sex crimes, but we're happy to generalize to a "lot of men", I'm sure you'd support the idea of having awareness programs for muslims not to suicide bomb and also black people not to steal, I'm sure you'd agree that a "lot" of black people steal?

Now you've just gone and done what this journalist did. Maybe my opinions lie somewhere along the less extreme end of spectrum?

I'm all in favour of an education program for all sexes that explores the concept of consensual sex. The generalisation was reportedly made by one guy by the way. It's not actually clear where the term 'pre-rapists' originates. Conceptually from him, the author of the article, or from the actual education that was given to people. The latter I'd object with. The former two couldn't really care less.

Or are men the current acceptable hate group, where it's totes OK to harass, mock, "re-educate", castigate and belittle all men, and none of this is exactly the same thing as blacks, jews, muslims and women have been fighting for for years?

I'm sure some people hate men, as do others hate women. I hate neither.

jank

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

Where did I assume this? Posting something does not mean I am projecting.

Many many things are posted in A&A that have nothing to do with atheism or religion but we still debate other things, like this one. This has been given the OK by the mods.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think both the left-wing silliness and the right-wing silliness threads are misconceived. They should be replaced with a single thread on silliness in public policy, whether right, left or less easily classified, but which is demonstrably related to religion, or attitudes to religion.

Bear in mind that the threads have evolved over the years - hazards was/is for regular peeps clobbering themselves one way or another with religion. Fruitcakes was originally for religiously-inspired silliness from the republican side in the 2012 US presidential election. After the election, the thread title changed to Republican fruitcakes, as there were few if any reports from religious silliness from the Democratic party. Then after that, the thread expanded to cover international right-wing fruitcakes in the widest sense as there were fruitcakes from outside the US too. There is a recent "Religion and the Law" which is for all those stories about religious people creating, and trying to create, laws to benefit themselves and their religious beliefs. The threads do make sense when viewed in terms of where they came from.

And, as above, and elsewhere ad meam nauseam, I don't think the terms "left" and "right" contribute to any useful debate anyway - if any distinction is to be made, the liberal/authoritarian divide seems more meaningful and more likely to lead to a useful debate. The discussions I've seen using the terms "left" and "right" tend to erode into a slagging match before much time has passed.

fisgon

jank wrote: »

Where did I assume this? Posting something does not mean I am projecting.

Many many things are posted in A&A that have nothing to do with atheism or religion but we still debate other things, like this one. This has been given the OK by the mods.

Actually not "many" threads that have nothing to do with atheism or religion are posted, in fact I can't find any on the first page of A&A. This is the only one.
You still haven't explained why you have posted it here.

Maybe I can help you out. The OP is clearly an attempt at point-scoring, a kind of "look, you guys are bonkers too". Except you have missed your mark, as you are equating "left-wing" with "atheist", which is not in any way coherent. You seem to be trying to score points against atheists, or at least what you seem to think atheists are, by referencing an opinion piece that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or religion.

If I am wrong, then maybe you can be clear about why this thread is in A&A.

fisgon

fisgon wrote: »

Actually not "many" threads that have nothing to do with atheism or religion are posted, in fact I can't find any on the first page of A&A. This is the only one.
You still haven't explained why you have posted it here.

Maybe I can help you out. The OP is clearly an attempt at point-scoring, a kind of "look, you guys are bonkers too". Except you have missed your mark, as you are equating "left-wing" with "atheist", which is not in any way coherent. You seem to be trying to score points against atheists, or at least what you seem to think atheists are, by referencing an opinion piece that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or religion.

If I am wrong, then maybe you can be clear about why this thread is in A&A.

It has the same 'merits' (rightly or wrongly) as this existing thread surely?
Half-baked Fruitcakes + Conserves

Perhaps jank has highlighted that just as you have read this thread as installing the inference "left wing = atheist" and rightly pointed out that this is unfair, the "right wing = religious" inference of the other thread isn't fair?

The thread title "Religious influence on Politics" doesn't have as good a ring to it though.

fisgon

Deleted User wrote: »

It has the same 'merits' (rightly or wrongly) as this existing thread surely?
Half-baked Fruitcakes + Conserves

Perhaps jank has highlighted that just as you have read this thread as installing the inference "left wing = atheist" and rightly pointed out that this is unfair, the "right wing = religious" inference of the other thread isn't fair?

The thread title "Religious influence on Politics" doesn't have as good a ring to it though.

Yes, I think the link with the other Republican thread is obvious. Only, the OP of the other thread mentions that Michele Bachman has said that god wants her to run for president. There is constant mention of Republicans' appeals to god's will throughout the thread, it may descend into discussions of other topics, but religion and the Republican party is a constant theme right through. The connection between "Christian" and "Republican" in the US is not absolute, but there is certainly a connection.

