Former Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that it is time to face up to the truth

[Aristotle]

Quote

The former Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission [Trevor Phillips] has said that it is time to face up to the truth when it comes to identifying grooming gangs, pointing out that the perpetrators largely share the Islamic faith.

Writing in The Telegraph, Phillips said: “Labelling this phenomenon an ‘Asian’ crime is therefore an evasion. It also insults the largest single ethnic minority group in the UK – Hindu Indians – who consider themselves Asian, and the many East Asians who have made the UK their home. Neither group has been even remotely associated with these crimes.

“What the perpetrators have in common is their proclaimed faith. They are Muslims, and many of them would claim to be practising. It is not Islamophobic to point this out, any more than it would be racist to point out that the most active persecutors of LGBT people come from countries where most people are, like me, black.”.

Former Minister Mike Penning has said that: “Some of them freely admitted that their attitude to these girls was based on race. If that’s the case then this is a racially motivated crime and the sentence should and must reflect that.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/abuse-time-call-spade-spade/

Finally, reality and common sense appear to be having something of a comeback after years of the PC Bridade having free rein.

[Tarne]

I remember taking my girlfriend to Egypt back in 2007/8, and she went out on her own one day. Big mistake - She didn't do that again. Groped, catcalled, you name it. It's a religious thing, women are nothing to them. Sadly, many women fall for it for some daft reason.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because they're going to keep doing it and in greater numbers. Keep your kids and yourself away from religious people, it's the best way. 

 

[woolley]

At least the conspiracy of silence has been broken in the last few years. The liberals hate it of course, but it is progress of a sort.

[Aristotle]

They'll hate even more the fact that the former Chairman is a black man, so they can't try the old "privileged white male / racist" bullshit routine on him.

[P.K.]

21 hours ago, woolley said:

At least the conspiracy of silence has been broken in the last few years. The liberals hate it of course, but it is progress of a sort.

BS in it's purest form.

Liberals are neither blind nor stupid. In fact, seeing things for the reality of what they are is one of the powerful things that make liberals what they are. We don't need to rail against bogeymen like the EU to justify how we think.

We see the world exactly how it is.

There are none so blind.....

[woolley]

19 hours ago, P.K. said:

BS in it's purest form.

Liberals are neither blind nor stupid. In fact, seeing things for the reality of what they are is one of the powerful things that make liberals what they are. We don't need to rail against bogeymen like the EU to justify how we think.

We see the world exactly how it is.

There are none so blind.....

PK. You slay me. You always have something to brighten my day. The acceptable face of liberal nutterdom.

“Liberals see the world exactly as it is.” Actually, liberals relate to the world exactly as they’d like it to be, and not as it is. That's the problem in a nutshell.

Have an allegory:

 

 

[quilp]

My goodness! With all that virtue-signalling who wouldn't want to be a 'Liberal'? Nice to be able to think of and project oneself as, a nuanced, sophisticated 'individual'. 

"We see the world exactly how it is." (I very nearly fell off my high horse!) 

It's great to have a healthy self-image, and the psychological projection of one's goodness, but I see a basic problem here; to the 'modern liberal', the real world results of their policies can be secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy. You know, 'being-seen-to-be'. Hardly altruistic by definition, and smug by nature.

[Chinahand]

A classic misunderstanding that you see the world from within your dao, and your dao is not the world, but an interpretation of it.

There are at least 2 issues - does your dao miss out important components of the world; and does your dao misinterpret the world as it sees it.  The challenge is always to improve the skill of your dao at predicting the consequence of action and inaction. 

 

[quilp]

Have you got another word for it? 

[quilp]

So us knob heads can understand... 

[pongo]

22 minutes ago, quilp said:

I am not a 'Moscow Agent' nor attempting to subvert democracy...

Inadvertently. Two roads

were leading

in the same direction

[Chinahand]

Have you got another word for it? 

For Dao?  Not really, its a level above a meme, but below culture.

It is the "operating system" an individual uses to interpret the world from their point of view.

Don't ever think Daoism is only about a mystic all encompassing Dao - it is about fitting personal individual daos into the way the world simply is (the great Dao - the unfolding of the universe).  When your dao (temporarily) aligns with the great Dao things "naturally" unfold, the world is with you, you're going with the flow, you can achieve great things with little effort (which fits in with the Daoist concept of wuwei).

(The master of it) anticipates things that are difficult while they are easy, and does things that would become great while they are small. All difficult things in the world are sure to arise from a previous state in which they were easy, and all great things from one in which they were small. Therefore the sage, while he never does what is great, is able on that account to accomplish the greatest things.

He who lightly promises is sure to keep but little faith; he who is continually thinking things easy is sure to find them difficult. Therefore the sage sees difficulty even in what seems easy, and so never has any difficulties

Daodejing Chapter 63, Translated by Legge

[quilp]

Thanks. Good dao to you... 

[pongo]

15 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

A classic misunderstanding that you see the world from within your dao, and your dao is not the world, but an interpretation of it. 

Doesn't this just factor down to subjectivity vs objectivity? ie "what does the artist see" etc which runs through O Level philosophy through Marx and back to Plato at least. 

[Chinahand]

Yes, pretty much!  But the most complex level is where subjectivity begins and objectivity ends.  

This is where post-modernism has got us into a lot of trouble, and why the book of Zhuangzi was hated by the Confucians - the Catholics have a similar dislike, while the protestants seem to think it's all ok because they've a personal line to God.