Whiteley a spy, says Tomlinson

Page 8 of 15 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

hedgehog50 Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.25pm
Originally posted by Sedlescombe Is the fact that Trump is stifling free debate by banning parts of the press from his press conferences and also trying to intimidate them by tweeting that they are the "enemy of the people" proof that Trump is part of the "liberal left"? What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.25pm

Originally posted by Sedlescombe

Is the fact that Trump is stifling free debate by banning parts of the press from his press conferences and also trying to intimidate them by tweeting that they are the "enemy of the people" proof that Trump is part of the "liberal left"?

What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 3.34pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions? We were discussing the stifling of free debate and who does it - which is ironic given your post. Edited by Sedlescombe (07 Mar 2017 3.34pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 3.34pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions?

We were discussing the stifling of free debate and who does it - which is ironic given your post.

Edited by Sedlescombe (07 Mar 2017 3.34pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.40pm
Originally posted by Sedlescombe We were discussing the stifling of free debate and who does it - which is ironic given your post. Edited by Sedlescombe (07 Mar 2017 3.34pm) We were discussing the stifling of free debate in the UK due to the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left establishment. You are trying to divert the discussion to Trump. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.40pm

Originally posted by Sedlescombe

We were discussing the stifling of free debate and who does it - which is ironic given your post.

Edited by Sedlescombe (07 Mar 2017 3.34pm)

We were discussing the stifling of free debate in the UK due to the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left establishment. You are trying to divert the discussion to Trump.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 3.46pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 We were discussing the stifling of free debate in the UK due to the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left establishment. You are trying to divert the discussion to Trump. You are stifling debate and I accuse you of being a member of the "liberal elite" though I can understand why you would want to divert attention and not face the implications of your own post
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 3.46pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

We were discussing the stifling of free debate in the UK due to the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left establishment. You are trying to divert the discussion to Trump.

You are stifling debate and I accuse you of being a member of the "liberal elite" though I can understand why you would want to divert attention and not face the implications of your own post

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.48pm
Originally posted by Sedlescombe You are stifling debate and I accuse you of being a member of the "liberal elite" though I can understand why you would want to divert attention and not face the implications of your own post So you think that having a go at Trump answers the charges against the UK liberal left? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 07 Mar 17 3.48pm

Originally posted by Sedlescombe

You are stifling debate and I accuse you of being a member of the "liberal elite" though I can understand why you would want to divert attention and not face the implications of your own post

So you think that having a go at Trump answers the charges against the UK liberal left?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 07 Mar 17 3.49pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Is there an unspoken pressure? Commerce relies on having the biggest markets and that include minorities. My suspicion is that sponsors want more diversity because it's good for business and this drives what is seen as the liberal agenda in large part. I don't think that really matters to be honest. Sponsors care about on field product. That's what sells, not who the head coach is. There are plenty of minority icons playing that would appease any sponsors. Besides, sponsors are far more likely to appease the richer (and whiter) portions of America. Which is part of the reason Colin Kaepernick was such a huge topic of conversation this year. The whole point of the Rooney rule, is that it gives that person a chance to 'wow' the team owner and GM. There's no pressure to hire them, but by forcing people to listen to them they get a chance. It's not perfect, but is working. If this legislation, forces magistrates/judges to think for a little bit longer about what sentences to hand down, maybe that will have a similar effect. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 07 Mar 17 3.49pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Is there an unspoken pressure?
Commerce relies on having the biggest markets and that include minorities. My suspicion is that sponsors want more diversity because it's good for business and this drives what is seen as the liberal agenda in large part.

I don't think that really matters to be honest. Sponsors care about on field product. That's what sells, not who the head coach is. There are plenty of minority icons playing that would appease any sponsors. Besides, sponsors are far more likely to appease the richer (and whiter) portions of America. Which is part of the reason Colin Kaepernick was such a huge topic of conversation this year.

The whole point of the Rooney rule, is that it gives that person a chance to 'wow' the team owner and GM. There's no pressure to hire them, but by forcing people to listen to them they get a chance. It's not perfect, but is working.

If this legislation, forces magistrates/judges to think for a little bit longer about what sentences to hand down, maybe that will have a similar effect.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 4.06pm
Originally posted by Username I don't think that really matters to be honest. Sponsors care about on field product. That's what sells, not who the head coach is. There are plenty of minority icons playing that would appease any sponsors. Besides, sponsors are far more likely to appease the richer (and whiter) portions of America. Which is part of the reason Colin Kaepernick was such a huge topic of conversation this year. The whole point of the Rooney rule, is that it gives that person a chance to 'wow' the team owner and GM. There's no pressure to hire them, but by forcing people to listen to them they get a chance. It's not perfect, but is working. If this legislation, forces magistrates/judges to think for a little bit longer about what sentences to hand down, maybe that will have a similar effect. I don't think it is all necessarily about selling directly to minorities but appearing to associated with progressive policies that appeal to a large chunk of liberal white people. As far as sentencing is concerned. If minorities are receiving tougher sentences then surely a policy of lighter sentencing would not in fact be positive discrimination but just establishing parity. So we need to be clear. Are minorities set to get lighter sentences than white people or are sentences being equalised? There is a key and important difference.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 4.06pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Username

If this legislation, forces magistrates/judges to think for a little bit longer about what sentences to hand down, maybe that will have a similar effect.

I don't think it is all necessarily about selling directly to minorities but appearing to associated with progressive policies that appeal to a large chunk of liberal white people.
As far as sentencing is concerned. If minorities are receiving tougher sentences then surely a policy of lighter sentencing would not in fact be positive discrimination but just establishing parity. So we need to be clear. Are minorities set to get lighter sentences than white people or are sentences being equalised? There is a key and important difference.

