I think it was the referendum which also prompted me to start reading the political threads here.
For a moment I thought there might be useful political debate but after reading some of the exchanges I'm no longer sure!
The trouble is, Pamela, that what you call political debate is what other call pompous and pointless theorising.
It's pretty bad isn't it? If it's any comfort there is an American sort of quasi equivalent group (rec.woodworking?) which is even worse, or at least used to be - it was all guns and the electric chair and invading other countries. Despair.
TW
Some threads are very interesting and and contain useful insights ..... until shouty posters join in and pursue their vendettas by restating entrenched positions and giving knee-jerk responses.
Browbeating the other party may be briefly satisfying but it isn't going to make them receptive to new ideas and in the end nothing is gained by being over-insistent.
Well there is only so much that one CAN discuss woodworking.
I rarely killfile, but repeated ad-hominem will get someone shoved in the kf -- their positions and ideas never to be hard again, regardless of how useful, true, wise, correct or insightful they may be.
I don't mind the swearing per se, but calling someone names just because one disagrees with someone annoys me...
Thomas Prufer
Ah yes, Pamela, but in the case of certain people NOTHING is going to make them change their mind, and its amusing to watch them presented with a logical reason why they should, go into complete denial, stick their fingers in their ears, their heads in the sand and yell "nah nah ne nah! Go away ! You're a WAYCIST"
Maybe you should present a logical reason because so far all *you* have presented is abusive cr@p. You also like to shout down anyone who tries to make a logical argument that you don't agree with. You have gone so far now that I doubt if anyone actually believes a word you say harry.
I am slightly confused by this, since what you appear to be describing are some of the *effects* or malicious discrimination - but somehow positing them as a definition of what it is - thus carefully avoiding the point you were responding to.
Indeed it does. However there is a real danger here that people band about the term "racism" in response to any discussion about topics that for whatever reason they rather were not discussed, and try to use it to silence debate, or prevent whistle blowing, where the discussion may have absolutely nothing to do with race.
Rare as hens teeth and fair play to them.
However in the real world we have the rest of the women drivers doing the school run - which consists of loads of women who are shit drivers.
I was only making some observations off the top of my head. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive definition. and yes - cause or effect? who knows?
And using the word to silence debate? nobody wants that. I would say it is often a right wing tactic - look at the Israeli lobby and their attack on Ken Livingston for instance - he said really nothing and the shrill cries of anti-semitism were enough to have him suspended from the party. Accusations of sexism often serve the same purpose for the cynical and politically motivated.
TW
I think this delicate flower needs to find himself a moderated web forum where all the content is sanitised. This is Usenet, where we have moderated and unmoderated discussion groups. uk.d-i-y is unmoderated so is prime flame-war territory. Grow a thick skin or find somewhere else would be my advice, because you'll *never* change the language of the contributors on any unmoderated group.
I suggest you make a formal proposal for uk.d-i-y.moderated. Unfortunately either the proposal or the group (if created) will fail miserably. But the discussion will be great fun while it lasts.
What, so some poor sod has to read through all the crap to work out if its worth inclusion?
No, it would be really dull!
There have been various suggestions to split the group over the years (usually due to the volume of very broad in scope but still on topic discussion). They have always been rejected since its that very broad range of discussion, and general tolerance of a certain amount of off topic content and general banter that has keep this group alive when the majority of others have faded away or been swamped in spam etc.
Its a shame that tolerance is now being abused while the quantity of erudite and interesting posters has diminished.
(even the trolls are not as good as they once were!)
Mumsnet?
Given the hyper-sensitivity of the contributor in question it would certainly have to be something of equal or greater sterility!
I'm just wondering how far these people would go, if - heaven forefend - given totally unfettered control over our lives. For example, they keep going on and on obsessively about 'equality' and 'inclusion.' Would that mean that eventually we would all have to use only the very simplest words and phrases to communicate on public forums in order that others less well-educated than ourselves, or those for whom English is not their first language, wouldn't feel excluded? Could the richness and expressiveness of the English language one day become a casualty of this madness? I know that's what Orwell was driving at in his magnum opus, Nineteen Eighty-Four, but had always assumed it was merely a plot device or metaphor. Maybe he was *even* more prescient than we already give him credit for?
Well, uk.legal and its spin-off uk.legal.moderated have both been running for a long time now and seem to co-exist fine. Moderated groups are definitely the way to go for people who are of a sensitive nature, because unmoderated Usenet can be an extremely vicious arena at times. Nevertheless, it's imperative that unmodded forums are permitted to exist, in the vitally important interests of free speech. Users can simply choose which variant they prefer. I prefer unmodded, because after
23yrs of periodically suffering some pretty caustic abuse, I've grown an extremely thick skin! :-) Moderated groups also seem to lack something indefinable - a bit like eating a Sunday roast without the gravy, salt, pepper or horse raddish sauce.
Precisely the opposite actually. Orwell's views on language, the misuse of language and political language in particular were best expressed in his essay "Politics and the English Language" which was written in 1946.
In it, he not only gives examples of misuse but cites his famous six rules
Basically Orwell's point was its the over-elaboration of language, the use of an impressive vocabulary which may fly over the head of the reader or listener, which best allows propagandists and others to dress up their message in fancy packaging and disguise its true meaning and intent.
michael adams
...
ARRSE? (Just for the entertainment value)
The Army Rumour Service? LOL!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.