On 19/11/2019 at 15:20, Bobby McKenzie said:

And we have "batters" in cricket now and actresses are now 'actors'. The stupidity goes on.  Do the girls really have problems with their gender that they want to given a masculine role? I don't think so.

By using girls it appears that you are trying to diminish the feelings of women. Actresses is archaic, they are all actors. I understand why some people think it is 1964 but it is time to move on, we live in the now and it is almost 2020 (no not your vision)  

  On 19/11/2019 at 11:52, ding said:

Virtue signalling Redneck means precisely nothing - it's just an empty insult rednecks virtue signallers throw at conservatives. It assumes the insulter knows the mind-set of the insulted. How can they? 

?

Amusing riposte, but you miss my point. Redneck has got a very clear meaning: from the dictionary: "a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically reactionary one."  (Although it has, of course, gone way past the southern US - I suppose bogan is the Australian equivalent)

 

'Virtue signalling' is different. Think about it. When Bolt or some other intellectual slob says that I'm 'virtue signalling' because I attend a climate protest or an anti-racism march, he's saying that I don't really believe in those things, I'm just pretending I do, sending out a signal that I'm virtuous. But he's wrong: I'm doing those things because I honestly believe in them. How does he know what my mind-set is? He doesn't; he just wants to insult me. He wants to stir up antipathy against me from the uneducated people who read his columns so that they will vote against their own economic interests. 

  On 19/11/2019 at 23:28, Jara said:

Amusing riposte, but you miss my point. Redneck has got a very clear meaning: from the dictionary: "a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically reactionary one."  (Although it has, of course, gone way past the southern US - I suppose bogan is the Australian equivalent)

 

'Virtue signalling' is different. Think about it. When Bolt or some other intellectual slob says that I'm 'virtue signalling' because I attend a climate protest or an anti-racism march, he's saying that I don't really believe in those things, I'm just pretending I do, sending out a signal that I'm virtuous. But he's wrong: I'm doing those things because I honestly believe in them. How does he know what my mind-set is? He doesn't; he just wants to insult me. He wants to stir up antipathy against me from the uneducated people who read his columns so that they will vote against their own economic interests. 

Nah i didnt miss anything, i was just showing how easily words can be twisted to suit any argument.... hence the tongue-poke at the end.

 

  On 19/11/2019 at 23:28, Jara said:

Amusing riposte, but you miss my point. Redneck has got a very clear meaning: from the dictionary: "a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically reactionary one."  (Although it has, of course, gone way past the southern US - I suppose bogan is the Australian equivalent)

 

'Virtue signalling' is different. Think about it. When Bolt or some other intellectual slob says that I'm 'virtue signalling' because I attend a climate protest or an anti-racism march, he's saying that I don't really believe in those things, I'm just pretending I do, sending out a signal that I'm virtuous. But he's wrong: I'm doing those things because I honestly believe in them. How does he know what my mind-set is? He doesn't; he just wants to insult me. He wants to stir up antipathy against me from the uneducated people who read his columns so that they will vote against their own economic interests. 

Virtue signalling isn't being an annoying turd attending protest rallies.
It's getting on your high horse sticking insulting labels on anyone who doesn't agree with your attention seeking antics.
No shortage of "educated" morons out there and you should know.
Seems you like to surround yourself with them.

 

  On 19/11/2019 at 07:14, Lord Nev said:

From the ones I've seen at least; the people who have been fired have generally had their workplace/employer listed on their social page, so they're not getting fired for making the comment as such, but getting fired due to how they're representing their employer.

 

And that's fair enough completely.

There's no easy answer to any of this - the only thing I do know is that racism is s**thouse and I wish we could live in a world without it. I'm personally all for the removal of anonymity on social media accounts so people can be accountable for what they say online (positive ID to create an account and no ability to change your name on the platform unless marriage, divorce etc). We're too far down the road for that unfortunately, somebody needed to drive for this in the late 90's, not now. 

  On 20/11/2019 at 00:11, Fork 'em said:

Virtue signalling isn't being an annoying turd attending protest rallies.
It's getting on your high horse sticking insulting labels on anyone who doesn't agree with your attention seeking antics.
No shortage of "educated" morons out there and you should know.
Seems you like to surround yourself with them.

 

Your sticking an insulting label (educated moron) on someone you don't agree with (Jara and/or the company this individual keeps). You are officially virtue signalling by your own definition now. Well played * slow clap * 

  On 20/11/2019 at 01:10, Smokey said:

Your sticking an insulting label (educated moron) on someone you don't agree with (Jara and/or the company this individual keeps). You are officially virtue signalling by your own definition now. Well played * slow clap * 

I stuck the label on those so virtuous they feel entitled to disrupt people going about their daily lives.
Extra credits for those who get themselves arrested.
If the hat fits ..... 

  On 19/11/2019 at 21:49, ManDee said:

By using girls it appears that you are trying to diminish the feelings of women. Actresses is archaic, they are all actors. I understand why some people think it is 1964 but it is time to move on, we live in the now and it is almost 2020 (no not your vision)  

And so princesses are princes, duchesses are dukes etc etc?  Or is it princess Harry these days?