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 07 Mar 17 4.10pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't think it is all necessarily about selling directly to minorities but appearing to associated with progressive policies that appeal to a large chunk of liberal white people. As far as sentencing is concerned. If minorities are receiving tougher sentences then surely a policy of lighter sentencing would not in fact be positive discrimination but just establishing parity. So we need to be clear. Are minorities set to get lighter sentences than white people or are sentences being equalised? There is a key and important difference. In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive. The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases. Your second point is valid and I agree. I would assume and hope that it's about getting parity. However, I would argue that a publication such as the Daily Mail will always choose the more incendiary language in this sort of area. Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm) Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 07 Mar 17 4.10pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't think it is all necessarily about selling directly to minorities but appearing to associated with progressive policies that appeal to a large chunk of liberal white people.
As far as sentencing is concerned. If minorities are receiving tougher sentences then surely a policy of lighter sentencing would not in fact be positive discrimination but just establishing parity. So we need to be clear. Are minorities set to get lighter sentences than white people or are sentences being equalised? There is a key and important difference.

In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive.

The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases.

Your second point is valid and I agree. I would assume and hope that it's about getting parity. However, I would argue that a publication such as the Daily Mail will always choose the more incendiary language in this sort of area.

Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm)

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 4.19pm
Originally posted by Username In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive. The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases. Your second point is valid and I agree. I would assume and hope that it's about getting parity. However, I would argue that a publication such as the Daily Mail will always choose the more incendiary language in this sort of area. Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm) Well I don't know about that. Are you saying that liberals don't watch football?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 4.19pm

Originally posted by Username

In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive.

The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases.

Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm)

Well I don't know about that. Are you saying that liberals don't watch football?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 17 4.22pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions? Although it should be pointed out that the intolerance and authoritarian nature of the so called Liberal Left is reserved for those who are intolerant. Is it really intolerant to not be accepting of homophobia, sexism, racial prejudice etc. Now I agree that some people are too quick to play the instant 'racism' card, and overlook the argument being made and engage in it properly (such as race and crime), but they're f**ktards and every side of the argument has its fair share. Personally, I'm fairly intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious justifications, transpobia etc and I can live with that paradox. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 17 4.22pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

What has the President of the USA got to do with our discussion of the intolerant and authoritarian nature of the liberal left leadership of British institutions?

Although it should be pointed out that the intolerance and authoritarian nature of the so called Liberal Left is reserved for those who are intolerant.

Is it really intolerant to not be accepting of homophobia, sexism, racial prejudice etc.

Now I agree that some people are too quick to play the instant 'racism' card, and overlook the argument being made and engage in it properly (such as race and crime), but they're f**ktards and every side of the argument has its fair share.

Personally, I'm fairly intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious justifications, transpobia etc and I can live with that paradox.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 17 4.28pm
Originally posted by Username In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive. The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases. Your second point is valid and I agree. I would assume and hope that it's about getting parity. However, I would argue that a publication such as the Daily Mail will always choose the more incendiary language in this sort of area. Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm) We should be wary of Positive Discrimination. However, people are also very quick to see it as hypocracy, and not look in any depth. In the NFL for example, the discrimination is only that if someone who is black, and qualified applies, you have to give them an interview. Not the job, or special treatment, just the interview. This is actually based on research on job interview applications, which tend to show an unconscious prejudice when reducing the candidate list. And this in return has led to a massive shift in the diversity of coaches in the NFL. So, in this example, Positive Discrimination is actually aligned with well established social science research, and aimed directly to counter it. Its not actually discrimination, its really levelling the playing field against unconscious prejudices. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 17 4.28pm

Originally posted by Username

In America, and particularly the NFL, that can be very counter productive.

The NFL and College football both still have massive conservative fanbases.

Edited by Username (07 Mar 2017 4.12pm)

We should be wary of Positive Discrimination. However, people are also very quick to see it as hypocracy, and not look in any depth.

In the NFL for example, the discrimination is only that if someone who is black, and qualified applies, you have to give them an interview. Not the job, or special treatment, just the interview.

This is actually based on research on job interview applications, which tend to show an unconscious prejudice when reducing the candidate list.

And this in return has led to a massive shift in the diversity of coaches in the NFL.

So, in this example, Positive Discrimination is actually aligned with well established social science research, and aimed directly to counter it. Its not actually discrimination, its really levelling the playing field against unconscious prejudices.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 17 4.30pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't think it is all necessarily about selling directly to minorities but appearing to associated with progressive policies that appeal to a large chunk of liberal white people. As far as sentencing is concerned. If minorities are receiving tougher sentences then surely a policy of lighter sentencing would not in fact be positive discrimination but just establishing parity. So we need to be clear. Are minorities set to get lighter sentences than white people or are sentences being equalised? There is a key and important difference. There is an argument that sentencing should not be set by the Judge on the case, but by a judge who has worked the case working from a 'redacted transcript' that removes details of the offender and defendent's name, occupation, social class etc. That way, the judges preconceptions of the defendant are removed entirely and placed instead on the argument of the case. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 17 4.30pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There is an argument that sentencing should not be set by the Judge on the case, but by a judge who has worked the case working from a 'redacted transcript' that removes details of the offender and defendent's name, occupation, social class etc.

That way, the judges preconceptions of the defendant are removed entirely and placed instead on the argument of the case.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 15 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Whiteley a spy, says Tomlinson

Site Map

Sponsors