Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Double Standards

24567

Comments

  • #32
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    You know it's not actually that difficult to go around NOT offending people. Having a bit of tact, manners and civility makes a working environment pleasant for MOST people.
    There is someone to get offended about literally everything so yes it would be difficult.


  • #33
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Yet people manage to do it daily and with no great trouble at all,.


  • #34
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    liah wrote: »


    Your work environment is meant to be a place where you work and are professional, it's not your back yard where you can say what you like.
    The work environment should be decided by the person who owns the company. If the owner decides their should be no racism I'm fine with that it's completely their choice and anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't work their. I don't have a problem with sky for sacking them but I do have a problem with the government for making sexist comments illegal in the workplace. If someone wants to be sexist I think I should be allowed to and they will suffer the consequence of that but the consequence should not be dished out by the government. I am aware in this case it wasn't the government, I'm just talking about equality laws in general.

    Personally, I think banning things like that in the workplace are fairly useful measures that cause people to look at things a bit differently. Based on the old cliche, 'if you hear something enough times, you start to believe it'. I don't think the workplace is a necessary outlet for things like that, there's a time and a place and work isn't one of them.
    I'm completely against this form of government that thinks it has the right to manipulate peoples views. It's not what I believe a government is for. I don't like parent-child relationships between people and their government.
    If sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. epithets are allowed (even casually) it gives grounds to breed hate. Nip it in the bud and there's less to worry about or moderate; it can be incredibly tricky to define what's genuinely meant to offend and what's a casual comment sometimes, so it's easier to just ban it all while in the work environment to cause less hassle for everyone involved.
    Agressive language gives breed to violence I guess we try and remove a few of those words from the dictionary as well. In fact maybe it would be easier to have a white list dictionary decided by the government.


  • #35
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    citytillidie wrote: »
    What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm
    Interesting that it was deemed to be tongue in cheek.Personally Id see it as being exactly that but maybe thats just me.Are there any ads that painted women in a bad light but were ruled to be harmless?Im using mobile so cant search.


  • #36
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Yet people manage to do it daily and with no great trouble at all,.
    If a girl wears a short skirt there is a good chance someone might get offended. I guess women should cover up just in case.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    The work environment should be decided by the person who owns the company. If the owner decides their should be no racism I'm fine with that it's completely their choice and anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't work their. I don't have a problem with sky for sacking them but I do have a problem with the government for making sexist comments illegal in the workplace. If someone wants to be sexist I think I should be allowed to and they will suffer the consequence of that but the consequence should not be dished out by the government. I am aware in this case it wasn't the government, I'm just talking about equality laws in general.

    Would you agree with people deciding who to hire based on their race, sex, or creed? I mean, where exactly do you draw the line? And why would anyone want to enter an environment where there's the potential for their identity to be attacked because there's no moderation on comments?

    I wasn't aware the government had anything to do with it, for the record I'm talking about private companies.
    I'm completely against this form of government that thinks it has the right to manipulate peoples views. It's not what I believe a government is for. I don't like parent-child relationships between people and their government.

    See above.
    Agressive language gives breed to violence I guess we try and remove a few of those words from the dictionary as well. In fact maybe it would be easier to have a white list dictionary decided by the government.

    Now you're just being disingenuous. I don't believe aggressive language belongs in the workplace but it in no way means I want it removed from the language, and I have no clue how you jumped to that conclusion.

    There is a clear separation between the workplace and average life; I will defend to the death anyone's right to say literally anything they want outside of work, but in work you don't choose who your workmates are and have to go into it with a certain degree of tact, empathy and professionalism. At work, you don't live life by your rules, you operate under their rules. I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace.


  • #38
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    If a girl wears a short skirt there is a good chance someone might get offended. I guess women should cover up just in case.

    You guess? Most offices I know have a standard of dress in place. Most women won't need to reach for the smelling salts if an employer suggests their clothing is not in keeping with the job either.


