Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Subtle signs that someone is 'old fashioned'?
Options
Comments
-
<br>
<br>
So about that diversity thing and the amount of divergent opinions.....isn't that just another way of saying more and more people disagree with each other? How do you think that feeds into overall unity of society? Surely it can only mean LESS unity, yeah? Less unity = good?
How can it be a fictionalised past if you are saying that things are different now? You cant have one without the other.
You were literally bemoaning a supposed 'hive-mind', now you are worrying about division in society and less unity. Make up your mind, especially if you are going to try and claim I've made in-congruent points which I haven't.
I said that your claim of today's society being increasingly a 'hive-mind' is demonstrably nonsense because in reality society is far more diverse than in the past (something we now apparently agree on according to the above quotation :rolleyes:). Your vision of the past is a fiction. I stand by that entirely.
"Hive-mind" is a blatant nonsense, eh? You disagree that there are people adopting issues that have ZERO effect on them, that would never have heard of these issues, but have, for NO self-interested reason taken up the "cause"? Well that screams hive-mind to me. You arguing about "coloureds" is a great case in point. You were told that its naughty, and now you believe its naughty and will echo that point to others, and on and on. I put that kind of "thinking" down to having nothing better to do, the desire to be part of some non-existent cause in order to feel more accepted by the hive mind. Your post only goes to prove my point. That there are an increasing amount of people that scream out loud to be offended on behalf of people they generally have no affiliation with (in this case, you are part of a minority black movement on a different continent, instructing people in Ireland about what words to use...!)
No. I read from African Americans, I read discourse on the matter, I considered in light of my own experiences and whilst I can't say that I fully understand the reasons that for them it is a painful word, I got enough to get that I didn't want to use a term that others didn't like. Its called manners, not a hive mind. The same we don't go around calling people bastards, or illegitimates anymore. People are entitled and capable of changing their minds and behaviours when presented with new information without having anything to do with a hive mind.
And yeah I'll say it again. If black people don't like being called that word or having it used then grand I won't. I'm not so vocabulary challenged nor wedded to delusions of being oppressed that I can't drop one word. Its laughable. I've never seen anyone as upset over the usage of a word than the moaning whinging righties.But why don't you answer the question/point that I actually posed instead. What is the end-game of progressivism? And the second part, do you think that none of those end-points have already been met?</p><p> </p><p>I'll take point with homosexuality. The marriage referendum that took place, I think the numbers were 65% for, 35% against. Now lets say that 4% of the population was directly affected by the vote.
After that round of progressivism, you went from a population that was 96% unaffected, to a country now where 35% of the population are at odds with society, and felt strong enough about the issue to vote against it. Which was better for society, 96% on the same page or 65%? (No need to pick at numbers, this is just a broad stroke analogy, not saying anything about homosexuals either, could be talking about rhubarb for the sake of the argument.)
This is really absurd. So again you are both worried about a hive mind and also bemoaning a society where 96% of the population are not on the same page.:D
The purpose of the marriage referendum was to grant to those who want it or need it rights that the remainder of the population have enjoyed since time immemorial. Far from being an example of a hive mind it demonstrated a nation with real differences of opinions, and from my perspective thankfully a strong majority in favour of extending equality, which turn gives more freedom and diversity of choice to all.
It is also completely untrue that prior to the referendum 96% of people were 'on the same page'. There was extensive campaigning, and growing support for marriage equality well before the referendum campaign.The current-day interpretation of progressivism is, in my opinion, just to be a contrarian, ever-offended, always trying to change everything for the sake of changing it.
Contrarianism is at this time practiced most and loudest by those on the right.And lastly, as much as you might believe in, say, the "coloured's" argument (argument!)....just remember that if we are to continue as a society along your lines of thinking, there will be a point where you will be called old-fashioned, out-dated, hateful, irrelevant....and WHEN that happens, and you feel like the world is taking crazy pills....look in the mirror for the answer.
"Progressive" is becoming a dirty word. And the swing in the opposite direction is already taking place. Will you be the type of person that swings with it, the cause du jour, or will you have a mind of your own?
Perhaps but hopefully I won't be a crank incapable of listening and learning. And if the world does go mad I have no problem opposing it. I oppose 'popular' opinion on a number of fronts0 -
-
jobbridge4life wrote: »You were literally bemoaning a supposed 'hive-mind', now you are worrying about division in society and less unity. Make up your mind, especially if you are going to try and claim I've made in-congruent points which I haven't.
I said that your claim of today's society being increasingly a 'hive-mind' is demonstrably nonsense because in reality society is far more diverse than in the past (something we now apparently agree on according to the above quotation :rolleyes:). Your vision of the past is a fiction. I stand by that entirely.
