Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
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

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

1…1011131516…75

Comments

  • #362
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    shaymus27 wrote: »
    An actor from fair city who played Billy Meehan was on the late late. He said his parents won a small sum on the lotto. They lived in Drimnagh. Hardly south county dublin pc types. They were broken in to as word got around they won something on the lotto. I can't remember the exact details but the break-in had a dreadful affect on the health and lives of his parents. You don't get this in middleclass areas.

    Of course you do. I live in a relatively quiet middle-class area and I wouldn't be moronic enough to publicise it if I won something on the lotto. I wouldn't tell anyone outside very immediate family and I certainly wouldn't boast about it to friends or acquaintances, that's just common sense.


  • #363
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, there seem to be an increasing number of reports of this kind of nonsense, though it's hard to see whether it's a general trend or whether it's just the result of more effective reporting.

    At the levels I'm aware of, at least, I see less evidence of a general conspiracy and more of occasional instances of independent, twitchy jobsworths.

    I don't think it is a matter of better reporting, at least not in all cases. The Lawyers Secular Society has had several events cancelled in recent times, something apparently unheard of a short time ago.

    MrP


  • #364
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    8

    I dont think I can do this much longer

    A strange game. The only way to win is not to play.


  • #365
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I read this and thought no one would be stupid enough to ban a race of people from an anti-racism meeting. Seems I was wrong.

    White people, men 'banned' from diversity meeting at London Goldsmiths University

    Jesus Wept!


  • #366
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    shaymus27 wrote: »
    You have no idea where I stand.

    I know where you stand. I mentioned it in my post. PC people have goes at people who disagree with them.

    You know nothing about me yet you jump to insane conclusions. Typical PC person. Anyone who isn't PC is a racist.

    This is exactly the ridiculousness of PC people I refer to.

    Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it as well without your help.

    PC = PaleoConservative.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The person who banned men and white people from a 'diversity meeting' has gone on to defend her position by stating that "saying she's not racist as she's from an ethnic minority."

    So, being non white and a women gives one a blank cheque to be a miserable excuse of a human being?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32727016/i-cant-be-racist-if-im-from-an-ethnic-minority-discuss

    Big thread on AH about it and Wibbs has it spot on imo.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95469973&postcount=46


  • #368
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Big thread on AH about it and Wibbs has it spot on imo.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95469973&postcount=46
    As you say, Wibbs comments are straight and to the point.

    This illiberal woman seems silly in the extreme and the 96.3% of people who voted in the poll at the top of the thread, seem to agree.


  • #369
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    jank wrote: »
    The person who banned men and white people from a 'diversity meeting' has gone on to defend her position by stating that "saying she's not racist as she's from an ethnic minority."
    Which is great, digging a deeper hole for herself and creating awareness of her toxic views.
    So, being non white and a women gives one a blank cheque to be a miserable excuse of a human being?
    You forgot she's disabled and working class too.
    You probably should check your privilege for that mistake.


  • #370
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I found this funny , from Reddit , guess where a social media post came from , a social justice site or Stromfront :pac:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #371
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Anyone fancy being a weather presenter for the BBC?
    Open to all and you don't have to know anything about meteorology, they will give you a crash course.
    There is a catch though, you have to be disabled.

    http://careerssearch.bbc.co.uk/jobs/job/weather-presenting/12455?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=the_bbc_academy&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=corporate
    Do you want to share your passion for the weather by presenting weather bulletins? Do you have a disability? The BBC does not currently have any weather presenters who are disabled and we are actively seeking to improve on screen diversity.

    As an aside, is it legal to specially advertise a job aimed only at disabled people. I would have thought through various equality legislation that it would have been illegal, or does that only apply to the able?


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    silverharp wrote: »
    I found this funny , from Reddit , guess where a social media post came from , a social justice site or Stromfront :pac:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4

    That is actually hilarious. The actual thread is here.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/

    Funny to spend a few minutes playing along and see the horseshoe effect in reality.


  • #373
    wp_rathead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    i gotta saw i went onto that Reddit - feck me it is like going down a rabbit hole of lunacy


  • #374
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,891 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    jank wrote: »
    As an aside, is it legal to specially advertise a job aimed only at disabled people.

    Could they be any more patronising if they tried?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #375
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I dunno. They're a public service broadcaster. Is a commitment to showcasing disabled people in occupational positions any different to a commitment to, say, including gay characters in soap opera plotlines? The point is not to present a heteronormative, ability-normative, male-normative, white-normative etc picture of society, but to prevent the diverse reality. The BBC should be just as concerned about having all able-bodied presenters as they would be about having all white presenters, or all male presenters, or all straight presenters; it would present an unreal, idealised and deeply conservative view of the world.

