Political Correctness Gone Mad Again

Angilion said:
Note that you have no counter-argument to it. At least you read it, though, so well done for that.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in there to reply to, you didn't make a single coherent point, you contradict yourself within the same sentence and your analogy is tedious and long winded to the point you're expecting people to actually sit and do maths in their head to understand your irrelevant post.

Wanting equality for a group that is disadvantaged in a certain area means exactly that, you don't have to either fix the entire worlds problems or do nothing at all. ridiculous.
 
Angilion said:
And feminists would say the same about feminist groups.

They'd both be wrong, for the same reasons. Although they'd both be sort of right too, in that they would both regard anything that benefitted their favoured group as being "fair".

Besides, if someone just wants some inequalities removed for the "right" group they're not after equality anyway, even if they do just want some inequalities removed.

An example:

A has 3 £20 notes, 1 £10 note, 2 £5 notes and £8 in coins.
B has 1 £20 note, 1 £10 notes, 8 £5 notes and £10 in coins.

To an A-ist who "just wants A to be treated fairly" and who actually means "fairly" in that context(*), 3 of the fivers and coins should be taken from B and given to A so A and B have the same amount of fivers and £1 of coins should be taken from B and given to A so A and B have the same value of coins too.

To a B-ist who "just wants B to be treated fairly" and who actually means "fairly" in that context(*), 1 of the £20 notes should be taken from A and given to B so A and B have the same amount of twenties.

Before: A had £88, B had £80.

After successful "really fair" A-ism: A has £104, B has £64.

After successful "really fair" B-ism: A has £68, B has £100.

A-B egalitarianism would consider A and B, not just A or B, and seek equality in all things.

After succesful A-B egalitariansim: A has £88, B has £88.

EDIT: In theory, you could get A-B egalitarianism by combing A-ism and B-ism. In practice, that's about as likely as combining far right and far left activists to get a centralist group. It might possibly be done on a small scale with less ideologically committed people, but it's not going to come to much.



* In practice, most if not all A-ists and B-ists would want a bigger inequality than that and rationalise it by claiming that since their favoured group identity had less in the past it should have more in present and the future to make things "equal". They'd probably use some silly nonsense about a race and laces tied together to pretend that the discrimination they want is equality. That's the most common form of the lie. They might even believe it - since they think in terms of group identities they don't even distinguish much if at all between people who are dead and people who are alive and people who will be born in the future. A is A is A. B is B is B.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Roar87 said:
There's nothing in there to reply to, you didn't make a single coherent point,
Click to expand...

Not true.

you contradict yourself within the same sentence
Click to expand...

Not true.

and your analogy is tedious and long winded to the point you're expecting people to actually sit and do maths in their head to understand your irrelevant post.
Click to expand...

It's simple, short and I did the extremely simple maths for you, right there in the post. Not that it was anything anyone here should find difficult - it's very simple arithmetic with a handful of integers.

Wanting equality for a group that is disadvantaged in a certain area means exactly that, you don't have to either fix the entire worlds problems or do nothing at all. ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So you're a believer in unequal equality. Doubleplusgood Newspeak, citizen!

"Equality" that's only for the "right" biological group is not equality. That's not a difficult concept. Are you really unable to understand it? Disagreeing with it is one thing. Finding it so alien that it's genuinely incomprehensible to you is quite another.

If anyone can give any counter-argument, I'll read it. "I don't understand it" or "I don't like typing" or "ridiculous" aren't counter-arguments.
 
Angilion said:
So you're a believer in unequal equality. Doubleplusgood Newspeak, citizen!

"Equality" that's only for the "right" biological group is not equality. That's not a difficult concept. Are you really unable to understand it? Disagreeing with it is one thing. Finding it so alien that it's genuinely incomprehensible to you is quite another.
Click to expand...

It sounds as though you are assuming that everyone is currently equal and that those groups are calling for better treatment at the expense of others. Whereas many of those groups would argue that they currently at a disadvantage. It doesn’t have to be a zero sum game.

Which is why I asked my previous question which you haven’t answered.
 
Angilion said:
"Equality" that's only for the "right" biological group is not equality.
Click to expand...

This sentence is rubbish. Making things equal for members of a specific group that is currently disadvantaged in a specific area doesn't mean you aren't campaigning for equality unless you're wanting better treatment for that group than everyone else.

How would a man go about campaigning for equal treatment for men in the child courts in your view? Just say both parents should be treated fairly? Which is essentially the same argument and what is currently not happening.
 
how dare some supermarkets have female only parking places,

why are the women not banging on about equality??!?!?!?!!?
oh wait only works for one sex not men

why don't we have male only changing rooms also? always feel weird when I walk in to one to change my sons pampers and I get funny looks from any women inside like I shouldn't be there.
 
Baroness Michelle Mone, a former boxing ring card girl and bra designer and now a Tory Peer is fuming over Formula 1’s decision to ban glamour girls from the grid, illustrating once again why anyone voting Tory should be sectioned.
 
stockhausen said:
Baroness Michelle Mone, a former boxing ring card girl and bra designer and now a Tory Peer is fuming over Formula 1’s decision to ban glamour girls from the grid, illustrating once again why anyone voting Tory should be sectioned.
Click to expand...
And anyone voting for Corbyn should be charged with Treason.






Ridiculous comments are fun
 
stockhausen said:
Baroness Michelle Mone, a former boxing ring card girl and bra designer and now a Tory Peer is fuming over Formula 1’s decision to ban glamour girls from the grid, illustrating once again why anyone voting Tory should be sectioned.
Click to expand...
WHAT?

What an utterly ridiculous statement.
 
I am not against this all of this PC correctness movement, it has it's purposes, look at Tommy Robinson for example, he would probably still be knocking lumps out of people and swilling pints down at his local boozer if he wasn't challenged by the whole movement. Stewart Lee sums some of it up. Nothing to hide nothing to worry about?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom