|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 18:57:58 GMT
Why do you haunt us, specialperson? Because you can and we don't stop you, that's why. but liberal Joe has already called to have me banned
"this member should be banned "
and all I have done is posted
Haunt you are you being just a tad paranoid?Gedda life instead of blathering about rules, you bureaucrat. I have never been a bureaucrat and have a wonderful life thanks Get back to the public sector, this is PRIVATE enterprise here. Is that what bugs you so? its a very public message board
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2009 19:11:41 GMT
Oh gawd! I can live without fascinating conversation like this. I'm off to talk to myself on my climate blog.
Toodle-oo
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2009 21:47:03 GMT
No, it was to do with a clique of gels repeatedly catpeeing my posts that had already gone through premod and so had been judged OK for publication on the boards. They even boasted about it in public. Why did they never tell me?I was one of their ringleaders, after all!
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 22:47:13 GMT
"the self defeating tyrrany of political correctness will have people looking to conservative voices for common sense." at least words to that effect from Camille and i agree with her. yo! go girl .... here's what she says, and about feminist rhetorric too. although about american student campuses, cant deny its relevant here too. www.borndigital.com/camille.htmSeems Ms Paglia is stuck fighting against the feminism of the 70s and 80s. She uses Dworkin and MacKinnon as the opposition to her theories, it would help her and you to move on into the 21st Century. Ms Paglia is promoted by the media because she is pretty and is a woman criticising feminism. She is a very poor and confused writer, beloved by Playboy mag. Betty Friedan says about Miss Paglia She is an exhibitionist, and she takes the most extreme elements of the women's movement and tries to make the whole movement antisexual, antilife, antijoy. And neither I nor most of the women I know are that way."
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 6, 2009 23:13:13 GMT
Seems Ms Paglia is stuck fighting against the feminism of the 70s and 80s. She uses Dworkin and MacKinnon as the opposition to her theories, it would help her and you to move on into the 21st Century. Ms Paglia is promoted by the media because she is pretty and is a woman criticising feminism. She is a very poor and confused writer, beloved by Playboy mag. Betty Friedan says about Miss Paglia She is an exhibitionist, and she takes the most extreme elements of the women's movement and tries to make the whole movement antisexual, antilife, antijoy. And neither I nor most of the women I know are that way." does it really matter who she or you cites as opposition to her theories. what Camille Paglia criticises was very much the dominant and stifling tone on the BBC wh msg board, presuming they are also those who you know? - yes i know it was a year ago and more, but still the 21st century.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 6, 2009 23:32:46 GMT
stifling tone on the BBC wh msg board, presuming they are also those who you know? - yes i know it was a year ago and more, but still the 21st century. of course that's where i mostly came across that kind of rhetorric and then also when i used to live in Brigfhton, i found the thought police were mostly of the coddled middle classes. thankfully i don't feel those constraints among the people i know where i live now, far away from the south-east.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 7, 2009 9:30:25 GMT
Thanks for reminding me, pippa...it's a long time since I read any Camille Paglia.
But she's so defeatist, isn't she?
I mean, look at this (from your link):
"...That men can satisfy their desires on an inert or unconscious object seems intolerable to [feminist professional] women, though it is a fact of life, palatable or not. "
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 7, 2009 12:17:10 GMT
Thanks for reminding me, pippa...it's a long time since I read any Camille Paglia. But she's so defeatist, isn't she? I mean, look at this (from your link): "...That men can satisfy their desires on an inert or unconscious object seems intolerable to [feminist professional] women, though it is a fact of life, palatable or not. " read the sentence in context: "It is tremendously difficult to convince feminist professional women of the existence of unconscious or subliminal erotic communication. As my friend Bruce Benderson says, their middle class world has "no subtext."...That men can satisfy their desires on an inert or unconscious object seems intolerable to such women, though it is a fact of life, palatable or not. Male sexual functioning does not depend on female response. And the illicit is always highly charged. (Vamps & Tramps, p.37)not so defeatist - just fact of life - she's saying "get over it". what is defeatist the demonisation of men for doing that.. she is not talking in absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 7, 2009 16:41:59 GMT
Two great posts, libjoe!
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 9:52:31 GMT
Are you saying that her views are politically correct, Joe? Perhaps you are saying that the tolerance of her views are politically correct? And that anyone that tolerates such a view is expressing "political correctness"?
