icantfindaname posted:

british MP is not a meaningful position of power. see Brexit for example

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Uh....Fly tipping?

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Uh....Fly tipping?

some libertopian posted:

Growing up in the seventies and eighties I heard the liberal mantra like a synthetic drumbeat. “The ends don’t justify the means.”

From every drippy Norman Lear sitcom to every self-important episode of “Hill Street Blues,” Hollywood lectured us that superior people held to their principles, even if they didn’t like the outcome.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union walked the walk by fighting for people’s right to freely associate and express themselves, even when they despised those very same people, like neo-Nazis in the famed Skokie, Ill., case. These liberals fought oppression so we may have relationships of our choosing, assemble, contract with each other, speak freely, live together, or love one another openly. Liberals fought institutionalized oppression designed to keep free people separated. They called it the civil rights movement. And we rightly celebrate it.

So, what the hell happened to all those honorable liberals?

Today’s progressive force epitomizes just the opposite — the ends justify everything — from campus speech codes, to using a “phone and pen” to bypass lawmakers, to mandating relationships with health insurance companies against our will. And now a push to raise the minimum wage. Conservatives squawk against the minimum wage because it increases unemployment, stifles economic growth, promotes inflation, hurts small businesses and denies needed experience for those trying to improve their lives. All true by the way.

But, honorable liberals should stand up to minimum wage laws because it infringes on our innate right to freely associate. It prevents us from having relationships we choose to enter into; associations we desire for reasons that satisfy ourselves, not others. If past slavery and involuntary servitude laws forcing people to work for another were abhorrent, current laws that prevent free people from working for one another must at some level also be repugnant (yes, angry letter writers, not nearly to the same degree).

Let’s take up a thought experiment. Ginger is building her small, home-based accounting company. A neighbor, Maryanne, is a stay-at-home mom whose children are entering school, meaning she finally has some time to devote to developing new skills. Ginger can afford, say, only $5 an hour for the help she absolutely needs to grow her fledgling business. Maryanne wants to learn accounting, and for her a flexible schedule and no work commute are more important than a higher wage. While important, money is not the sole factor or even first in our employment decisions. Minimum wage laws are based on the absurdity that money is the one and only thing that every single one of us value most from our job.

Like all other consensual relationships, Ginger and Maryanne want to be together for reasons that satisfy them individually, or else they wouldn’t agree to it. Others might not understand their “perverse” values, needs or desires. But should that stop Ginger and Maryanne from being together? So, if Ginger and Maryanne wanted to have sex, there’s a literal parade to celebrate them. If they wanted to sell videos of their sex act, the ACLU would defend them. If they wanted to cohabitate, or marry, or start a business, or buy property together, they now can, thanks to generations of civil-rights warriors.

But if one is willing to work for the other at a wage some people think is unreasonable, or even obscene, they can’t, thanks to the bigoted Left. Imagine if Republicans abolished the minimum wage when they had the chance, and oh did they have the chance. Today liberals would have to make the odd argument that government has a role preventing adults from consensual relationships in the workplace while also protecting it in the bedroom.

Let’s call the minimum wage what it is: an un-American attack on our personal relationships and a violation of our civil liberties — an institutionalized hate. Apparently, liberals only care about protecting consensual relationships when people are naked.

Selachian posted:

Illegal trash dumping. Our British cousins refer to a waste dump as a "tip," and the "fly" refers to running away after you perform the act.

The Dark One posted:

quote:

There were furrowed brows last week, in response to a column by author Juno Dawson in Glamour magazine. Dawson identifies as a transgender woman. In a column entitled, “Call yourself a feminist?”, she refers to feminist academic Germaine Greer as a “TERF” explaining that the acronym means, “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.”

Dawson tells readers that TERFs are: “A subgroup of feminists who steadfastly believe me – and other trans women – are not women.” Explaining how this is an issue, Dawson says: “The key battle ground between TERFs and trans women is the issue of toilets. Yes, my right to do a little wee or poo is, apparently, major political battleground.”

In saying this, Dawson makes light of some women’s concerns, while at the same time suggesting that such concerns are only held by an extremist minority. In fact, many women are uneasy about the presence of people who were born in male bodies appearing in spaces previously reserved for biological females, for a variety of reasons. The majority of these women would not identify as radical feminists, and not one would label themselves a “TERF.”

The term is actually an exonym – a term used to describe a third party that the third party neither recognises, nor uses itself. It’s generally seen as a slur, and since the publication of Dawson’s column, women have objected to the label via social media, and in personal blogs. The controversy should be no surprise to Dawson or Glamour, as the term has been contentious since it was coined.

Deborah Cameron, a sociolinguistics professor, explains that we can reasonably decide if a word is a slur by asking certain questions such as, “Is the word commonly understood to convey hatred or contempt?” and, “What other words does the word tend to co-occur with?”

Cameron looked at a collection of tweets in which the term TERF is used and noted, that it, “quite often shows up in the same tweet as other words whose status as slurs is not disputed, like ‘b*tch’ and ‘c**t’. Other words that occur more than once or twice in these tweets include ‘disgusting’, ‘ugly’, ‘scum’ and a cluster of words implying uncleanness (‘smell’, ‘stink’, ‘garbage’, ‘filth’)—which is also a well-worn theme in racist and anti-Semitic discourse.”

It’s unsurprising then, that women object to the term. The negative connotations mean that those with similar views and concerns to those labelled “TERF” will be reluctant to speak up, for fear of being similarly tarnished. Women who are maligned by this label are also then isolated by it.

Dawson’s description of TERFs as a “subgroup” of feminists compounds the idea that these are the views of a few hardline zealots, and therefore unrepresentative of women generally. In reality, many women are afraid of men following them into women’s toilets. There’s no way of knowing if the man identifies as a woman, and just needs a wee – or if he’s about to sexually assault them.

This fear stems from the numerous times women have been assaulted. In May this year, a man was sentenced to two years in prison for sexually assaulting a woman in the female changing rooms of a leisure centre in Cork. In November last year, an 18-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in a nightclub toilet in Watford, and in March last year, a woman was sexually assaulted by two men in public toilets in Staffordshire. In September this year, a man was given a suspended prison sentence for filming a nine-year-old girl on the toilet, in a McDonald’s in Birmingham. Of course, these were men, rather than transgender women – but the source of some so-called "TERF"'s fear has to be acknowledged if it is to be assuaged.

But it’s not just about toilets. Expanding the entry criteria so those who identify as women can access women’s rape crisis centres, domestic abuse shelters, and other spaces where women may be vulnerable, means an increased risk of assault, because men – not just transgender women – will have easier access, being able to walk into these spaces unchallenged.

Getting too aggressive with the term "TERF" can inhibit personal conversations between women about subjects such as periods, pregnancy, childbirth, the menopause, miscarriages and stillbirth. Already, women are finding themselves censored and corrected when recounting their own experiences. Breastfeeding becomes “chest feeding,” vaginas become “front holes,” and there are no pregnant women, but, “pregnant people.” Instead of talking freely among themselves, women’s language can sometimes end up policed, even though the source of women's oppression often has everything to do with their bodies and their reproductive systems. It's easy to see why many women kick back when they're told to relabel their own bodies, especially if they have been victims of vaginal rape, traumatic birth or other oppressions which rely on that person having been born in a female body.

Suggesting that such concerns are exclusive to a subgroup of feminist fanatics is disingenuous and shuts down the potential for open conversation and understanding. Dawson’s assertion that women are simply upset about “my right to do a little wee or poo” deliberately undermines the validity of women’s concerns, mocking their genuine fears.

In writing this column, Dawson continues the age-old tradition of dismissing women’s fears as hysteria. The title even questions women’s credibility as feminists. “Call yourself a feminist?” it asks. I’d like to ask the same question of her.

MaxxBot posted:

This is my least favorite type of person, people who wrap themselves in a cloak of progressivism to spout bigoted opinions. She cites racism and sexism over and over and repeatedly plays the victim, all in defense of terrible anti-LGBT views.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/juno-dawson-glamour-magazine-terf-gender-identification-feminism-germaine-greer-a7403016.html
How can Juno Dawson call herself a feminist when she's labelling women as TERFs?

quote:

Many undergraduates, their fawn-like eyes wide with astonishment, are wondering: Why didn’t the dean of students prevent the election from disrupting the serenity to which my school has taught me that I am entitled?