  • #39
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,024 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    Otis Driftwood wrote: »
    Interesting that it was deemed to be tongue in cheek.Personally Id see it as being exactly that but maybe thats just me.Are there any ads that painted women in a bad light but were ruled to be harmless?Im using mobile so cant search.

    Only one i have found so far is Virgin Atlantic that had 24 complaints

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/business/article5702163.ece

    ******



  • #40
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    liah wrote: »
    Would you agree with people deciding who to hire based on their race, sex, or creed? I mean, where exactly do you draw the line? And why would anyone want to enter an environment where there's the potential for their identity to be attacked because there's no moderation on comments?
    I don't agree that you should hire based on race unlike Canada, but I do think you should be legally allowed to. There should be no line drawn. If I want to set up a company that only hires mixed race midgets I think I should be allowed to.

    Now you're just being disingenuous. I don't believe aggressive language belongs in the workplace but it in no way means I want it removed from the language, and I have no clue how you jumped to that conclusion.
    I never said you wanted it removed I was just making a similar claim to yours. Just because certain language has negative consequences does not mean it should be banned. The only exception being slander and liable situations. Which this case may fall into since they are saying she isn't capable of doing her job.
    There is a clear separation between the workplace and average life; I will defend to the death anyone's right to say literally anything they want outside of work, but in work you don't choose who your workmates are and have to go into it with a certain degree of tact, empathy and professionalism. At work, you don't live life by your rules, you operate under their rules. I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace.
    First you wouldn't defend it to death so stop being so over dramatic.:D

    You say you don't choose your workmates, well I disagree. It wouldn't be a good idea to quite your job because you don't like your workmates but it is possible. If you aren't going to get along with them I don't see why the government should make it look like you do. If a boss decides he doesn't care if his employees are racists then I don't see why you should get a say and tell them they can't be racist in their own business. Anyone who isn't ok with that should not work their.
    . I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace
    I never said it was professional but what is considered professional should be up to the owner and not you. I never claimed it did belong in the work place that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. I don't think SUV's being in cities but I don't think people in cities should be banned form buying them.


  • #41
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    You guess? Most offices I know have a standard of dress in place. Most women won't need to reach for the smelling salts if an employer suggests their clothing is not in keeping with the job either.
    That doesn't stop people getting offended if their standards differ from the dress policy. Your point about it being easy not to offend people is bollóx.

    Some people will get offended that I eat meat on good Friday? It isn't easy at all not to offend people. If you go out with a girl of a different race some people will people offended and then others will be offended that they are offended.:D


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,024 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    Otis Driftwood wrote: »
    How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

    It should not mater how many complaints there is. Look at last years hunky dorys adverts that were banned after a media out cry

    ******



  • #43
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    That doesn't stop people getting offended if their standards differ from the dress policy. Your point about it being easy not to offend people is bollóx.

    Some people will get offended that I eat meat on good Friday? It isn't easy at all not to offend people. If you go out with a girl of a different race some people will people offended and then others will be offended that they are offended.:D

    Really? People are going to get offended if you eat meat on a Friday? Now who is being over dramatic.
    I think you alredy know that that most people can and do work with all manner of individuals without making people's lives around them a misery. You need to rein in your special victim status and comprehend that the world is not all about you and what you feel is fair. Society decides that. You may not like every decision, hell who does, but to make the world run that little bit smoother certain mores are in structure.

    This is all academic anyway, as I said earlier, Andy Gray was sacked more for being stupid than for being sexist. He loaded the gun for SKY and they shot him with it.


  • #44
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    I don't agree that you should hire based on race unlike Canada, but I do think you should be legally allowed to. There should be no line drawn. If I want to set up a company that only hires mixed race midgets I think I should be allowed to.

    I don't believe in positive or negative discrimination; my country of origin in no way defines my beliefs. I believe the right person should be hired for the job based on merit.

    I don't think you really understand business or societal implications that would have.

    1) Business; automatically, you alienate people as people don't want to buy from or work at a business in which there is the possibility for them to be verbally attacked or discriminated against. It is not professional behaviour at all and is simply very bad for business.

    2) Societal; 'you hear something long enough, you start to believe it'-- less exposure in the workplace to sexist, racist, homophobic etc. epithets means less people starting to believe what they're saying. If there's any tolerance, people toe the line and I don't think that's wise or healthy to perpetuate in a professional environment, at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to allow it in the professional workplace. Again, people should have the freedom to do or say whatever the hell they like on their own time, but in a work environment it's simply not practical and only serves to alienate.
    I never said you wanted it removed I was just making a similar claim to yours. Just because certain language has negative consequences does not mean it should be banned.

    It wasn't even remotely similar; what you stated was banning it completely. I'm arguing about banning things in the workplace and the workplace only. Outside of that I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they please.
    The only exception being slander and liable situations. Which this case may fall into since they are saying she isn't capable of doing her job.

    And how do people know where the line is drawn between banter and slander/libel? There is no one limit of offensiveness, literally everyone is different and anything anyone says can be interpreted a hundred different ways. If you allow that kind of thing on a casual level, it makes it harder to figure out where exactly that line is.
    First you wouldn't defend it to death so stop being so over dramatic.:D

    It's paraphrasing for a quote, but I certainly would fight for the right to freedom of speech.
    You say you don't choose your workmates, well I disagree. It wouldn't be a good idea to quite your job because you don't like your workmates but it is possible. If you aren't going to get along with them I don't see why the government should make it look like you do. If a boss decides he doesn't care if his employees are racists then I don't see why you should get a say and tell them they can't be racist in their own business. Anyone who isn't ok with that should not work their.

    Is that honestly practical, though? Especially in these times? Most people at the moment are lucky to have a job at all, when it comes to work it's hard to be that picky.

    I see no reason why people can't make an extra effort in the workplace to try to make work itself as harmonious as possible. And again, this is not smart business on any level.
    I never said it was professional but what is considered professional should be up to the owner and not you. I never claimed it did belong in the work place that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. I don't think SUV's being in cities but I don't think people in cities should be banned form buying them.

    I think it's the most rational decision to differentiate between the work environment in order to give people equal opportunities. I don't see why discrimination should be encouraged on any level.


  • #45
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    citytillidie wrote: »
    Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

    http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made
    citytillidie wrote: »
    What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm

    While I personally find both ads unworthy of a banning (it feels like light hearted craic to me) I can't imagine an ad openly stating that women are inferior to men lasting very long in this day and age (even if it was presented in such a zany cartoonish manner as the second one there).
    IMO such ads are too silly to get worked up over and 'offended' by. Like this:
    26-Men-are-better-than-women.jpg
    So stupid. I don't want to meet the person who campaigns for something as silly as that to be banned.

    edit: picture changed to intended ad. ie: not a picture of a young Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun :o


  • #46
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    I don't think you really understand business or societal implications that would have.

    1) Business; automatically, you alienate people as people don't want to buy from or work at a business in which there is the possibility for them to be verbally attacked or discriminated against. It is not professional behaviour at all and is simply very bad for business.

    2) Societal; 'you hear something long enough, you start to believe it'-- less exposure in the workplace to sexist, racist, homophobic etc. epithets means less people starting to believe what they're saying. If there's any tolerance, people toe the line and I don't think that's wise or healthy to perpetuate in a professional environment, at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to allow it in the professional workplace. Again, people should have the freedom to do or say whatever the hell they like on their own time, but in a work environment it's simply not practical and only serves to alienate.
    I think you're missing the point that I never said a business should be racist. It would be a pretty dumb move from them to be so. I'm just saying they should have the choice.

    Your second point is just you deciding your beliefs are more important than the sexist or racist persons so you should have the law back you up and make them come around to your way of thinking. I don't care what your argument is as to why you side is better if you think it's an important factor then you aren't getting what I am saying.

    I don't care what either sides argument I just don't think the government should be picking a side. I don't think it was right that the government used to back the racists and I don't think it's right that they now back the other side.
    It wasn't even remotely similar; what you stated was banning it completely. I'm arguing about banning things in the workplace and the workplace only. Outside of that I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they please.
    So people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it falls withing your limits of not being in the workplace. Why should you decide what goes on in a workplace that you have no involvement in. If someone wants to badly run a company it should really be up to them.
    It's paraphrasing for a quote, but I certainly would fight for the right to freedom of speech.
    Just like every other teenage intellectual.:D

    Strangely enough they don't occupy many battlefields.
    Is that honestly practical, though? Especially in these times? Most people at the moment are lucky to have a job at all, when it comes to work it's hard to be that picky.

    I see no reason why people can't make an extra effort in the workplace to try to make work itself as harmonious as possible. And again, this is not smart business on any level.
    I never said it was practical. If you are so easily offended you will suffer consequences just like if you offended people you will suffer consequences. These consequences should not be decided or enforced by the government. No **** it isn't smart business. Where did anyone claim it was?
    If someone wants to run their company into the ground because they hate black people I think they should allowed to. But people like you just can't handle people with different viewpoints so you run to the government to back you up like a child runs to their parent.
    I think it's the most rational decision to differentiate between the work environment in order to give people equal opportunities. I don't see why discrimination should be encouraged on any level.
    Who is claiming discrimination should be encouraged? I just don't think it's my right to enforce my views on others just because we share the same country. If someone sets up a company they should have every right to decide what behavior is acceptable and if you don't like then tough ****, just don't work there. Don't even start with "If you don't like the laws then move" It's not even on the same level.

    You have decided it isn't appropriate to be racist and work and then you decide everyone else should follow it. My point is that it's none of your business how someone runs their company. They aren't enforcing their opinions onto you(Change job) but you are forcing your opinions onto them(Not so easy to just change country. more sacrifices).


  • #47
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I hate the implication that just because anti-male crap is so prevalent, women are ok with it.


  • #48
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Galvasean wrote: »
    While I personally find both ads unworthy of a banning (it feels like light hearted craic to me) I can't imagine an ad openly stating that women are inferior to men lasting very long in this day and age (even if it was presented in such a zany cartoonish manner as the second one there).
    IMO such ads are too silly to get worked up over and 'offended' by. Like this:
    26-Men-are-better-than-women.jpg
    So stupid. I don't want to meet the person who campaigns for something as silly as that to be banned.

    edit: picture changed to intended ad. ie: not a picture of a young Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun :o
    I agree with Liah that it's because women kicked up a fuss and that's why we have this double standard. It really pisses me off that just because people get offended about something they get to make the decision that it's not ok for anyone else either. Just like those hunky dory ads "I don't want to see them so neither can you".

    I actually feel embarrassed for anyone who makes those complaints.


  • #49
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Dudess wrote: »
    I hate the implication that just because anti-male crap is so prevalent, women are ok with it.

    Did someone imply this?

    I can't actually remember. If feminist groups are really so against sexism for both genders equally then why don't they kick up an equal fuss over the anti-men ads?


  • #50
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    Your second point is just you deciding your beliefs are more important than the sexist or racist persons so you should have the law back you up and make them come around to your way of thinking. I don't care what your argument is as to why you side is better if you think it's an important factor then you aren't getting what I am saying.

    Erm, you realize that's exactly what you're doing, too? I'm simply explaining reasons as to why this is the case. You're the one who thinks everything should change to fit your worldview without taking into account that people think differently to you and that needs to be compensated for.
    I don't care what either sides argument I just don't think the government should be picking a side. I don't think it was right that the government used to back the racists and I don't think it's right that they now back the other side.

    Again, my argument wasn't anything to do with the government. Just explaining why your way seems irrational.
    So people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it falls withing your limits of not being in the workplace. Why should you decide what goes on in a workplace that you have no involvement in. If someone wants to badly run a company it should really be up to them.

    It. Is. A workplace. A professional environment. Would you tolerate this kind of behaviour in educational fields? Medical? Basically anything public service where tact is required?

    Look, I get the crux of your argument but I just do not see it as rational from any point of view at all. Standards need to be set if you truly believe in equality.
    Just like every other teenage intellectual.:D

    Yes, I'm clearly a teenager. Can you maybe, I don't know, keep to the actual argument instead of personal digs? That'd be nice, thanks.
    I never said it was practical. If you are so easily offended you will suffer consequences just like if you offended people you will suffer consequences. These consequences should not be decided or enforced by the government. No **** it isn't smart business. Where did anyone claim it was?
    If someone wants to run their company into the ground because they hate black people I think they should allowed to. But people like you just can't handle people with different viewpoints so you run to the government to back you up like a child runs to their parent.

    If you actually believe what you just wrote about my viewpoints there's really no point in continuing the discussion. I am a big believer in personal freedom, but the workplace is not a personal environment and therefore the policies apply whether you personally agree with them or not.

    I am incredibly open to different viewpoints, which is what my argument is about; people should be welcomed no matter what their sex, race, or creed. Why do you believe the business owners' rights and freedoms take priority over potential employees' rights and freedoms? Do you believe in equality or don't you?
    Who is claiming discrimination should be encouraged? I just don't think it's my right to enforce my views on others just because we share the same country. If someone sets up a company they should have every right to decide what behavior is acceptable and if you don't like then tough ****, just don't work there. Don't even start with "If you don't like the laws then move" It's not even on the same level.

    I wasn't going to say anything remotely like that. I don't appreciate the assumptions and digs, they're doing nothing but derailing.

    Anyway, I would imagine that it's wise to have it government enforced as business decides the economy of the nation. Therefore it is in the government's best interests to make sure business goes as smoothly as possible. If that means making sure a professional environment is 100% equal to literally everyone involved I see no problem with that, tbh. If that means monitoring your speech and having basic respect for everyone in your workplace, so be it-- it's a very small price to pay.

    You have decided it isn't appropriate to be racist and work and then you decide everyone else should follow it. My point is that it's none of your business how someone runs their company. They aren't enforcing their opinions onto you(Change job) but you are forcing your opinions onto them(Not so easy to just change country. more sacrifices).

    I am not forcing my opinions on anyone, I'm explaining reasons as to why these laws may be in place but stating my opinion on boards.ie in a random discussion I was bored enough to participate in doesn't equate to forcing my opinion on everyone.

    Why are you so eager to try to paint me in a bad light?


  • #51
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    It's always being implied in these discussions. And "women" isn't just = "feminist groups".


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Ebbs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ebbs


    Am I the only one who thinks people just need thicker skin?

    People get offended by everything, I had a muslim friend/co-worker that used to be disgusted if people ate ham in his presence.

    Women who are offended by what other women wear.

    Men who are offended that another man in a different practice gets different treatment in terms of appearences. Just take a look at the suit thread.

    Men and women who get offended by what someone does in their spare time despite it being legal.

    Some people call it "PC mad", but really its just peoples inability to be at comfort with theirselves. Nothing about anyone, just insecure people.


  • #53
    JaneB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭JaneB


    I can see that I am going to get in all sorts of trouble for this!! The following is a sexist view of male and female attitudes (says she somewhat tongue in cheek) that someone (male!) sent me recently.

    > WOMAN'S POEM
    >
    > Before I lay me down to sleep,
    > I pray for a man, who's not a creep,
    > One who's handsome, smart and strong.
    > One who loves to listen long,
    > One who thinks before he speaks,
    > One who'll call, not wait for weeks.
    > I pray he's gainfully employed,
    > When I spend his cash, won't be annoyed.
    > Pulls out my chair and opens my door,
    > Massages my back and begs to do more.
    > Oh! Send me a man who'll make love to my mind,
    > Knows what to answer to 'how big is my behind?'
    > I pray that this man will love me to no end,
    > And always be my very best friend.


