Is political correctness changing our lifestyle.

Keith

Moderator
They like good ale and good food David. If you weren't such a Viking I would have had you pegged as Head Hobbitt of the Marlow Shire....
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
In reply to the question - no.
Up helly aa is on 27th January - the last time it was cancelled was Winston's funeral.

Of yore, our firey fathers sped upon the Viking Path;
Of yore, their dreaded dragons braved the ocean in its wrath;
And we, their sons, are reaping now their glory's aftermath;
The waves are rolling on.

JJ Haldane-Burgess
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Well I'm glad your answer was not in the least patronising Larry and thank you for clearing that up.

Quick question: Please describe a "radical Muslim" for me? Or perhaps, for thickos like me, how do I tell a radical Muslim from a non radical Muslim?
I'm not being disingenuous but trying to imagine what would happen, for example, if someone said that "radical Christians" were on the rampage and we should all be watchful..

Do you see my dilemma?

One way of doing it I suppose is to say that "We are raising the terrorist alert status to Severe because radical Muslims are planning something nasty. You can tell a radical Muslim because he wears a skull cap and has a beard."

That is what you are asking political leaders to do; it's an untenable situation, and it's not political correctness at all that prevents them from announcing exactly that. Supposing he's a "white" convert? There's plenty of them that look just like you... What if they shave off their beards and wear a baseball cap?

Surely it's best to raise people's awareness to the possibility of an impending attack and then people will (hopefully) focus on "suspicious activity" rather than nationality or garb.

I rather suspect that there is a move to paint all Islam as radical and therefore a threat, but have the people that think that way got any answers? I would think, no.

I'll try one last time...being as specific as I can: If Al-Shabaab posts a terrorist threat on the net and signs it for all intents and purposes...or "chatter" regarding an attack is picked up via whatever media and Al-Shabaab is I.D.ed as the 'source' of it...announce the fact a threat has been made by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

If some yo-yo beheads a fellow worker at a business somewhere repeatedly yelling 'Allaua Akbar!' - call it an apparent Muslim terrorist attack...not "workplace violence"...or a "hate crime"...or a murder case.

You're on your own from here, Keith...
 
I'll try one last time...being as specific as I can: If Al-Shabaab posts a terrorist threat on the net and signs it for all intents and purposes...or "chatter" regarding an attack is picked up via whatever media and Al-Shabaab is I.D.ed as the 'source' of it...announce the fact a threat has been made by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

If some yo-yo beheads a fellow worker at a business somewhere repeatedly yelling 'Allaua Akbar!' - call it an apparent Muslim terrorist attack...not "workplace violence"...or a "hate crime"...or a murder case.

You're on your own from here, Keith...

Perhaps we expect far more info than is good for us Larry, when these arseholes kick off with their threats 99.99999% or more are not going to be affected even if they do get to carry out the threat. Thats one hell of a lot of unnecessarily scared folk, the terrorist also get way to much glorifying media coverage in the deal. We are far better off with a gagged press and leave our security forces to carry out their good work, they will do a better job of suppressing terrorism than a population of trigger happy Rambo`s .

Bob
 

Keith

Moderator
Perhaps we expect far more info than is good for us Larry, when these arseholes kick off with their threats 99.99999% or more are not going to be affected even if they do get to carry out the threat. Thats one hell of a lot of unnecessarily scared folk, the terrorist also get way to much glorifying media coverage in the deal. We are far better off with a gagged press and leave our security forces to carry out their good work, they will do a better job of suppressing terrorism than a population of trigger happy Rambo`s .

Bob

That's probably the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet and is the way it was when I was younger..

Where did all this "I am entitled to know everything so I can make stupid comments and mock the government" shite come from anyway?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Perhaps we expect far more info than is good for us Larry, when these arseholes kick off with their threats 99.99999% or more are not going to be affected even if they do get to carry out the threat. Thats one hell of a lot of unnecessarily scared folk, the terrorist also get way to much glorifying media coverage in the deal. We are far better off with a gagged press and leave our security forces to carry out their good work, they will do a better job of suppressing terrorism than a population of trigger happy Rambo`s .

Bob

Okay, one last time and then I'm bagging it: The simple point I'm trying/been trying to make is, let's knock off reporting (by both the govt and the media) purposely vague, 'p.c.-so-as-not-to-offend', watered down, 'happy face' versions of news events when the known facts tell any rational person the truth is very obviously, or, very likely to be something else.

I just can't boil it down any further than that, guys...:sad:

(BTW, I fully agree with "leave our security forces to carry out their good work.")
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
Okay, one last time and then I'm bagging it: The simple point I'm trying/been trying to make is, let's knock off reporting (by both the govt and the media) purposely vague, 'p.c.-so-as-not-to-offend', watered down, 'happy face' versions of news events when the known facts tell any rational person the truth is very obviously, or, very likely to be something else.

I just can't boil it down any further than that, guys...:sad:

(BTW, I fully agree with "leave our security forces to carry out their good work.")

I completely see where you're coming from. You call it "Political Correctness" I call it pragmatism.

And I love JR Tolkien.

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
 
Maybe Morton has it right!

LITTLE KNOWN TIDBIT OF NAVAL HISTORY

The USS Constitution (Old Ironsides), as a combat vessel, carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men.

This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (i.e. fresh water distillers).

However, let it be noted that according to her ship's log, "On July 27, 1798, the USS Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum."

Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."

Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.

Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.

On 18 November, she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchant ships, salvaging only the rum aboard.

By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted.

Nevertheless, although unarmed she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whisky distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.

Then she headed home.

The USS Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, no rum, no wine, no whisky, and 38,600 gallons of water.
 

Charlie Farley

Supporter
I note how long it took to get from Boston to Jamaica......
this side of the pond we call it a " booze cruise "....
from that time on, well, frankly it got even sillier....
That must have been one hell of a party.....
Surprised they managed to find America again.
:party2:
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I completely see where you're coming from. You call it "Political Correctness" I call it pragmatism.


P.C.:

"...the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

AND/OR

"Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation."

(Note: no mention of "TRUTH" anywhere in the above.)


Pragmatism:

"An approach that assesses the TRUTH of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."

By definition - and, in reality almost always - the two are generally wooooooorlds apart...
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
An in depth analysis there David. I for one am sick of polititions and their PC spin doctors. I would have had much greater respect for Clinton if he had said " she gave me a terrific blow job". Rather than his statement " I did not have sexual intercourse with that women"

I am sick of our leaders tippy toeing around the facts because it may cost them the black vote, the Buddist vote, the Presbyterian vote or the Muslim vote. Grow some fuckin balls and tell it like it is. Right now as far as I know there is only one religious group that wants to kill me and you and they are the followers of Mohammed. Ignore that fact at your peril.
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
Pete, you are having what our military call a "logic attack". You need to get over that kind of thing.

Politicians lie and prevaricate their way into office, for the most part. It's pointless to expect them to do any different once they are there. Their sole object is to stay there, in lieu of actually working.

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." -Mark Twain
 
Back
Top