In this OP, there is zero mention of religion, zero mention of atheism, zero reference to any of the usual themes discussed in this forum. People are imputing rationale to Jank, - "perhaps Jank has highlighted.."... "I think that is the point Jank is making..." etc. though this is giving the OP too much credit. In the "fruitcake" thread, there are constant references to Republicans and god, in this thread there is nothing of any relevance to A&A. He is not making any kind of point, he is simply trying, clumsily, to score points, and utterly failing.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Fruitcakes was originally for religiously-inspired silliness from the republican side in the 2012 US presidential election. After the election, the thread title changed to Republican fruitcakes, as there were few if any reports from religious silliness from the Democratic party. Then after that, the thread expanded to cover international right-wing fruitcakes in the widest sense as there were fruitcakes from outside the US too . . . I don't think the terms "left" and "right" contribute to any useful debate anyway.

See, there's your problem. The US Republicans have a distinctive and explicit religious character - or, at least, they have a highly visible wing with such a character - but this is much less true of the corresponding movements elsewhere - UKIP, the Front Nationale, etc. Once the thread "internationalised" the right-wing = religious equation was untenable, and as matters turned out it choose to focus on right-wing nuttery, whether religious or not, rather than religion-related nuttery, whether right-wing or not. For a thread hosted in A&A, a focus on religion-related nuttery would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps the way forward is to kill off both the current threads and open a new one with a more conscious focus on religion-related nuttery. If there are to be two contrasting threads, they they probably should be nuttery inspired by religion, and nuttery inspired by antipathy to religion. (Though, FWIW, probably better just to have one thread.)

Karl Stein

fisgon wrote: »

In the "fruitcake" thread, there are constant references to Republicans and god. He is not making any kind of point, he is simply trying, clumsily, to score points, and utterly failing.

'You guys are just as bad'.

As you say this thread is little more than a failed attempt at point-scoring by trying to draw parallels between college students being all studenty, in a non-religious kinda way, and Religious Republican fruitcakes who are in the halls of power and who get to vote for wars and against marriage equality.

Turtwig

Mod:

This thread is currently the designated thread for all things lefty that could be considered fruitcakes. This is of course subject to change. Any discussion on the legitimacy of this thread should happen in feedback.

Thanks

jank

Well it would seem that the reporter in this Spectator article has an unlikely ally in Chris Rock (and indirectly George Carlin who is often mentioned here)

http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html

What do you make of the attempt to bar Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley for his riff on Muslims?

Well, I love Bill, but I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.

In their political views?

Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of “We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.” Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say “the black kid over there.” No, it’s “the guy with the red shoes.” You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.

When did you start to notice this?

About eight years ago. Probably a couple of tours ago. It was just like, This is not as much fun as it used to be. I remember talking to George Carlin before he died and him saying the exact same thing.

So, what has happened in the last 10 years or so that has brought about this religious devotion to political correctness where the biggest modern sin is to offend someone or a group of people. Are we just more sensitive or just more tolerant whereby we are actually more intolerant to people who don't share our view points?

Turtwig

In short, people's conformist nature haven't changed. The requirements of their culture has and they expect others to fit neatly into that culture.

That is very simplistic way of looking at it.

MrPudding

So here are a couple that i have trouble with...

I always though the NUS were fairly left leaning and liberal, so what is this all about?

I am not particularly familiar with the 'New Left Unity' party, but surely this is a little nutty?

MrP

Peregrinus

The NUS are following the old Sinn Fein line of rejecting the "politics of condemnation" - remember that one? It's not that they support IS; it's just that they don't see much being acheived by condemning them. Or something like that. To be honest, that's not a bad way of thinking if you're trying to break out of cycle of mutual recriminations which is intensify confrontation rather than resolving it, but you do need to have some alternative strategy for addressing the confrontation.

As for the New Left Unity party, it's very new - last week was it's first conference - but I think it basically aspires to be to the UK Labour Party what UKIP is to the Tory Party - a ginger group which, by taking a stance to the left of the Labour party and providing a voting alternative for disillusioned Labour supporters, will force the Labour party leftwards. From that point of view its policies don't have to be workable or even intrinsically rational; they just have to be visibly to the left of Labour.

shruikan2553

A black students' officer?

The SU has 0 power anyway, at most they will say they are against their actions, maybe arrange a few buses and pints to a protest.

Turtwig

Hozier's misogynistic now apparently.

(Shamelessly stolen from After Hours.)

pH

Turtwig wrote: »

Hozier's misogynistic now apparently.

(Shamelessly stolen from After Hours.)