    > MAN'S POEM
    > I pray for a deaf-mute nymphomaniac with huge tits who owns a liquor
    > store and a golf course. This doesn't rhyme and I don't care.


  • #54
    neveah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭neveah


    A question for the lads here, honestly could you imagine turning to one of your female colleagues and while laughing out loud asking her to 'tuck it in' for you while tugging at the top of your pants in front of other colleagues?? Could you actually imagine yourself doing this just because you were having a laugh?

    I'm not talking about doing this within a group of female and male friends that you know well, this situation is specifically at work in front of other colleagues, honestly could you do this and would you think it was ok for you to do this??......

    People have mentioned Loose women, tbh I work during the day so I never really see this so I can't comment specifically on that but one of the guys at work today was saying that it's sexist for women to ogle over Chippendales! I think people are missing the point completely, I have no problem with a work colleague ogling a page 3 girl, she puts herself out there for that to happen, no skin off my nose, none of my business. However there is a big difference in what happened on Saturday, they specifically questioned this womans ability to do her job purely based on her sex. There was absolutely nothing else being discussed but the fact that she was a woman. It's obvious that she would not be given such a position if she had not done the relative training and knew the off side rule very well. This is not the reason Andy Gray got fired though, it is the accumulation of offensive behaviour that has been brought to light. Again I will ask the men of the Gentleman's club, could you knowingly turn to a female colleague and tug at your trousers and ask her to 'tuck it in' for you in front of other work colleagues, think of your own work situation, do you really think that it would be ok?.......


  • #55
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    liah wrote: »
    Erm, you realize that's exactly what you're doing, too? I'm simply explaining reasons as to why this is the case. You're the one who thinks everything should change to fit your worldview without taking into account that people think differently to you and that needs to be compensated for.
    I don't want my view to be enforced by law...you do. That is the important difference, you want the government to back you up I don't. I understand the reasons and I never denied there were positive results from the laws. There are positive results from positive discrimination that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

    Again, my argument wasn't anything to do with the government. Just explaining why your way seems irrational.
    Your argument is connected to the government. I am in full agreement racism is wrong and that a company should not be racist. What I disagree on is government enforcement which you are in favor of. You really think it needs to be explained why racism is wrong?:D

    It. Is. A workplace. A professional environment. Would you tolerate this kind of behaviour in educational fields? Medical? Basically anything public service where tact is required?

    Look, I get the crux of your argument but I just do not see it as rational from any point of view at all. Standards need to be set if you truly believe in equality.
    Public service is run by the government so I have no problem with them deciding the standards there. What I have a problem with is telling a shop owner he can't hire based on whatever criteria he chooses.


    If you actually believe what you just wrote about my viewpoints there's really no point in continuing the discussion. I am a big believer in personal freedom, but the workplace is not a personal environment and therefore the policies apply whether you personally agree with them or not.
    The policies should be set bu the company not the government,
    I am incredibly open to different viewpoints, which is what my argument is about; people should be welcomed no matter what their sex, race, or creed. Why do you believe the business owners' rights and freedoms take priority over potential employees' rights and freedoms? Do you believe in equality or don't you?
    The business owner is the one who actually set up the business he took the risk. The employee has free choice when deciding on who they want to apply to work for. If I decide I don't want to work for McDonalds because they have a yellow logo then I can do that. Yet the employer can't decide not to hire me based on me having black hair. I'm not saying that's what an employer should judge people I'm just saying it should be their choice. I believe people should be treated equally but I don't believe in forcing others to do the same. You clearly do.


    Anyway, I would imagine that it's wise to have it government enforced as business decides the economy of the nation. Therefore it is in the government's best interests to make sure business goes as smoothly as possible. If that means making sure a professional environment is 100% equal to literally everyone involved I see no problem with that, tbh. If that means monitoring your speech and having basic respect for everyone in your workplace, so be it-- it's a very small price to pay.
    You have decided it's worth the price I disagree. People also put forward that positive discrimination is worth the price and I also disagree based purely on principle. I really don't care if it has positive implications if the principle is wrong(The government deciding what opinions are acceptable.)


    I am not forcing my opinions on anyone, I'm explaining reasons as to why these laws may be in place but stating my opinion on boards.ie in a random discussion I was bored enough to participate in doesn't equate to forcing my opinion on everyone.
    You are forcing your opinions by agreeing that they should be enforceable by law. We clearly look for different things in a government. I don't want one that decides which opinions are acceptable or decides what criteria I should judge people on.
    Why are you so eager to try to paint me in a bad light?
    The very same could said of you. Just because I was agreeing with their right to discriminate you tried your best to imply I agreed and wanted to encourage discrimination.


  • #56
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Really dangerous precedents being set this week.

    First this - he was clearly f*cking joking. And it was off-air And the charlotte jackson thing I've seen far worse in the workplace - and she didn't seem to give a f*ck so why does it matter.

    Also that loyalist girl who posted on her facebook page about Michaela McAreavy got fired.

    Given one was off-air and the other was a social networking profile it really shows you how invasive employers can be.

    not cool world.


  • #57
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Ebbs wrote: »
    Am I the only one who thinks people just need thicker skin?

    People get offended by everything, I had a muslim friend/co-worker that used to be disgusted if people ate ham in his presence.

    Women who are offended by what other women wear.

    Men who are offended that another man in a different practice gets different treatment in terms of appearences. Just take a look at the suit thread.

    Men and women who get offended by what someone does in their spare time despite it being legal.

    Some people call it "PC mad", but really its just peoples inability to be at comfort with theirselves. Nothing about anyone, just insecure people.
    +1

    I really don't think it should be up to the government to protect sensitive sally types and shield them from everything. It really does resemble a parent-child relationship what some people expect from their government.

    "Mommy the bad man called me names.":D


  • #58
    neveah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭neveah


    I didn't hear about the loyalist girl on fb, what did she say about Michaela McAreavey??

    I suppose you do represent your employers though in other part of your lives, it may be your private life but if you give your employers bad publicity, it's not going to work out well for you but I think that's another argument for another thread because Andy Gray's 'discretions' happened within the workplace so Sky have every right to do something about it.


  • #59
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Dudess wrote: »
    I hate the implication that just because anti-male crap is so prevalent, women are ok with it.

    Well you get the ones screaming sexism when there's anti-woman stuff. Yet you don't see them complaining about sexism toward men. Surely that's a bit sexist no?

    Anyway I'm certainly not blaming all women for this nonsense or condemning them for double standards. Just the whiny ones who seem to get their orgasms from being offended.


  • #60
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    neveah wrote: »
    I didn't hear about the loyalist girl on fb, what did she say about Michaela McAreavey??.
    She just had a moan about all the attention her death was getting when people die everyday and don't get the same attention. The independent ran a story on it so The Belfast Telegraph sacked her.

    I'm also not sure she was a loyalist:D but she was protestant...the bitch*.



    *J/k btw I actually agreed with her rant.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    She also said re that girl's murder: "What goes around comes around" and made reference to karma. For what? People are saying there isn't enough of a basis on which to assume she was pushing a sectarian agenda, and that's true, but put it this way: it wouldn't exactly be shocking if it turned out she was. She's entitled to her opinion - and I can see her point (to a degree - and without the "karma" stuff) but others are entitled to feel she came across as a nasty little bitch in how she expressed it. But anyway, yeah, it was her personal Facebook page and there was no need for it to be exposed in the first place - and doing so was trashy journalism.
    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Well you get the ones screaming sexism when there's anti-woman stuff. Yet you don't see them complaining about sexism toward men. Surely that's a bit sexist no?
    Of course it is. I just hate though how it can be used as a stick to beat women - a thread about that horrible RSA ad was a free-for-all for equally horrible comments about female drivers. That's what discussions of these double standards - and I fully agree there ARE double standards - always descend into.


Advertisement