Campuses create “safe spaces” where students can shelter from discombobulating thoughts and receive spiritual balm for the trauma of microaggressions. Yet the presidential election came without trigger warnings?

The morning after the election, normal people rose — some elated, some despondent — and went off to actual work. But at Yale, that incubator of late-adolescent infants, a professor responded to “heartfelt notes” from students “in shock” by making that day’s exam optional.

Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a constant reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.

Abandoned Toaster posted:

I like to laugh at overly-sensitive teens too but this guy seems to have a real hate-boner for those elitist wussy youth of today.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/college-kids-are-proving-trumps-point/

quote:

Back home in Joliet, Illinois, Horton took a job as an operations manager at the nonprofit her mother runs. The salary was comparable to what she made in DC, but the cost of living was drastically less. She increased her student-loan payments, setting the lofty goal of paying them off entirely in a year.

Horton and her boyfriend tied the knot soon after the move. Horton's mother gave the couple a condo that she had purchased at an auction for $13,000 as a wedding gift. It became crucial in wiping away the hefty student-loan tab.

Horton and her husband lived in the condo for three months, but then they decided to move in with her grandparents down the street and started renting out the condo to bring in extra income.

quote:

To anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of taking on student loans — or paying back any debt they've incurred — Horton has a simple message: "I just want them to feel empowered that they can pay if off. If I can do it, anybody can."

Nick_326 posted:

"How one 31-year-old paid off $220,000 in student loans in 3 years"

It's that easy!

Ytlaya posted:

I believe that the biggest cause of this sort of thinking is that wealthy people are afraid that acknowledging their huge advantages will diminish their accomplishments.

Anyone could become a millionaire as long as they have enough money to buy and sell real estate aside from their own house/apartment! Also, does it even make sense to refer to teaching as their main job if they're obviously make way more money through real estate?

BarbarianElephant posted:

Privileged people often ignore their privilege because they are not comparing themselves to people who had to work three jobs while putting themselves through community college. They are comparing themselves to their peers - other privileged people. If you work hard to get that Goldman Sachs job while your childhood buddy with an even richer father just lazes through life smoking pot and leeching off his parents, you naturally congratulate yourself on being a hard worker. You don't realize that your "intense" working day (plus business lunch) is an afternoon at the spa compared to how the poor have to work because you don't really know any poor people.

People are pretty blind outside their own little social circle. Actual struggling people included - Trump got a lot of votes from people who naively thought he was incorruptible because he was already so incredibly rich that he could not be tempted by more money. They had no more idea of how actual rich people think than rich people know how poor people think.

quote:

It is apparently not enough for some of the liberal-minded to help those on Medicare and Social Security; now people must be guaranteed eligibility for heaven as well. Or at least be protected from those who believe in the other place.

At a contentious confirmation hearing last week for Russell Vought as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget — generally not known as an institution with theological job requirements — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took vigorous exception to an online post Vought had written claiming that Muslims (and, presumably, others) who “have rejected Jesus Christ” therefore “stand condemned.”

...

In all the complexities of theology and metaphysics that this topic raises, I am utterly confident of one thing: No one has ever asked, “What is Bernie Sanders’s view on this?” But he has offered it. In justifying his opposition to Vought, Sanders said: “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms. . . . We must not go backwards.” Thus liberal fairness is applied on a cosmic scale. Ending theological bias is the final civil rights frontier. Equal salvation for all.

dont even fink about it posted:

How in the sam-gently caress is this poo poo getting printed in the Post

dont even fink about it posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...461a1b#comments


"Of the many evils of civil rights and equality, the ultimate is taking offense at a guy who hates all Muslims."

How in the sam-gently caress is this poo poo getting printed in the Post

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

I thought Bernie was Jewish and that Jews don't believe in hell.

I'm not a theologian but this seems pretty consistent.

fishmech posted:

Ehhh some Jews do, some Jews don't. The most orthodox absolutely don't, but Bernie would hardly be classed as Orthodox.

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

I thought Bernie was Jewish and that Jews don't believe in hell.

I'm not a theologian but this seems pretty consistent.