McClean whinging again.

[vaterland_miller]

This is a pretty bleak vision you have of society? Nobody should speak out when they oppose something? I'm not being flippant... is that actually what you think? Or only when they oppose something you also oppose?



Here we go again...

What free speech laws did JK Rowling break?

The answer is ZERO. You got to hear her views. That is free speech. What don't people get about this!?

If people hear views they don't like they're allowed to boycott that individual. That's their free speech too.

The only way we avoid this scenario is if you make it illegal to disagree with someone. Then we actually lose free speech.

All this cancel culture stuff, when people list actual examples of things they have issues with, isn't a free speech issue at all.

It's often just boomers getting upset that they can't say outdated views without people disagreeing with them.


Please name a single example of things that people actually banned from saying that they shouldn't be.

The closest you will get is that people have faced disciplinary action for things they have done or said at work that have made people uncomfortable around them, but when we work we have to agree to a certain standard of behaviour. That applies to all jobs and not even about what we say, and is entirely reasonable for employers to protect their reputation and the working environment.

I'll wait for an example....

To get a job as an academic at a UK university people are forced to write something called a "diversity statement". Its strange how in this new Orwellian world words mean the opposite of what they used to mean - some academics are be forced to state something with which they disagree and the effect is to reduce the diversity of opinions at universities.

Its easy to find examples that you claim to be awaiting but you probably don't want to know about them. There is a woman who was sent to prison for writing and singing a song. Find it yourself because I am scared of the nasty people who send people to prison for writing and singing songs and it appears to me to be risky to even talk about such things on an internet forum.

I refer you to the excellent book "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought" by Jonathan Rauch if you want to find out why you are wrong to assume the right to decide that people who are "just boomers getting upset that they can't say outdated views" should be prevented from earning a living if they don't submit to the current sociological dogma that you seem to like.

[ragingpup]

The Marxism stuff comes from the Social Science departments of universities - It follows on from the failure of Marxism to be accepted and it includes sociological dogma such as Critical Race Theory. It has found its way into what we call the establishment (all political parties, education, civil service, armed forces, courts, police, NHS, local authorities, commerce etc). An example is the new obsession with what they call "diversity". Douglas Murray explains very well who the Marxist woke mob are in his books e.g. these two:
"The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity"; THE SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER
"The War on the West"

If you want a quick video of Douglas try this (under 10 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNz2OkeoDA

This is a bit more detail (1hr 10mins):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYaYk09kEDs

If you have a spare 2hrs 38mins you could watch Douglas here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG7I6Bt_NZY



Here is an example of changed law in the UK:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...ality-act-2010

https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-a...ality-act-2010

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ow-extend-pub/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...of-recruitment



Its not a good idea to say anything that could upset one of the "protected groups" - even if it is true. I don't wish to provide any examples.

Thanks for the links. I watched the first one and flicked throgh bits of the second and can see where his views are so often repeated and quoted on the right and the culture warriers. He is eloquent but his arguments are well worn and are just repeating the ongoing resistence lines to human rights progress in much of the west, most of which has been passed by democracies for the service and protection of it's citizens and with their approval as democracies. They have been developed consensually to protect the majority of people who live their, not just the white able comfortable status quo who generally tend to benefit from it.

Therefore, I don't se ethis as being part of a conspiracy of Marxist bodies - just democreatically elected govenrment serving the wishes of its electorate (right and left) as it becomes increasingly non secular and information rich, leading to people being more aware of their rights and politicians using this to further policies that will appeal to these people, and passing such laws through parliament in their service, not against their will.

