Political Labels

[backontrack]

I am sure that the Spanish Invaders would indeed have some draconian "group punishment" ready for the merest hint of "flippancy" by those indigenous peoples...

Yeah, you're probably right there...

 

[Mvann]

I put other, although don't label me would have been apt. I tend to be mix and match on politics. I'm not an environmentalist but can't see the point of wasting resources as that's wasting money. If plastic carrier bags are bad for the environment, why has no one come up with an alternative to plastic bin liners. I don't necessarily believe fully in the equal oportunitise slogan. Yes everybody should have equal oportunitise, but it should be best person for the job.

 

[pemma]

If plastic carrier bags are bad for the environment, why has no one come up with an alternative to plastic bin liners.

I think the issues are:
1. When they were free a number of people were getting new ones every time even if they already had bags which could been reused.
2. Carrier bags not being disposed of properly. They made carriers biodegradable but then realised that if they got in to rivers and the sea that fish were consuming microscopic bits of plastic.

I find it strange that a paper bag made from recycled paper is now seen as more environmentally friendly option than a plastic bag. Yet when I was growing up I remember people saying how wasting paper was harming the forests, yet the amount of plastic packaging put around some pre-packaged products wasn't seen as an issue.

I don't necessarily believe fully in the equal oportunitise slogan. Yes everybody should have equal oportunitise, but it should be best person for the job.

A Radio Times reader recently kicked off a fuss about there being a senior and junior newsreader position and the BBC always putting the male newsreader in the senior position (specifically commenting on Dan Walker and Louise Minchin), which was picked up by some of the tabloids who made a fuss about it. Although, she didn't complain about ITV putting Charlene White or Ranvir Singh in her so-called senior position with Alistair Stewart or Mark Austin in the junior position! :roll:

However, while I think she made a big fuss about nothing there is a different issue. When Bill Turnbull resigned from BBC Breakfast they specifically looked for a male person, while when Susanna Reid left they specifically looked for a female person. How are they are getting the best person for the job or even complying with the Equalities Act by doing that?

 

[Gutfright]

When Bill Turnbull resigned from BBC Breakfast they specifically looked for a male person, while when Susanna Reid left they specifically looked for a female person. How are they are getting the best person for the job or even complying with the Equalities Act by doing that?

Now, I'm no lawyer but...

I think there are exceptions to the Equality Act for the casting of actors. It's not illegal to reject Dawn French for the main role in a Nelson Mandela biopic, for example. The BBC could argue that, if you define an actor as 'someone who reads from a script in front of a camera', then they are within their rights to discriminate when casting actors for the roles of 'male presenter' and 'female presenter' in their show.

Perhaps.

 

[backontrack]

I put other, although don't label me would have been apt. I tend to be mix and match on politics. I'm not an environmentalist but can't see the point of wasting resources as that's wasting money. If plastic carrier bags are bad for the environment, why has no one come up with an alternative to plastic bin liners. I don't necessarily believe fully in the equal oportunitise slogan. Yes everybody should have equal oportunitise, but it should be best person for the job.

I take a backpack to the supermarket, and reuse any additional bags I need by bringing them with me.

 

[pemma]

Now, I'm no lawyer but...

I think there are exceptions to the Equality Act for the casting of actors. It's not illegal to reject Dawn French for the main role in a Nelson Mandela biopic, for example. The BBC could argue that, if you define an actor as 'someone who reads from a script in front of a camera', then they are within their rights to discriminate when casting actors for the roles of 'male presenter' and 'female presenter' in their show.

Perhaps.

I think most newsreaders would see themselves as journalists who appear on TV and dislike the idea that people who aren't experienced journalists can sometimes get a newsreader job on national news for BBC or ITV because they are good in front of a camera. Michael Burke, Martin Austin and Philip Hayton are among those who've publicly given that kind of opinion.

 

[Mvann]

I take a backpack to the supermarket, and reuse any additional bags I need by bringing them with me.

I use carrier bags to put my rubbish in instead of buying plastic bin liner.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I use carrier bags to put my rubbish in instead of buying plastic bin liner.