No. I read from African Americans, I read discourse on the matter, I considered in light of my own experiences and whilst I can't say that I fully understand the reasons that for them it is a painful word, I got enough to get that I didn't want to use a term that others didn't like. Its called manners, not a hive mind. The same we don't go around calling people bastards, or illegitimates anymore. People are entitled and capable of changing their minds and behaviours when presented with new information without having anything to do with a hive mind.
And yeah I'll say it again. If black people don't like being called that word or having it used then grand I won't. I'm not so vocabulary challenged nor wedded to delusions of being oppressed that I can't drop one word. Its laughable. I've never seen anyone as upset over the usage of a word than the moaning whinging righties.
This is really absurd. So again you are both worried about a hive mind and also bemoaning a society where 96% of the population are not on the same page.:D
The purpose of the marriage referendum was to grant to those who want it or need it rights that the remainder of the population have enjoyed since time immemorial. Far from being an example of a hive mind it demonstrated a nation with real differences of opinions, and from my perspective thankfully a strong majority in favour of extending equality, which turn gives more freedom and diversity of choice to all.
It is also completely untrue that prior to the referendum 96% of people were 'on the same page'. There was extensive campaigning, and growing support for marriage equality well before the referendum campaign.
Contrarianism is at this time practiced most and loudest by those on the right.
Perhaps but hopefully I won't be a crank incapable of listening and learning. And if the world does go mad I have no problem opposing it. I oppose 'popular' opinion on a number of fronts
So your doubling down on the exact same thing you said before, refuse to acknowledge the contradictions YOU stated, refuse to answer the questions I asked and blah de blah......I cant be arsed responding to your wall of self-congratulating crap. Keep fighting the good fight :P0 -
Get a room you 2!!!0
-
So your doubling down on the exact same thing you said before, refuse to acknowledge the contradictions YOU stated, refuse to answer the questions I asked and blah de blah......I cant be arsed responding to your wall of self-congratulating crap. Keep fighting the good fight :P
Chap, your points make no sense. You are accusing others of contradiction while simultaneously complaining about a hive-mind AND the lack of unity in society.:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
jobbridge4life wrote: »Chap, your points make no sense. You are accusing others of contradiction while simultaneously complaining about a hive-mind AND the lack of unity in society.:rolleyes:
(Sigh!) Right, I'll put it to you as simply as I can.
1) You said that the world is more diverse than ever and more divergent than ever. I asked you, is that not a another way of saying that more and more people disagree with each other, and therefore is divisive? You ignored that.
2) You said the past is fictionalised in this context. But then go further and say things are different now. I pointed out the contradiction that you cant call the past fiction and then say that it is now different. You ignored it.
3) I prattled on a bit about hive mind and the need for certain types of people to conform to that hive mind mentality. You didn't say anything to counter that point, but rather added to it (and in another thread too).
4) You seem to think that unity of a society is based on thinking the exact same. It is NOT. It is a group of people that get along with each other and are not too bothered by some dissenting opinion. When you start to reward the minority of a community against a large section of the majority....that leads to less unity. Basically, if you didn't stick your nose in, life would be easier. And as much as it bothers certain people, a community/society is based on the MAJORITY. Its unfair to a lot of people, but fracturing the majority leads to unrest. Life is unfair!
I'm not going to bother replying any further to this, there are plenty of points you can stick in to this comment that are obvious (I'll give you one for free...."But if we just accepted slavery, then we'd still have slavery!"). I'm assuming that I don't need to address these points, and take it as a given that you don't need to either. We'll leave it at that.0 -
and to get the thread back on topic........SMELL OF BISCUITS!0
-
jobbridge4life wrote: »... hey you know the way you aren't black and the NAACP is a black organisation....
Kind of similar to they way something your friend says is handled differently to something a stranger says...:rolleyes:
So if you have dark skin you can use a term, and if you don't you can't.
Wouldn't that be rrrrr... :-) We had that nonsense before with bathrooms and bus seats.
If we are equal (which we are in my book) we have equal rights to use terms.
Otherwise we are talking about some kind of double standards mockery. I'll happily leave that to hypocrits.
Coloured they call themselves and coloured they are. Fine by me - whatever the fashions of the day.0 -
Something I notice in older peoples houses is often the smell of cooking oil in the kitchen, often they might have a deep fat fryer also.
Most younger or health aware people don't cook with as much oil, that's my theory anyway.0 -
Powerhouse wrote: »I'm not in the first flush of youth and would have to say that I have never in my life met anyone who used the phrase 'hit parade'.
Leon on the UK version of Gogglebox used that expression on last friday night's show.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement