No, that’s the point, it’s absolutely not this. Nobody is so woke they get offended by “two fat ladies”. Foxy Bingo have just pretended that is the case and pretended that people are offended as a marketing ploy which has worked a charm because it’s triggered the sensitive flowers on the right wing that believe that people exist that get upset at things like this so they’re getting free publicity from gammons sharing the article and getting aneurysms talking about it on the radio.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I’ve got jizz hands after just ejaculating.
Look at all those hamberders.
Look up Steve1989 on Youtube. Food expiry dates mean nothing to that guy. He's eaten stuff from a military ration from the Boer War and the American Civil War.
He did get botulism though.
He did get botulism though.
Just make sure you don't do jazz hands straight afterwards.
Fair point, I had given Foxy Bingo the benefit of the doubt but really they are just appealing to their steady Boomer market.
Pfft, it's only those left-wing snowflakes that are the easily offended ones...
The right has always been more easily offended than the left, IMO.
For the over seventies certainly, for the under forties, then, I know it's an extremely irritating word, but it's just true, snowflakey as feck.
Traditionally yeah, it's what makes the recent social media trend so weird. It's usually the god fearing conservative types who want to ban everything while the left wing hippies think everyone should chill out a bit. Now, depending on where you look, it's the other way round.
Yeah its bonkers, but Mail readers will get annoyed about it. I read the article and it just appears to be a bit of PR for a bingo company, as far as I can tell.
I doubt there is much difference between either side in reality.
In general everyone 'seems' to get more offended these days, or maybe it just feels that way because we're spoon-fed these bullshit stories like the DM one above to rile us up.
Suddenly, we've found ourselves in this weird left/right dichotomy and people on both sides think the other side gets more offended when in actual fact we're probably just being a bit daft.
These are almost certainly the same kind of people who got super angry when the homophobic and transphobic devteam behind Ion Fury were told by their publisher to remove homophobic language from the game. Fans started review bombing the game, calling the removal of the offensive lines censorship. Now, the same crew are (essentially) asking for another game to be censored.Pfft, it's only those left-wing snowflakes that are the easily offended ones...
Removing offensive language: Unacceptable censorship.
Being inclusive in a way that harms no one (remember, you can still be a he or a she): Needs to be censored.
Oh yeah they're massive hypocrites, like most people who go around calling people snowflakes and all that.
I saw this the other day which is a little relevant
@Olly Gunnar Solskjær, don't forget that it's always political if there are women or minorities in a war game. Letting people play a black woman as their character model in a WW2 game is tantamount to Cultural Marxism. And it's not just games either. People were actively worried that the new Star Trek series would be too political or even, *gasp*, progressive. As if Star Trek hasn't always been hyper political. Hell, it might as well be set in a post-scarcity socialist utopia.
Also, feck boogie, that self-hating, delusional, hypocritical bigoted feck.
Also, feck boogie, that self-hating, delusional, hypocritical bigoted feck.
Yeah the only time that politics or historical accuracy actually matters is when there are women or trans people are being "forced" into somewhere.
I saw a subreddit dedicated to exposing him a while back, it was quite eye opening!
Chat about football or cricket in the workplace should be curtailed, a management body has warned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51261999
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51261999
Good grief.
This line seems to be getting overlooked in rush to be outraged.
I used to manage a team. I can just imagine if I told the boys to limit the football chat, would be mad. The girls also didn't care.
Depends on the team to a large degree- my old deputy would have told the team to shut up if she got bored of footie chat. I was flagging that the article is really trying to squeeze every last ounce out of what she said, which wasn't really controversial at all.
I wouldn't say outraged, more bemused. Mainly because I'm missing the line where she explains how to moderate it without, at some point, actively preventing people from talking about it and explaining why, thus suffering from the points made by Oatley.
The article itself is more sexist than the "issue" they are making out. Assuming that the only thing men can talk about is football? Assuming that there aren't thousands of women who love talking about football? That's before you get onto the potential issues there are with censoring harmless conversations in the office as a way forward. Never read anything more ridiculous. If anything, football chat creates bonds between colleagues like nothing else.
Can’t people who don’t like it just, you know, change the subject?
The 'Ole in' thread has certainly shaped some relationships forever."A lot of women, in particular, feel left out," she told the BBC's Today programme.
"They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included."
"I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans - that's great," she said.
"But the issue is many people aren't cricket fans," she added, arguing bosses should crack down on sports banter.
Ms Francke is concerned that discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.
"It's a gateway to more laddish behaviour and - if it just goes unchecked - it's a signal of a more laddish culture," she said
"It's very easy for it to escalate from VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a crock of shit, how out of step with the people who work for you, do you have to be to equate talking about football to discussing sexual conquests like its the next step if you don't step in to limit it.
Crazy thinking from the thought police.
"They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included."
"I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans - that's great," she said.
"But the issue is many people aren't cricket fans," she added, arguing bosses should crack down on sports banter.
Ms Francke is concerned that discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.
"It's a gateway to more laddish behaviour and - if it just goes unchecked - it's a signal of a more laddish culture," she said
"It's very easy for it to escalate from VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a crock of shit, how out of step with the people who work for you, do you have to be to equate talking about football to discussing sexual conquests like its the next step if you don't step in to limit it.
Crazy thinking from the thought police.
But how do you "moderate" office chatter? Like the practicality of it sounds nearly impossible.
What a cretinous lady.
How many female conversation topics can we think of that exclude men? And how many men give a hoot? Exactly, grow a spine.
How many female conversation topics can we think of that exclude men? And how many men give a hoot? Exactly, grow a spine.
I work in an office where 70%+ of the staff are women. Probably even higher if you exclude people over 45
Conversation often include Love Island, relationships or how there aren't any fit guys working here.
Conversation often include Love Island, relationships or how there aren't any fit guys working here.
When I've worked in a place with mostly women I found they talked about food and eating all day long. And dieting. Some men are also into that so they could join in, but personally I was bored rigid.
snowflakes dont realise that facts dont care about feelings, and postmodern neo-marxist corporations side with the offended whiners 
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/480096-washington-post-suspends-reporter-after-bryant-tweets
The Washington Post has suspended a reporter who said she received death threats on Twitter after sending a tweet with a link to a 2016 story about the Kobe Bryant rape case.
The tweet from Post reporter Felicia Sonmez was sent shortly after news reports of Bryant’s death in a helicopter crash on Sunday and was met with vitriol from people online.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/480096-washington-post-suspends-reporter-after-bryant-tweets
The Washington Post has suspended a reporter who said she received death threats on Twitter after sending a tweet with a link to a 2016 story about the Kobe Bryant rape case.
The tweet from Post reporter Felicia Sonmez was sent shortly after news reports of Bryant’s death in a helicopter crash on Sunday and was met with vitriol from people online.
Last edited:
It is a bit crass and glib for a reporter to link to an article.
Imagine if a man had proposed moderating women from talking about makeup and fashion.
That BBC article is a joke. The bit about VAR.
snowflakes dont realise that facts dont care about feelings, and postmodern neo-marxist corporations side with the offended whiners
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/480096-washington-post-suspends-reporter-after-bryant-tweets
The Washington Post has suspended a reporter who said she received death threats on Twitter after sending a tweet with a link to a 2016 story about the Kobe Bryant rape case.
The tweet from Post reporter Felicia Sonmez was sent shortly after news reports of Bryant’s death in a helicopter crash on Sunday and was met with vitriol from people online.
So the people who don't think it's on to disrespect someone so soon after their death, decide to remedy that by sending the person death threats.
ok.
Ive always found football to be a universal language that creates instant bonds with countless people.
Sack any scousers talking about "best ever" or referencing the number 6 in a non financial context. Compulsory re-education for the noisy neighbours on the rules of financial fairplay and their historic role as also rans. Easy.
It's a bs article, which is why it's odd people are getting incensed by it. The argument could probably more accurately be boiled down to 'talk about football all day and you'll bore your female colleagues rigid' shocker.
If there was no football to talk about I would probably just bore my colleagues even more about all the food I've shoveled into my fat mouth.
As someone who works along side a couple of diehard Liverpool fans, this sounds like a fantastic idea.