Cancel culture

[BFTD]

15 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Any questions on political correctness today should be directed to @superbigal.

Just because she's bisexual?

[Trackdaybob]

23 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Any questions on political correctness today should be directed to @superbigal.

 

6 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Just because she's bisexual?

So it's not super big Al then? 

 

[Todd_is_God]

47 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 

I disagree. Bennett is right here.

If the terms “breasts” or “breast feeding” are offensive or non inclusive to some people, so much so that some bright spark thought it was necessary to introduce these terms to our language - then why have they not gone a step further and changed midwife?

I think it’s fucking ridiculous tbh. Why are things like this being introduced to appease a tiny group of oddballs who get offended by this stuff? I think it is very strange and I don’t get it.

 

Because we don't seem to want to tell the people who suggest them "no, that's ridiculous" in case they are offended.

[Trackdaybob]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Because we don't seem to want to tell the people who suggest them "no, that's ridiculous" in case they are offended.

I say it quite often these days but not enough people are told "just f**k off" these days. We're well past it now. The damage is done. 

Now I'm not saying it's the case in this instance. Although it probably is

 

[bennett]

8 minutes ago, Trackdaybob said:

 

So it's not super big Al then? 

 

I thought it was superb Igal.

[BFTD]

11 minutes ago, Trackdaybob said:

So it's not super big Al then? 

Nah. What kind of fud would include their size in their username?

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Nah. What kind of fud would include their size in their username?

[D.A.F.C]

3 hours ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

I guess I am old and outdated because reading that statement by Charisma I am thinking "what's the problem?". We have all had absolute shitcunts as bosses. Weinstein got cancelled for being a serial rapist. This guy just sounds like a dick. She says he "weaponized my womanhood against me" but not everything is  a Machiavellian scheme. Sometimes, people simply are just dicks. You cannae go around canceling people for being dicks, can you?

See that’s the thing. Someone can quite rightly get fired for abusing someone once if they attack a protected class. If they do it to someone but don’t use certain phrases or terms day after day for years then it’s ok. People have been driven to suicide and severe mental illness because of it.

Casually cruel and intentionally inflicting mental pain on someone till the point it ruins their quality of life isn’t just being a dick.

I hope that nobody thinks I’m saying that protected characteristics or classes are a problem, just saying that if it’s not ok then this also isn’t ok but there’s currently zero protection from it unless you have a decent union or know someone high up.

[yoda]

Nothing quite gets the P&B AULD DA JEANS & SHEUX barmy army riled up like some "it's pee cee gone mad, stew" non-story. 

A single hospital trust has introduced gender neutral terms and there's folk sat, staring at their screens, physically shaking with rage. Does it impact their lives? No. Will it make some trans men who give birth feeling less marginalised? Probably. 

It's always the "pee cee gone mad, stew" brigade who are the most precious.

[coprolite]

26 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

See that’s the thing. Someone can quite rightly get fired for abusing someone once if they attack a protected class. If they do it to someone but don’t use certain phrases or terms day after day for years then it’s ok. People have been driven to suicide and severe mental illness because of it.

Casually cruel and intentionally inflicting mental pain on someone till the point it ruins their quality of life isn’t just being a dick.

I hope that nobody thinks I’m saying that protected characteristics or classes are a problem, just saying that if it’s not ok then this also isn’t ok but there’s currently zero protection from it unless you have a decent union or know someone high up.

There's no such thing as a protected class. There are protected characteristics which everybody has. You have a gender, a race, a nationality, a sexual orientation and any harassment or discrimination on the basis of those is legally no different from harassment or discrimination suffered by a black lesbian because she's a black lesbian. 

Minorities have no greater protection from bullying than anyone else. 

 

[D.A.F.C]

8 minutes ago, coprolite said:

There's no such thing as a protected class. There are protected characteristics which everybody has. You have a gender, a race, a nationality, a sexual orientation and any harassment or discrimination on the basis of those is legally no different from harassment or discrimination suffered by a black lesbian because she's a black lesbian. 

Minorities have no greater protection from bullying than anyone else. 

 

Its not illegal to abuse someone but it is illegal to abuse someone because of their status if its a minority. 

I really don't want to argue this point and have no problem with minorites getting protection but if you go to hr and say someone called me a x or someone called me a white/black/whatever x then its night and day.