Many of these are now stated to be bio-degradable.

However, we seem to have strayed a tad off topic on a "Political Labels" thread.

 

[backontrack]

We seem to be talking more about bag labels than anything else.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does the use of the word "political" (as used in the title of this thread) these days mean a far wider definition in its remit to people than it used to, as what was viewed as "political" in my younger days would normally be in accord with actual political parties in existence.

From what I have read on this thread so far, other non-political terms seem to be added to political terms to make a mish-mash of personally-held beliefs rather than a strict understanding of what should be political beliefs.

 

[Gutfright]

Does the use of the word "political" (as used in the title of this thread) these days mean a far wider definition in its remit to people than it used to, as what was viewed as "political" in my younger days would normally be in accord with actual political parties in existence.

From what I have read on this thread so far, other non-political terms seem to be added to political terms to make a mish-mash of personally-held beliefs rather than a strict understanding of what should be political beliefs.

I agree. Feminism shouldn't be called political because it's not in accord with actual political parties in existence. I mean, It's not like there's a Women's Equality party that actually exists, and is actually standing in the London mayoral elections, is there?

Oh.

Aside from your astonishingly poorly thought through definition of what should constitute a political belief, you do raise an issue which may be interesting. What is the best way of dealing with people who find it traumatic and confusing living in the 21st century and delude themselves into thinking that it's still the 1950s because that's the last time that life seemed to make sense to them? Do you try to humour them and accommodate their bizarrely retrograde beliefs in order to protect them from being upset? Or do you try to point out to such people that it's the current year even if it's probably futile to even try?

In short, which is more important: Facts or feelings?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I agree. Feminism shouldn't be called political because it's not in accord with actual political parties in existence. I mean, It's not like there's a Women's Equality party that actually exists, and is actually standing in the London mayoral elections, is there?

Oh.

Aside from your astonishingly poorly thought through definition of what should constitute a political belief, you do raise an issue which may be interesting. What is the best way of dealing with people who find it traumatic and confusing living in the 21st century and delude themselves into thinking that it's still the 1950s because that's the last time that life seemed to make sense to them? Do you try to humour them and accommodate their bizarrely retrograde beliefs in order to protect them from being upset? Or do you try to point out to such people that it's the current year even if it's probably futile to even try?

In short, which is more important: Facts or feelings?

If you wanted to use the two items stated above in order to reflect any non-political nomenclature in the title of this thread, you should have given this thread a title that would better reflects the matter that you hoped to achieve.

Your comments about the 1950's covered a period in British history after the end of the Second World War where many changes had been made following the election of the Labour Government and a change of ideals that saw the setting up of the National Health Service, so I am somewhat worried that you feel that period in time is something not significant when viewed in 2016.

 

[Gutfright]

If you wanted to use the two items stated above in order to reflect any non-political nomenclature in the title of this thread, you should have given this thread a title that would better reflects the matter that you hoped to achieve.

I know that you struggle to express yourself clearly and concisely, and I sympathise with how frustrating that must be for you, but the sentence above is completely unintelligible. I can't respond to your advice as I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Your comments about the 1950's covered a period in British history after the end of the Second World War where many changes had been made following the election of the Labour Government and a change of ideals that saw the setting up of the National Health Service, so I am somewhat worried that you feel that period in time is something not significant when viewed in 2016.

Nobody's saying that nothing significant happened in the fifties.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nobody's saying that nothing significant happened in the fifties.

Then why on earth did you choose to mention that time period in your posting or were you hoping that no-one would then respond to it...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know that you struggle to express yourself clearly and concisely, and I sympathise with how frustrating that must be for you, but the sentence above is completely unintelligible. I can't respond to your advice as I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I cannot be held personally responsible for any lack of comprehension on your part....

 

[backontrack]

Then why on earth did you choose to mention that time period in your posting or were you hoping that no-one would then respond to it...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I cannot be held personally responsible for any lack of comprehension on your part....

....HOUSE!

 

[pemma]

I agree. Feminism shouldn't be called political because it's not in accord with actual political parties in existence. I mean, It's not like there's a Women's Equality party that actually exists, and is actually standing in the London mayoral elections, is there?

