Jump to content

Middle


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, John Wright said:

Really?

No. Social Media wasn’t around in the 80’s. But I’ve been abused from university until now for being gay. Stuff in post, through the door, phone calls at every hour of day and night, on the street, in the Manx and Uk media.  You weren’t here at the height. And it still happens.

Just like BAME are abused or discriminated against or afforded less equal treatment every day of their lives. 

Your problem is a total lack of insight into your casual racism, homophobia. You’re  just a misogynistic still trying to be a member of lad culture. And when you’re challenged you go into victim mode. And while you’re at it you’re mixing with/attracting support from some pretty distasteful right wing/libertarians who care nothing for journalistic integrity or freedom of anything - apart from their own ability to control the message.

You’ve fallen a very long way.

Don't get me wrong. It was your job to be a shock jock. I understand that. 

Wow , really. What happened to free speech and air space for all . Only if it fits? I disagree with most of what Stu views are but I’ll defend to the death his right to disagree with me an he with me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I recall you used to ban people for personal abuse. For example do you know for a fact that Stu Peters is all you accuse him to be? I’m not trying to defend him just protect him from bullying😂Not that he needs help from me in that respect. You are just a hypocrite. And expects ban in your echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Anyone said:

Wow , really. What happened to free speech and air space for all . Only if it fits? I disagree with most of what Stu views are but I’ll defend to the death his right to disagree with me an he with me. 

But John has a right to disagree with Stu and call out his opinions. You don't get carte blanche to speak your mind and swerve criticism for your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed he has , but used inflammatory language. I’m not defending Stu , I have opposing views to his. But he entitled to them without the tone of John Wrights attack on him. That is all I was saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anyone said:

Indeed he has , but used inflammatory language. I’m not defending Stu , I have opposing views to his. But he entitled to them without the tone of John Wrights attack on him. That is all I was saying. 

Wow , really. What happened to free speech and air space for all . Only if it fits?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Declan said:

Wow , really. What happened to free speech and air space for all . Only if it fits?

 

You’ve lost me , fits what? People have views and opinions , some are not nice , some are. What do you suggest we do with those with whom we disagree? Shoot them ( just those who we disagree with ). Sounds like you’d like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quoting your words back at you. You are accusing John of opposing Stu's right to freedom of expression "unless it fits" (Presumably you mean what John finds acceptable). But in the next post Your position seems to be John's tone doesn't fit what you believe is acceptable.

This is basically what you've posted ...

  • I disagree with Stu, but support his right to express them anyway he likes.
  • I agree with John, but oppose his right to express them in the way he likes.

(And just to be clear, I don't agree with shooting people.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's draw a line under this. I've known John for around 20 years (both professionally and personally) and we've always got on well despite our differences, but I've obviously said something that he took grave offence to recently, which I regret. John was very generous with his time during a family legal matter some years ago and I'll be forever grateful, so I'm not going to have a public fall out with him.

I agree with pretty much everything Manxman said on the previous page, but would just add that over the last few years we've arrived at a point where we can no longer discuss issues rationally and respectfully without fear of offending someone. That was never something I set out to do, but it happens. I'm with Stephen Fry on offence. There have been some epic spats on this forum over the years, but nobody has ever faced losing their job over it, yet a small group of people a year ago took offence at my comments about BLM (and before that naughty children in restaurants) and tried to have me fired. These trolls must have nothing better to do than seek out people to attack - and I'm absolutely against that kind of fascism.

Someone wants to offend me by saying I'm overweight, old, opinionated, untalented - that's fine as I can argue back. But the minute someone throws in an '....ist' card the converstion is over and the hate (often based on third hand accounts) begins. In my experience it's the people who preach inclusivity and giving everyone a voice who are the least tolerant of anything outside their strange (to me) world view. Even using your own rather than their approved words draws condemnation.

But at least Declan is warming to me and agreeing with some of my points...

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

but would just add that over the last few years we've arrived at a point where we can no longer discuss issues rationally and respectfully without fear of offending someone.

I actually think the search for "balance" in the way news is reported has a lot to do with that.

They seek out the extremes rather than the more moderate majority. 

An example would be when they have a British astronaut on TV News to discuss the latest findings or mission they now feel they have to wheel out a flat earther for the sake of balance...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John Wright said:

Really?

No. Social Media wasn’t around in the 80’s. But I’ve been abused from university until now for being gay. Stuff in post, through the door, phone calls at every hour of day and night, on the street, in the Manx and Uk media.  You weren’t here at the height. And it still happens.

Just like BAME are abused or discriminated against or afforded less equal treatment every day of their lives. 

Your problem is a total lack of insight into your casual racism, homophobia. You’re  just a misogynistic still trying to be a member of lad culture. And when you’re challenged you go into victim mode. And while you’re at it you’re mixing with/attracting support from some pretty distasteful right wing/libertarians who care nothing for journalistic integrity or freedom of anything - apart from their own ability to control the message.

You’ve fallen a very long way.

Don't get me wrong. It was your job to be a shock jock. I understand that. 

Lad culture? You say that like it's a bad thing?

We certainly don't want to disappear into a world of nothingness.  It's like a race to the bottom at the moment.  No one can say or do anything without someone being offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Lad culture? You say that like it's a bad thing?

We certainly don't want to disappear into a world of nothingness.  It's like a race to the bottom at the moment.  No one can say or do anything without someone being offended.

The real race to the bottom is lad and laddette culture. Lowest common denominator.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The real race to the bottom is lad and laddette culture. Lowest common denominator.

That's rather a snobby perspective. 

It's possible to be ladsy without being sexist or homophobic or racist. As many in the current England team demonstrate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

The real race to the bottom is lad and laddette culture. Lowest common denominator.

What is lad or ladders culture then?

I would class myself a “lad”

Teenager in the 90s.

Now a middle aged white straight guy who likes beer and football, motorsport, women and lots of other things that middle aged white men enjoy.

Falling into that group  apparently means I have a head start in every sense.

I am not black

I am not LGBT

I am not a woman

I am not disabled.

So by all counts I have it easier than anyone else.  Only problem is I dare not open my mouth these days for fear of offending someone.

Imagine a recruitment process these days where all candidates were equal on ability and experience.  All equally suitable for the position.

Me, a woman, a gay man, a black man and someone in a wheelchair.

Guess who is the least likely to get the job?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's nonsense mate. All those things apply to me (well except the love of motorsport and I was in my 20s in the 90s) and I'm not having to censor myself for fear of offending people. You'd only need to do that if you were going to say hurtful things about people's appearance or gender, sexuality or race. Why would you want to do that?

Edited by Declan
erratic apostrophes and erratic spelling of apostrophes
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...