Workplace harassment

Harassment is defined by the Equality Act as:

unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, with the purpose of:
(i) violating someone’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Protected characteristics include:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex or sexual orientation.

Harassment is also unlawful under:

• the Sex Discrimination Act,
• the Race Relations Act,
• the Disability Discrimination Act,
• the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act,
• laws of common assault.

Again I want to state strongly that I have no issue with people being protected. Its the right thing to do but I was replying to the poster saying its just someone being a dick. I'm saying that there's no protection from this unless (see above). This seems wrong. I respect that you think that there is.

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Its not illegal to abuse someone but it is illegal to abuse someone because of their status if its a minority. 

I really don't want to argue this point and have no problem with minorites getting protection but if you go to hr and say someone called me a x or someone called me a white/black/whatever x then its night and day.

Workplace harassment

Harassment is defined by the Equality Act as:

unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, with the purpose of:
(i) violating someone’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Protected characteristics include:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex or sexual orientation.

Harassment is also unlawful under:

• the Sex Discrimination Act,
• the Race Relations Act,
• the Disability Discrimination Act,
• the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act,
• laws of common assault.

Again I want to state strongly that I have no issue with people being protected. Its the right thing to do but I was replying to the poster saying its just someone being a dick. I'm saying that there's no protection from this unless (see above). This seems wrong. I respect that you think that there is.

I get your point that bullying can be harmful without being discriminatory and that it is harder to get legal protection. That's not quite what you said before  but i'll not labour the point. 

I guess a difficulty is that it can be a lot more subjective. One person's challenging target is another's impossible task. 

Another difficulty is that bullies often get into positions of power and are unlikely to legislate against themselves. When the Home Secretary's well documented and unambiguous bullying gets condoned by the PM, the game's pretty much a bogey. 

[D.A.F.C]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I get your point that bullying can be harmful without being discriminatory and that it is harder to get legal protection. That's not quite what you said before  but i'll not labour the point. 

I guess a difficulty is that it can be a lot more subjective. One person's challenging target is another's impossible task. 

Another difficulty is that bullies often get into positions of power and are unlikely to legislate against themselves. When the Home Secretary's well documented and unambiguous bullying gets condoned by the PM, the game's pretty much a bogey. 

Exactly, the best thing that will happen is that it will get buried or slap on the wrist. I believe one of her victims said they were suicidal. Its nuts that this was swept under the carpet. I wonder how she feels watching her present the coronavirus update. Like she got rewarded for being an arsehole.

Edit in fact she actually tried to kill herself 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-bully-staff-suicide-conservative-boris-johnson-a9370731.html

Edited February 12, 2021 by D.A.F.C

[Benjamin_Nevis]

there's folk sat, staring at their screens, physically shaking with rage.

Surely no one is that fucking tragic? [emoji23]

[Cosmic Joe]

Is it a problem though? 

Why are folk getting hung up about other folk identifying as something different from something they don't understand? 

[Todd_is_God]

19 minutes ago, Angusfifer said:

Is it a problem though? 

Why are folk getting hung up about other folk identifying as something different from something they don't understand? 

I'd suggest that it's not ideal that midwife's are being told to avoid using the word "mother."

It's got nothing to do with understanding.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[Cosmic Joe]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'd suggest that it's not ideal that midwife's are being told to avoid using the word "mother."

It's got nothing to do with understanding.

It's hardly a problem though. I prefer to be addressed by my non abbreviated name. Hasn't caused much of a fuss so far. It's only a mark of reference

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, Angusfifer said:

It's hardly a problem though. I prefer to be addressed by my non abbreviated name. Hasn't caused much of a fuss so far. It's only a mark of reference

In your opinion.

If it was me, then I wouldn't want to be referred to as the "co-parent" or, worse still, the "second biological parent" 

Quite simply because I would be the "father"

Edited February 12, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[yoda]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

In your opinion.

If it was me, then I wouldn't want to be referred to as the "co-parent" or, worse still, the "second biological parent" 

Quite simply because I would be the "father"

You're saying that you have preferred terms and pronouns?

Snowflake.

[Cosmic Joe]

11 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

In your opinion.

If it was me, then I wouldn't want to be referred to as the "co-parent" or, worse still, the "second biological parent" 

Quite simply because I would be the "father"

Of course it's about opinion. Nobody should have the absolute right to determine somebody else's terms of reference