It is an interesting one. Indeed it is always interesting when libertarians are challenged when behaviour which they do not like to see is a direct result of their having fought for the liberty to express it.
However in this case I am uncertain whether the thoughts you ascribe directly to a headteacher are those expressed by a headteacher, or someone else that contributes to a publication she also contributes to.
In broader terms however, I find the the term "PC gone mad" is nowadays generally used by people who are annoyed that their use of offensive language or displays of offensive behaviour is challenged in a way that makes them feel ashamed.
I used to hear the term "politically correct" used a fair bit in the eighties when people and groups were being advised, usually quite gently, that their behaviour or language was causing offense, and they were being asked, again gently, to consider being more polite (politic)
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 8, 2009 10:34:45 GMT
I used to hear the term "politically correct" used a fair bit in the eighties when people and groups were being advised, usually quite gently, that their behaviour or language was causing offense, and they were being asked, again gently, to consider being more polite (politic) there's the rub though - very often the manner in which i heard and saw it towards an individual was by some misguided authoritarian who though the ignorant need re-educating - enought to get anyones back up. rather like we all witness in every day life and on msg boards. perhaps with groups who work in areas where a sensitive use of language would be helpful - its fair enough. however, surely the evolvement and use of language is an individual thing and if not intended to offend, is a personal choice without some thought police taking it upon themselvess to eductate the ignorant masses, telling people what they can and cannot say. as well as patronising, it's also offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 10:47:43 GMT
I know what you mean. If approached in such a manner my back would also go up
However,in years gone by, I never thought that using a term like "spastic" was anything other than descriptive. Unless I was using it as an insult ("you spas") of course. I could not quite see how because I used it as an insult in one way it became unacceptable to use it descriptively.
Then someone told me how it made them feel, and I stopped.
Its in the same bag as using male terms to describe functions (like jobs) I suppose. Once you use a word in one way it is hard to see it any other way.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 8, 2009 11:04:07 GMT
PC tends to be used to describe something new that the user doesn't approve of, or thinks is silly. So, this morning I saw the practice of printing cups of coffee (IE, from MacDondald's) with warnings about hot liquid decribed as PC, whereas it is really there to protect MacDonald's (and others) from being prosecuted; it is nothing to do with protection. So, PC can be anything. And it is nearly always a pejorative term. It is not usually people who approve of (say) an anti-discrimination law who will call it PC, but someone who thinks that such a law is a constraint on their freedom.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 8, 2009 11:13:20 GMT
Joe - no one is stopping you from saying anything; you can talk about Newspeak and 1984 all you like, but you can still use any word you want to and no one can or will stop you. And there are message boards that will allow you to say nigger but not fuck. Really PC, eh?
(And anti PC people do complain about things like making buildings - and buses - accessable for disabled people, or anti-race discrimination laws. You might think things like that are just common politeness, but when it involves building stuff and actually spending money you need laws before it really gets common.)
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Dec 8, 2009 12:11:59 GMT
Hello, Joe
Actually I don't think either views - those you attribute to her and those of the BNP are generally tolerated, or bask in public acceptance.
I would, and do, challenge both.
The thing about her getting public funds tho - its not a lot of money, not enough to run an actual school. One assumes therefore that, like "normal" public (private) schools, they are not subject to normal scrutiny and the National Curriculum. As a taxpayer I am interested in whether she got the funding to do something that she subsequently didn't do.
Incidentally I would be interested in your view of the funds given to the catholic church schools, which also accept a higher power (Rome) over any local political structure. Similarly they try and get girls to turn away from Western freedoms in the expression of their sexuality, just like Muslim schools. (tho possibly without the stoning)
I am in like mind with you about trying to get all schools to teach something about understanding the nature of the society they are in, as without that the girls in either Muslim or catholic schools may not understand the freedoms that are theirs by right. I have no idea how to make it mandatory though, without pressuring all non-state funded schools to comply with a state-dictated curriculum (and subsequent enforcement measures)
I can quite see how you arrive at the "BNP would not be given public funds to run a school", but if the parents wanted to do it themselves they could do, couldn't they? Isn't that how private schools happen? And there is little if any state interference in the ideology taught at, say, Eton.
|
|