What if a town votes in councillors for a "get darkies out" promise?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
What does this mean? Repugnant views should not be tolerated coming from public leaders. Despite what someone's religion might say, thinking gay sex is a sin/immoral should be a disqualifying trait for any leader. You can't hide behind the curtain of private views since a leader's private views would most definitely come into play when it comes to framing a policy. What's to stop the next leader from claiming that he privately believes in white race supremacy but that does not mean he is not liberal.
People should be allowed to be intolerant in my opinion, because that's how you get it out of them. Otherwise it gets pushed underground and these people become even more set in their ways, they have kids and it goes on and on. If you expose these prejudices to things like capitalism, you begin a conversation about why they think what they do. If all you do is come at these people name-calling first and making your point afterwards then they don't hear it at that point. I think there needs to be a visible dialogue about this stuff. Getting them to justify their views instead of banning them altogether is the only real way you can tackle intolerance imo.
It could happen and shouldn't be discounted, it's a fair example. In that case I would urge the victim to go public, and watch with glee as those responsible see their trade dwindle.
That's fair enough.
Ok.
Jumped the shark?
I think it dates back to Happy Days... In their desperation for a new episode idea a character literally 'jumped the shark'. It's now a euphemism for going too far.
Ah ok, so you disagree.
That's fair.Indeed! Apologies for the vagueness of my reference.Ah ok, so you disagree.
Or can also mean when something has a steep fall in quality.
I always thought 2MM was a good guy. Terrible views on this point about denying gay people access to public or private services, due to religion or any other reason. (Fear)
I'm not saying you should do it, I'm saying that people have a right to choose who they provide their own labour to in a free market. I don't really see what's so wrong with that? I said above that obviously public services are a different matter.
I have thought this and still do. He's the sort who likes a debate and doesn't shy away when he's on the wrong side of the caf's prevailing view on social issues.
I think he's thoroughly wrong, as I've stated, but I really don't believe his heart's in the wrong place, personally.
Thanks DOTA, likewise.
This is exactly the way these things should play out, without all the bitterness and name-calling that usually goes with debates of this nature.
Good news, we'll be leaving the EU soon so their equality laws won't apply anymore
I don't think it's an issue of equality though. Obviously any discrimination is inherently evil, and should be shown up.
Aye similar here. Disagree but can see where he's coming from.
I just got my girlfriend to read over this thread and she disagreed too, so it's clear I'm in the minority.
I don't mean to be a dick when everyone is being so nice, but how was what you described not discrimination?
And yeah, equality and discrimination might be slightly different but broadly come under the same brush
Here are some EU guidelines
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/rights_against_discrimination_web_en.pdf
I just got my girlfriend to read over this thread and she disagreed too, so it's clear I'm in the minority.
Brave!
It is obviously is. He's arguing against legislation that prohibits private companies from being cnuts. I think that's clear. 'It's up to them to be cnuts and up to us to reject them' etc...
Oh yeah of course it is, it's possibly the most blatant kind of discrimination there is to be fair. What I'm arguing though is that this doesn't really solve the problem. By making someone offer their services to someone they don't want to, you're just masking the problem. That person is still going to hold these beliefs, so you haven't really done anything other than make yourself feel better. The way to stop intolerance is to expose it, not cover it up. It needs to have a light shone on it and for people to tell the owner what they think of his behaviour in the only way that matters to them, by taking their trade elsewhere. In a capitalist society, these people are forced to wrestle with their views instead of merely covering them up.
Better just hope you don't get denied any private services.I just got my girlfriend to read over this thread and she disagreed too, so it's clear I'm in the minority.
If people wish to stand outside their business, holding placards and describing their views regarding the practices, is this all part of the capitalist society, and as such fair game, too?
To be fair to you, the "freedom" in the concept of freedom of speech historically means "freedom" from government interference.
i.e. Redcafe banning someone for calling someone else a coconut woudn't be taking away anyone'es freedom of speech, but a government doing that would.
Now if the government is denying someone's right to refuse service to someone, is that a loss of freedom of speech? Maybe.
Do you really think the majority of homophobes/xenophobes etc actually can be rehabilitated? I think more likely, eventually they die off, and more liberal people take their place.
i.e. Redcafe banning someone for calling someone else a coconut woudn't be taking away anyone'es freedom of speech, but a government doing that would.
Now if the government is denying someone's right to refuse service to someone, is that a loss of freedom of speech? Maybe.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. Maybe, by not allowing these these xenophobic views to be out in the open, we both improve things for those that would be discriminated against, and stop the xenophobic 'disease' from spreading.
Do you really think the majority of homophobes/xenophobes etc actually can be rehabilitated? I think more likely, eventually they die off, and more liberal people take their place.
He's probably given him the most unenviable cabinet post considering current circumstances.
Good on him for keeping Cooper and Benn away, they don't deserve to replace the loyal frontbenchers who've been impressive this campaign.
Oh yeah definitely.
I think it's a good thing to try. I think half the issue with these things is that you're already enlightened. If someone is trying to tell you that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, and you're calling him a bigot, a homophobe, etc, then make your point after then they're not going to want to see your side of it. The way to get these people onto your side is to ask them to think rationally about their views. I think their business failing as a result of some outdated opinions would be just the trick. 9/10 people believe in equality, in gay marriage etc, and so when one outlier says he doesn't then the response of the other 9/10 should be to avoid them. By making businesses offer their labour to people against their will we don't even get this far.
Last edited:
Surely this is the main reason he's gone? He ran a shit campaign.
Just read his resignation speech. Christ, what a cnut.
This is one thing I don't get. It's funny he waited until after the election to declare this thing that had apparently been troubling him. Had he won and been elected prime minister then there's no way he'd have stepped down.
Do you know what a public service is?
A lot of talk about Tories possibly abolishing Barnett formula so they can funnel money into NI without paying other nations. Can't see that flying with Scot Tories or Wales.
Wut.
Yea far stronger with the likes of Abbot there.
Disapointed the party hasn't unified and brought in some big hitters
Really why? He was stating he loved his religious faith but he didn't believe he should legislate alongside those beliefs. I thought it was very genuine on his part. You can tell he was gutted.
what are the realistic chances of her not being able to pass the speech?
Unlikely, party sources say they are very confident with or without the DUP. Some are saying the SNP might abstain since they can't be doing with another election right now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Amazing
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Emm...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date