  On 20/11/2019 at 02:29, Bobby McKenzie said:

And so princesses are princes, duchesses are dukes etc etc?  Or is it princess Harry these days?

what day is it?

  On 20/11/2019 at 02:12, Fork 'em said:

I stuck the label on those so virtuous they feel entitled to disrupt people going about their daily lives.
Extra credits for those who get themselves arrested.
If the hat fits ..... 

Many positive changes in society are achieved exactly this way though. Think civil rights movement, suffragette movement etc. Perhaps if this generation of politicians acknowledged the science then this wouldn't be necessary.

 

 

  On 20/11/2019 at 00:11, Fork 'em said:

Virtue signalling isn't being an annoying turd attending protest rallies.
It's getting on your high horse sticking insulting labels on anyone who doesn't agree with your attention seeking antics.
No shortage of "educated" morons out there and you should know.
Seems you like to surround yourself with them.

 

Fork em - er - this doesn't make a hu-u-ge amount of sense. That's not how the language works. You don't just get to make up your own definitions of things -well, you can, it's a free country, but if you want to be understood, you'd be advised to stick to certain standards.

I can't say the animal standing in my front paddock looking at me as I write is an elephant. By most people's definition, it's a horse. Similarly, you can't just say 'virtue signalling' isn't going to rallies, it's getting on your high horse and insulting people. How do you decide that? What's your reference? Do you just make up your meanings as you go along? That must get awfully confusing. 

 

But you are supporting my basic point - which is that 'virtue signalling' is a pretty meaningless word.

 

Besides, as Smokey said, by your definition of 'virtue signalling', you're virtue signalling yourself. 

  On 20/11/2019 at 02:29, Bobby McKenzie said:

And so princesses are princes, duchesses are dukes etc etc?  Or is it princess Harry these days?

So now you are using an archaic monarchy to defend your sexism. Okay 

So by stating that girls should be allowed to be feminine is being sexist? Guys like to be masculine too. What a strange concept of the word sexist you have. Here am I defending girls rights and you are calling me sexist.

  On 20/11/2019 at 06:15, Bobby McKenzie said:

So by stating that girls should be allowed to be feminine is being sexist? Guys like to be masculine too. What a strange concept of the word sexist you have. Here am I defending girls rights and you are calling me sexist.

I think your mistake BM is trying to justify your position. You are right just ignore the crits.

 

  On 20/11/2019 at 06:15, Bobby McKenzie said:

So by stating that girls should be allowed to be feminine is being sexist? Guys like to be masculine too. What a strange concept of the word sexist you have. Here am I defending girls rights and you are calling me sexist.

girl /ɡəːl/

noun

1. 1.

   a female child.

    

   woman/ˈwʊmən/

   noun

    

   1. an adult human female.

       

      A girl is a female child. My point was that you referred to women as girls.

 

when will this thread end?

 

 

  On 22/11/2019 at 09:18, Little Goffy said:

 

when will this thread end?

 

 

Let's pray it will be soon !!!!!

  On 22/11/2019 at 00:30, ManDee said:

girl /ɡəːl/

noun

1. 1.

   a female child.

    

   woman/ˈwʊmən/

   noun

    

   1. an adult human female.

       

      A girl is a female child. My point was that you referred to women as girls.

yeah right, and gay means being happy

they're all sheilas to me

  On 22/11/2019 at 00:30, ManDee said:

girl /ɡəːl/

noun

1. 1.

   a female child.

    

   woman/ˈwʊmən/

   noun

    

   1. an adult human female.

       

      A girl is a female child. My point was that you referred to women as girls.

So by using the word woman instead of girl clears me of being sexist? Thank you. How pedantic you are. No more English lessons please.

  On 22/11/2019 at 09:18, Little Goffy said:

 

when will this thread end?

 

 

Intriguing. Always amuses me this sort of statement.

If you don't like a thread don't go on it!

Appears fairly simple solution.

  On 19/11/2019 at 21:49, ManDee said:

By using girls it appears that you are trying to diminish the feelings of women. Actresses is archaic, they are all actors. I understand why some people think it is 1964 but it is time to move on, we live in the now and it is almost 2020 (no not your vision)  

I fail to see what is archaic about “actress”. Why should we be forced to use two words, one to define gender, the other to define occupation? To me the use of actor and actress is eminently more sensible. ?

  On 22/11/2019 at 21:46, old dee said:

Intriguing. Always amuses me this sort of statement.

If you don't like a thread don't go on it!

Appears fairly simple solution.

I get it.  Not the world's first pissing contest and wont be the last.  And you're only pissing on each other's shoes so why should anyone else care?

But if people were having a pissing contest in the alley over the road from my apartment, yeah, once in a while I'd give a yell out the window to cut it out, too. 

I'm not saying I don't care. I'm saying this thread has taken a topic which I'd like to engage on and turned it into a pathetic and odious dance of the martinets and there's a case for closing it down because sweet geebus there's nothing of value being added.