You're choosing to quote only laws passed since 2010 to try and further your narratice that all was fine in the world with you before then but these goody-goodies have gone and wrecked it. But why not mention the years of previous law changes that preceded these:

1965: Race Relations Act

1965: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1966: UK signs up to the European Court of Human Rights

1975: *** Discrimination Act

1976: Race Relations Act

1976: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

1979: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

1984: UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1989: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

1995: Disability Discrimination Act

1998: Human Rights Act

2006: Universal Periodic Review

2008: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)


So instead of seeing advances in people's rights embedded in laws as a recent phenomena foisted on you with an agenda, you can see that the changes you pointed to as being the latest in a long line of progressive developments on people's rights over recent history, all made by democreatically elected governments.

(oh and for what it's worth, Mclean does seem to make things harder for himself but as Kerr says, easy fodder for faux outrage in your right wing propaganda papers)

Sorry Brin, but you surely knew what would happen with your OP?!

[ragingpup]

What a bore,get a life man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But not aimed at Vaterland who gave an equally long post?

[John2]

To get a job as an academic at a UK university people are forced to write something called a "diversity statement". Its strange how in this new Orwellian world words mean the opposite of what they used to mean - some academics are be forced to state something with which they disagree and the effect is to reduce the diversity of opinions at universities.

Wait, what do you think a diversity statement contains?

You think people are forced to state things they disagree with? What sort of things? How have you come to these conclusions?

[vaterland_miller]

Thanks for the links. I watched the first one and flicked throgh bits of the second and can see where his views are so often repeated and quoted on the right and the culture warriers. He is eloquent but his arguments are well worn and are just repeating the ongoing resistence lines to human rights progress in much of the west, most of which has been passed by democracies for the service and protection of it's citizens and with their approval as democracies. They have been developed consensually to protect the majority of people who live their, not just the white able comfortable status quo who generally tend to benefit from it.

Therefore, I don't se ethis as being part of a conspiracy of Marxist bodies - just democreatically elected govenrment serving the wishes of its electorate (right and left) as it becomes increasingly non secular and information rich, leading to people being more aware of their rights and politicians using this to further policies that will appeal to these people, and passing such laws through parliament in their service, not against their will.

You're choosing to quote only laws passed since 2010 to try and further your narratice that all was fine in the world with you before then but these goody-goodies have gone and wrecked it. But why not mention the years of previous law changes that preceded these:

1965: Race Relations Act

1965: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1966: UK signs up to the European Court of Human Rights

1975: *** Discrimination Act

1976: Race Relations Act

1976: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

1979: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

1984: UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1989: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

1995: Disability Discrimination Act

1998: Human Rights Act

2006: Universal Periodic Review

2008: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)


So instead of seeing advances in people's rights embedded in laws as a recent phenomena foisted on you with an agenda, you can see that the changes you pointed to as being the latest in a long line of progressive developments on people's rights over recent history, all made by democreatically elected governments.

(oh and for what it's worth, Mclean does seem to make things harder for himself but as Kerr says, easy fodder for faux outrage in your right wing propaganda papers)

Sorry Brin, but you surely knew what would happen with your OP?!

Its always a good sign when one's opponent in a debate starts talking about "conspiracy theories" because it demonstrates that they are unaware that all aspects of government and corporate policy in all countries get decided in private rooms amongst small groups of people with their agendas. There is no conspiracy but there is a nett effect of ignorant people who subscribe to destructive, extremist social science dogma that they have been exposed to at university (e.g. Critical Race Theory) from academics who want to sow social discord and thereby, in some magical way, move towards their idea of social utopia.

Democratic - how do we vote against this wokery if even the Conservative Party introduce identity politics legislation (e.g. the 2010 Act I cited along with links describing some of its results)? My science and technology professional journals are full of the woke nonsense and whilst I am not compelled to read it I do have to pay for it.

There was a time when the Inquisition decided what could be stated and what could not. The end of the Inquisition was followed by the "Age of Enlightenment" from which we have science and technology and the enormous benefits brought by that over the last 300 years, unique in world history. Why would we want to change our culture by re-imposing new constraints on freedom of thought?

If people want to pretend to be nice by perching on one knee, by all means they should do that but then they should not expect the people who boo their gesture to run the risk of prosecution and all that follows from that.