    It would be different if weather forecast presenters were expected to know anything about meteorology, but that hasn't been the case for years. They are spokesmodels.


  • #376
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Eastenders cast a disabled character because the actress stole the audition, it wasn't in the original description. There's no need for box-ticking where the BBC is concerned, they'll do their best to do it no matter what.


  • #377
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Eastenders cast a disabled character because the actress stole the audition, it wasn't in the original description. There's no need for box-ticking where the BBC is concerned, they'll do their best to do it no matter what.
    Sure, but they couldn't have done that if the actress concerned hadn't auditioned. If you're the BBC you want applications from minorities for positions which aren't particularly minority-linked, and one way to get that it to advertise in a way that targets and encourages applications from underrepresented or disadvantaged minorities.


  • #378
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    jank wrote: »
    As an aside, is it legal to specially advertise a job aimed only at disabled people. I would have thought through various equality legislation that it would have been illegal, or does that only apply to the able?
    I thought this would be illegal as well, but it seems the "Television industry" is exempt from the 2010 Equality Act.
    So they might talk about "equality of opportunity" on their website, but in reality they can pretty much do what they like.

    More worringly, I came across the Positive Action section of the 2010 UK Equality Act.
    The new positive action provisions mean that it is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate who is of equal merit to another candidate,
    if the employer reasonably thinks the candidate:
    • has a protected characteristic that is underrepresented
    in the workforce; or
    • that people with that characteristic suffer a
    disadvantage connected to that characteristic.

    Ignoring the ridiculous idea of there being two candidates of equal merit.
    This could be bad news if you're a white man up against a minority group.


  • #379
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I thought this would be illegal as well, but it seems the "Television industry" is exempt from the 2010 Equality Act.
    So they might talk about "equality of opportunity" on their website, but in reality they can pretty much do what they like.

    More worringly, I came across the Positive Action section of the 2010 UK Equality Act.


    Ignoring the ridiculous idea of there being two candidates of equal merit.
    This could be bad news if you're a white man up against a minority group.

    Got to love the Orwellian speak here.

    'Positive action' you mean legal discrimination...!


  • #380
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It would be different if weather forecast presenters were expected to know anything about meteorology, but that hasn't been the case for years. They are spokesmodels.

    Not entirely true.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11635180/Wanted-by-the-BBC-a-new-weather-presenter-who-must-be-disabled.html
    Traditionally, weather presenters have been trained meteorologists employed by the Met Office.

    Michael Fish, who famously dismissed an oncoming hurricane in 1987, worked at the Met Office before joining the BBC.

    John Kettley, whose cult status was immortalised in the song “John Kettley is a weatherman”, had spent four years researching meteorology before becoming a presenter.

    Current weather presenters including Sarah Keith-Lucas and Carol Kirkwood were trained at the Met Office, while Philip Avery previously worked as a forecaster for the Royal Navy.

    The whole thing sounds like a box ticking exercise dreamed up by some diversity officer striving to meet their KPI's, diversity quotas/matrix or some other such nonsense.


  • #381
    Jeremy Howling Raffle
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jeremy Howling Raffle


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I dunno. They're a public service broadcaster. Is a commitment to showcasing disabled people in occupational positions any different to a commitment to, say, including gay characters in soap opera plotlines? The point is not to present a heteronormative, ability-normative, male-normative, white-normative etc picture of society, but to prevent the diverse reality. The BBC should be just as concerned about having all able-bodied presenters as they would be about having all white presenters, or all male presenters, or all straight presenters; it would present an unreal, idealised and deeply conservative view of the world.

    It would be different if weather forecast presenters were expected to know anything about meteorology, but that hasn't been the case for years. They are spokesmodels.

    Yes. Unless you can find an example of a soap opera explicitly seeking a Gay Actor to play the part of a gay character.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,891 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    "Trained at the Met Office" could mean "picked in a beauty contest by the broadcaster and then sent to the Met Office for two weeks so they know the bigger words"

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #383
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    jank wrote: »
    Got to love the Orwellian speak here.

    'Positive action' you mean legal discrimination...!
    No. Orwellian-speak is to use the term "discrmination" to mean "unlawful discrimination", in the hope of misleading people (or having been misled yourself) into assuming that discrmination is unlawful.

    The default position is that discrimnation is lawful. It's lawful to discriminate between A and B unless there is a law which makes it unlawful. There is no law which makes discrimination generally unlawful; it's only unlawful when it's discrimination on specified grounds, in specified contexts, etc.

    In the UK, as jackofalltrades has pointed out, they have chosen not to make discrimination unlawful if it's based on a protected ground for the purpose of addressing under-representation in the workforce. The policy arguments for that stance are obvious. You may not agree with them, but that hardly justifies the label "Orwellian".


  • #384
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The default position is that discrimnation is lawful. It's lawful to discriminate between A and B unless there is a law which makes it unlawful. There is no law which makes discrimination generally unlawful; it's only unlawful when it's discrimination on specified grounds, in specified contexts, etc.

    In the UK, as jackofalltrades has pointed out, they have chosen not to make discrimination unlawful if it's based on a protected ground for the purpose of addressing under-representation in the workforce. The policy arguments for that stance are obvious. You may not agree with them, but that hardly justifies the label "Orwellian".
    But going back decades they have chosen to make this this kind of discrimination unlawful, they're now changing there minds.

    We seem to have moved from an "equality of opportunity" to an "equality of result" scenario.
    And in doing so we are betraying the very ethos of equality legislation.
    Current liberal thinking in this area seem to ignore the obvious irony and instead mirror the blatant employment discrimination that they so despised in the past.
    At least we're not the only country to miss the irony of having discrimination in anti-discrimination legislation.


  • #385
    Jeremy Howling Raffle
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jeremy Howling Raffle


    Absolutely worth watching this

    Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True

    And the discussion about what it is/should be fair to say and not say about different groups of people.


  • #386
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    In other news, from another thread on the topic.

    Bahar Mustafa: Goldsmiths Students' Union diversity officer to keep her job after vote of no confidence petition fails.

    Seems like they couldn't get enough signatures on the petition, to force a vote on her position.
    It seems like not all kinds of sexism and racism are equal.


  • #387
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    silverharp wrote: »
    I found this funny , from Reddit , guess where a social media post came from , a social justice site or Stromfront :pac:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4

    Something similar. Daily Mail or Stormfront.

    This thread seems to have trundled off course. I suppose finding right wing lunatics is far too easy.


  • #388
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Something similar. Daily Mail or Stormfront.

    This thread seems to have trundled off course. I suppose finding right wing lunatics is far too easy.
    Are you sure you're posting in the right thread?


  • #389
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    London Gay Pride an organisation that wants to promote acceptance and tolerance in Britain's capital, yet instead bans a political party from attending their march.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/13/nigel-farage-pride-in-london-is-prejudiced-for-censoring-ukip-from-marching/
    Organisers of Pride in London originally approved plans for UKIP LGBT+ to take part in the parade on Saturday 27 June,claiming it would not “discriminate”against them.
    However, following a backlash from campaigners including Peter Tatchell, the board reversed its decision, citing “safety” concerns if the group were allowed to march.

    Well, so much for tolerance then!


  • #390
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    London Gay Pride an organisation that wants to promote acceptance and tolerance in Britain's capital, yet instead bans a political party from attending their march.
    It's impossible to know exactly what happened here, but I'm sure you're aware that UKIP aren't exactly well known for promoting "acceptance and tolerance" within the LGBT community:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/22/eight-of-the-most-homophobic-things-ukip-candidates-and-supporters-have-said/
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-conference-homophobic-leaflet-claims-5243610

    Unless UKIP have a firm, open, agreed and accepted policy concerning, for example, "acceptance and tolerance" of the LGBT community themselves, then it's not unreasonable for LGP to ask them to stay away.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Except the organisers (who orginally accepted UKIP's application) deny that there reason for excluding UKIP has anything to do with UKIP's policies or position on LGBT issues. They specifically deny that the decision has been made on political grounds, they point out that UKIP has LGBT members, they emphasise that their own aim is to to be inclusive and they make it clear that the reason for excluding them is not because many LGBT individuals disagree with UKIP. (They acknowledge this, but dismiss it as a ground on which they could properly be excluded from an inclusive event.) The reason for the exclusion is "to protect participants and ensure the event passes off safely" and they are concerned "most especially [about] the position we would be putting our volunteer stewards in".

    So, yeah, this is a decision which has implications for tolerance. Not, perhaps, the tolerance of the organisers of the event, but the tolerance of the wider community. Rightly or wrongly, Pride in London fear that the wider community will not tolerate the participating of UKIP in the parade and will respond in ways which will, or could, escalate to violence.


Advertisement