There's some sort of dumb saying about nature abhorring a vacuum or some-such, but it really does seem that there *has* to be some group in society at all times tut-tutting and trying to enforce their morals via censorship and shunning on everyone else.

It's been a shock to me, that with the internet, and real freedom of speech and expression for billions of people that a small group of shrieking left-leaning "progressive" agitators have decided to use that power to attempt to silence others.

When you think of how something like Victoria's secrets would have been impossible in Catholic, conservative Ireland, it appears we have had only 15 years since ann summers opening its doors in Ireland, possibly signalling the end of a group of people who knew how to keep the Irish safe from themselves, before the eruption of a new group of tut-tutters, fighting the same old "evils" but this time for the "right" reasons.

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

Hozier's misogynistic now apparently.

(Shamelessly stolen from After Hours.)

What was the Irish pop star thinking performing at the Victoria’s Secret show?

'Invite to the party after, wahayy' I'd imagine.

PopePalpatine

OK, the only song of his that I've heard was "Take Me To Church", but surely his music would be a bit too dreary for something like a lingerie show?

Gbear

I've been trying to work out why I get riled up by leftist nonsense even more than right-wing nonsense.

I think it's something to do with (rightly or wrongly) dismissing the right-wingers as poorly educated crazies from the arsehole of nowhere. If your culture firmly rejects science as a dangerous distraction from religion, it's no wonder you're going to believe bollocks like Creationism.

The stuff from the left, on the other hand, seems to be exported straight from universities - centers of learning. It feels like they should know better.

One explanation could be that, despite large numbers of people getting third level education these days, the rates at which they're taught critical thinking, skepticism and generally more science-based disciplines is still relatively low.

I think we're superficially "educating" our populations in the western world but there are still huge gaps in people's knowledge and that has lead to a large anti-intellectual and anti-rational bent on the left of the political spectrum that causes the same kind of politicisation of empirical issues as can be seen with climate change, evolution and so forth.

So the far right rejects the premise of science from the off (at least when it suits them) in favour of fantasy.
The far left superficially accepts logic and reason but, through the Dunning-Kruger effect, miss the point and commit the same logical fallacies.

Forgive the rambling. It's almost certainly more complicated than that but it feels like that's at least part of it.

Brian Shanahan

Gbear wrote: »

I think we're superficially "educating" our populations in the western world but there are still huge gaps in people's knowledge and that has lead to a large anti-intellectual and anti-rational bent on the left of the political spectrum that causes the same kind of politicisation of empirical issues as can be seen with climate change, evolution and so forth.

That kind of thinking is far more prevalent on the right than on the left. As you rightly say the anti-reality left is generally (with one major exception) on the wacko margins of left-leaning groupings, whereas anti-reality is safely ensconsed in the centre of right wing goups.

The left's biggest problems at the moment are two-fold, 1) the naive belief that renewables like wind &c. are the only solution to global warming while keeping power levels up. Without massive improvements this doesn't hold, we really do need nuclear power, and 2) the "four legs good, two legs bad" idea that any enemy of the US is automatically a good guy, for example the widespread (but thankfully not majority support) for the neo-Nazi regime in Russia, simply because the US is backing Ukraine.

Turtwig

Gbear wrote: »

I've been trying to work out why I get riled up by leftist nonsense even more than right-wing nonsense..

I watch Criminal Minds (Well, I did for a number of seasons anyway!) so I'm clearly very qualified here. You identify with left wing ideas and you perceive the bizarre arguments proposed by the more extreme left wingers as threats to the possible implementation of your ideals in society. It's your typical struggle between two alphas of a species. What one alpha wants for society isn't what the other wants but because they're alphas they perceive each other as the biggest threat facing them. Even if, objectively, there are far greater threats.

Now if someone can put that in the Reid Vernacular I'd be chuffed.


We'll have our PhD's in bolloxology in no time.

Hotblack Desiato

pH wrote: »

When you think of how something like Victoria's secrets would have been impossible in Catholic, conservative Ireland, it appears we have had only 15 years since ann summers opening its doors in Ireland, possibly signalling the end of a group of people who knew how to keep the Irish safe from themselves, before the eruption of a new group of tut-tutters, fighting the same old "evils" but this time for the "right" reasons.

What's pathetic is that these are products sold to women by women, yet somehow men are to blame as ever.

Frightening that Turn Off The Red Light - an unholy alliance of nuns (after all the horrors they've perpetrated) and extreme feminists can get their agenda onto the legislative programme with hardly a murmur of opposition permitted to be aired. Apparently women who choose to sell sex don't know what's good for them, and men who choose to sell sex don't exist.

MrPudding

Turtwig wrote: »

Hozier's misogynistic now apparently.

(Shamelessly stolen from After Hours.)