There's really three types of feminists

1. Those who want equality.

2. Those who want to argue for equality where women are disadvantaged but want inequality where men are disadvantaged.

3. Similar to 2 but bring up arguments which aren't logical to claim women are disadvantaged. For instance, saying ASDA paying check out workers less than warehouse operatives is sexist when the male check out workers were paid the same as the female check out workers because there's not many women who want to work in the warehouses.

 

[Gutfright]

Then why on earth did you choose to mention that time period in your posting or were you hoping that no-one would then respond to it...:roll:

Your gratuitously long-winded, egregiously un-succinct writing style coupled with your attitude that only the elite political class may decide what is and isn't political strongly suggests someone whose mind was made up in the 50s and who is damned if he's going to live in the 21st century.

Although I'm being a bit unfair to the fifties, even then people were able to communicate with one another in a way that people could understand.

I cannot be held personally responsible for any lack of comprehension on your part....

If you don't think that the offending sentence was poorly-written unintelligible gibberish then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

The fact remains that, unless you rewrite the offending sentence in a way that a non-psychic reader could reasonably be expected to understand or someone else explains what you meant, I won't be able to heed the advice you were trying ( however inelegantly) to give.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's really three types of feminists

1. Those who want equality.

2. Those who want to argue for equality where women are disadvantaged but want inequality where men are disadvantaged.

3. Similar to 2 but bring up arguments which aren't logical to claim women are disadvantaged. For instance, saying ASDA paying check out workers less than warehouse operatives is sexist when the male check out workers were paid the same as the female check out workers because there's not many women who want to work in the warehouses.

Those in categories 2 & 3 are the reason I don't describe myself as a feminist. When asked I tend to say something along the lines of "I'm an egalitarian".

 

[Steveman]

I cannot be held personally responsible for any lack of comprehension on your part....

The poster has made himself look rather foolish to say the least because nothing you've written is in any way difficult to understand.

 

[EM2]

Out of all those labels, I have no idea what I am.
All I know is what I believe to be right, which is admittedly mostly on the left side of the political spectrum.
My philosophy as a whole can probably be summed up as 'Pay your fair share, don't take more than you're entitled to, and above all don't be a d***'.

 

[Gutfright]

The poster has made himself look rather foolish to say the least because nothing you've written is in any way difficult to understand.

Well maybe I'm just thick, but I've read and re-read this...

If you wanted to use the two items stated above in order to reflect any non-political nomenclature in the title of this thread, you should have given this thread a title that would better reflects the matter that you hoped to achieve.

...and I'm still struggling to work out what exactly Paul Sidorczuk was trying to say. Maybe I'm wrong, but surely he could have expressed himself more clearly?

Maybe I should just let it drop, but it's bugging me a bit now.

One thing is abundantly clear: Paul Sidorczuk is never going to change his excessively lengthy writing style. People will continue to misunderstand him as a result, and he will continue to sneer at those who do.

Ho hum. World keeps turning.

 

[Steveman]

Well maybe I'm just thick, Possibly but I've read and re-read this...

...and I'm still struggling to work out what exactly Paul Sidorczuk was trying to say. Maybe I'm wrong, Possibly but surely he could have expressed himself more clearly?

Maybe I should just let it drop, Defintely but it's bugging me a bit now.

One thing is abundantly clear: Paul Sidorczuk is never going to change his excessively lengthy writing style. People will continue to misunderstand him as a result, I understand him and he will continue to sneer at those who do. The sneering seems to be mainly from you

Ho hum. World keeps turning.

Sometimes things are just better left alone.

 

[Gutfright]

Sometimes things are just better left alone.

Possibly.

But if anyone wants to put me out of my misery and translate...

If you wanted to use the two items stated above in order to reflect any non-political nomenclature in the title of this thread, you should have given this thread a title that would better reflects the matter that you hoped to achieve.

...into plain English, I would be grateful.

I think he was trying to say that I should have chosen a different title for this thread, because he doesn't consider [something?] to be political. That's my best guess, anyhow.