As an ardent Monarchist I would support Maclean's right to protest peacefully for whatever he believes in, however offensive that may be to some people. Superficially he looks like the kind of chap I wouldn't want as a son-in-law but perhaps he is a delightful person. I can't say that I care one way or the other.

[MillerBill]

But not aimed at Vaterland who gave an equally long post?

Because John grasps every opportunity to politicise everything.He has this unhealthy obsession and he's on all the time.It is a football message board.

[vaterland_miller]

Wait, what do you think a diversity statement contains?

You think people are forced to state things they disagree with? What sort of things? How have you come to these conclusions?

I have zero interest in what it contains. It is an example of expensive woke nonsense that provides a whole new industry for nice people with social science backgrounds to receive high salaries from tax-payers whilst deciding who gets a job and who doesn't. Why should anyone be forced to make a sociological statement if they want to teach anything let alone a subject like mathematics? And what of those candidates who are "just boomers getting upset that they can't say outdated views" whose "outdated" ideas are deemed by the nice people making the decisions to be unacceptable (even though those views are irrelevant to the job). And how does this improve diversity of opinion in the university?

[John2]

I have zero interest in what it contains.

Herein lies the problem.

Your entire argument centred around diversity statements being a "bad thing" without any justification of why, or evidence you understand what they even are.

In any job, employers have a duty to find the right person for the role.

I don't think a diversity statement is at all what you think it is or has the effects you think it has.

If you don't even care what's in them and are willing to be spoonfed opinions by people espousing marxist-culture war propaganda... how can you be so sure they're a bad thing?

[John2]

Its always a good sign when one's opponent in a debate starts talking about "conspiracy theories" because it demonstrates that they are unaware that all aspects of government and corporate policy in all countries get decided in private rooms amongst small groups of people with their agendas.

Sorry, I just picked up on this extraordinary line.

You're the one that is sharing the idea that Marxists have literally conspired to achieve their aims through woke culture wars instead because their initial attempts failed.

That's the very definition of a conspiracy.

Do you disagree?

[Brin]

Thanks for the links. I watched the first one and flicked throgh bits of the second and can see where his views are so often repeated and quoted on the right and the culture warriers. He is eloquent but his arguments are well worn and are just repeating the ongoing resistence lines to human rights progress in much of the west, most of which has been passed by democracies for the service and protection of it's citizens and with their approval as democracies. They have been developed consensually to protect the majority of people who live their, not just the white able comfortable status quo who generally tend to benefit from it.

Therefore, I don't se ethis as being part of a conspiracy of Marxist bodies - just democreatically elected govenrment serving the wishes of its electorate (right and left) as it becomes increasingly non secular and information rich, leading to people being more aware of their rights and politicians using this to further policies that will appeal to these people, and passing such laws through parliament in their service, not against their will.

You're choosing to quote only laws passed since 2010 to try and further your narratice that all was fine in the world with you before then but these goody-goodies have gone and wrecked it. But why not mention the years of previous law changes that preceded these:

1965: Race Relations Act

1965: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1966: UK signs up to the European Court of Human Rights

1975: *** Discrimination Act

1976: Race Relations Act

1976: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

1979: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

1984: UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1989: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

1995: Disability Discrimination Act

1998: Human Rights Act

2006: Universal Periodic Review

2008: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)


So instead of seeing advances in people's rights embedded in laws as a recent phenomena foisted on you with an agenda, you can see that the changes you pointed to as being the latest in a long line of progressive developments on people's rights over recent history, all made by democreatically elected governments.

(oh and for what it's worth, Mclean does seem to make things harder for himself but as Kerr says, easy fodder for faux outrage in your right wing propaganda papers)

Sorry Brin, but you surely knew what would happen with your OP?!

Raging, actually I didn't but at least I know we have a very strong academic gifted set of folk on here who can speak well. Good for them as it let's em let their curlers out and fluff there hair now and again of having the right opinion.