The author isn't getting a lot of support in the comments.

MrP

jank

Gbear wrote: »

I've been trying to work out why I get riled up by leftist nonsense even more than right-wing nonsense.

I think it's something to do with (rightly or wrongly) dismissing the right-wingers as poorly educated crazies from the arsehole of nowhere. If your culture firmly rejects science as a dangerous distraction from religion, it's no wonder you're going to believe bollocks like Creationism.

The stuff from the left, on the other hand, seems to be exported straight from universities - centers of learning. It feels like they should know better.

One explanation could be that, despite large numbers of people getting third level education these days, the rates at which they're taught critical thinking, skepticism and generally more science-based disciplines is still relatively low.

I think we're superficially "educating" our populations in the western world but there are still huge gaps in people's knowledge and that has lead to a large anti-intellectual and anti-rational bent on the left of the political spectrum that causes the same kind of politicisation of empirical issues as can be seen with climate change, evolution and so forth.

So the far right rejects the premise of science from the off (at least when it suits them) in favour of fantasy.
The far left superficially accepts logic and reason but, through the Dunning-Kruger effect, miss the point and commit the same logical fallacies.

Forgive the rambling. It's almost certainly more complicated than that but it feels like that's at least part of it.

I must agree with a lot of this. For me personally I do not see the extreme right as much of a threat than I do with the extreme left as the extreme left's moral arguments and value system are becoming the norm. We are moving away from faith based superstition regarding race and homosexuals (well in the western world anyway, lets leave the Muslim world out this as we will upset some people) into a more open and 'live and let live' society. The Puritan society of say the 1950's is well and truly gone. However, we seem to be slowly frog marching ourselves into a new age of liberal totalitarianism where groups who take offense to matters get on the airways/web and shutdown debate, pass moral judgement and create a veil of silence where openness, debate is curtailed ushering in an era of conservatism (in the name of equality) which many of us thought was behind us.

As mentioned, take the new Sex bill that is before the Dail that will criminalise men who pay for sex (women don't pay for sex apparently!). Ivana Bacik has an impressive CV no doubt yet she is the classic looney feminist. One on hand she would use the argument that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases in the abortion debate, yet on the other hand she wants to curtail this right that a woman cannot sell her body for sex. One one hand she says that women and men are equal in all matters especially when raising a child (the sex of parents do not matter) given the debate on gay marriage on the other hand she will argue vehemently for women quotas in boardrooms and politics (I thought sex did not matter? ). It does not take someone to have a PHD to see the glaring hypocracsy in her own moral compas. I suppose this is why she is un-electable given the multiple times she has tried.

Yet, she (and others) like her would see themselves as the bastion of enlightenment and intelligence, steering society into an age of truth, logic and reason.

Take the Victoria Secret issue that emerged yesterday. The Irish Times would see itself as the national newspaper of record and reason and would claim to have a certain standard. It would certainly look down on the tabloids as rag tag publication and would definitely think itself superior than say the Indo and Examiner. The journalists who work there would think the same. "We are the best of the best!" Yet, when you read that tripe that Anthea McTiernam wrote one has to wonder if the emperor has no clothes. She is not the only one. Fintan O'Toole, Una Mullaly and of course how can we leave out John Waters yet he comes from the other side of the same coin.

Just take a read if you may at some of the tripe that Una Mullally regularly comes out with. Its god awful.

So why is this? Why do journalists who went to trinity, who did their BA and MA in journalism, maybe went on to do some fancy PHD in something or other continiously get it so wrong. People don't really think through the issues anymore. Critical thinking of a subject or coming to an argument about a subject rarely happens.

Take this youtube clip from the start until 2:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuGdlhKT5-M

This is not really a clip about David Starkey (even though I do agree with what he says), it is about the reaction of those who hear him e.g. @1.00. They just cannot believe or even contemplate the words coming from his mouth, yet on clear reflection after a few minutes they make perfect sense. These people in the screenshot are a Labour MP and representative from the Professional Footballers Association. Sure they speak well enough a sign of a good education but can they think?

The Labour MP in question is Rachel Reeves who went to a private girls school, is a graduate of Oxford with a major in Politics, Economics and Philosophy and also has a Masters in Economics. Pretty impressive, yet she cannot even entertain the point that David Starkey was trying to make, instead she pulls a face... I thought it was very illuminating personally which illustrates how detached many of our 'leaders' in the press, universities, NGO's, politicians are from day to day life. Many people like this exist in this enlightened bubble where their views are rarely if ever challenged and when Universities then take the stance that some topics cannot even be challenged on campus then what hope do we have to educate people in critical thinking?

Hotblack Desiato

Oh, the faces they were making while he spoke uncomfortable truths... :eek: