Trump (Part 5)

[claig]

Continuation of the discussion on all things Trump and the people's revolutions

Squishy still hasnt got it. Oh dear.
I dont find it upsetting or challenging if someone does not believe what I believe. I am anti-totalitarian, so I do not behave passive-aggressive by labelling someone with "phobe". You do, because you become unsettled if everyone around you is not in agreement with you.
Got it?

"So you don't approve of it but you like it?

This is not even English ..... What is IT?"

We were discussing homosexuality and you suggested that disapproval does not imply dislike.

Southallgirl. What do you want to say or do that you are prevented from saying or doing by political correctness?

I absolutely have the right to give a name to that disapproval

Why on earth would you think you have the right to apportion a label to a person who disagrees with you? It's nasty, and it's shorthand for saying 'I am such a good person, but him over there is XXphobe.' Not illegal of course, but why be nasty and divisive - unless of course you want to promote division.

Rufus, I do know what you mean about spacing the injections out - in an ideal world maybe that's what would be done.
Sadly, I think that the decision to give it all at once might be about efficiency, and the calculation that the risk of children missing out on follow up injections outweighs the risks associated with giving a single jab.

My problem with Trump's comments is that he made them in an irresponsible way (in that interview he said he was just in favor of spacing the jabs out, but in the past he has made much more extreme comments on vaccinations). I also doubt that he would increase the funding needed to provide several jabs at different appointments. The children most likely to fall through the net and miss out on the follow up jabs will be those from poor and marginalised communities, and those who change address/school the most regularly.

I remember the Leo Blair thing during the height of the MMR fears - in my opinion it helped further fuel the distrust and fear, which just goes to show the damage that can be done when leaders validate (even inadvertently) unfounded health scares.

Kaija - "We were discussing homosexuality and you suggested that disapproval does not imply dislike"

It's actually irrelevant. Tatchell says that think what you will about, in this case homosexuality, but do not discriminate against that person. You are implying you hv to be on board and in full festival support. And I am saying those in our society do not have to do any of the former, just be evenhanded to everyone. Surely that is the mature and best way to be?

"Why on earth would you think you have the right to apportion a label to a person who disagrees with you?"

Err, the same way you have a right to say what you like? That freedom of speech you keep banging on about?
And if somethings not illegal, then I do have the right to do it actually!
I try not to be nasty and divisive, but it's not illegal to be nasty and divisive as proven time and again by the continuing existence of the Daily Mail, Infowars, Breitbart, and similar.

"You are implying you hv to be on board and in full festival support."
I haven't seen anyone imply that on this thread.

It would depend on the context of course, southall. If we were having a discussion about, say, how your faith prevents you from accepting homosexuality, I would happily explore that with you. I would probably still think of your stance as homophobic, because what other word would there be for it? But I would not use the word in any way aggressively with you.

"You are implying you hv to be on board and in full festival support."

I haven't. I have quite explicitly said the opposite.

What do you want to say or do that you are prevented from saying or doing by political correctness?

I will give you an example. if I had been working in Rotherham or Oxford SS, and knew of the sexual exploitation of those girls, knew the name of the senior police officers aware of what was happening, knew the names of senior SS and council personnel who were also aware I would not have sat on that information for fear that it would be seen as islamophobia and blaming the immigrant.

Nazir Afzal said himself the deafening silence was due to the political correctness of mostly white british employees.

A few Brits who did try to get media attention to the exploitation were howled down as being racist.

That's how PC curtails free speech and action. Got it?

Kaija, I love the way that someone who started off railing against the tyranny of political correctness, is now complaining that using words and labels she doesn't like is aggression, and suggests that we have no right to use them!

Kaija - I am asking a very simple question. It's not about what anyone believes. It's about why YOU want to label a person with the suffix 'phobe'. I personally would not dream of doing so, but you think it's perfectly OK to use today's main insult. If discussing your neighbour up the road, and someone says Oh yes, Peter the homophobe, that immediately manipulates another's impression about Peter in his entirety.

Attaching labels is done by nasty, small-minded people who feel insecure if they are not part of a consensus. It's pathetic.

Squishy - Using labels and words is the habit of the totaliatarian, like you. It is a shorthand way to define someone, to prejudice others against him, and which is an act of a nasty person.

Why on earth would you think you have the right to apportion a label to a person who disagrees with you?

That's funny, after all the labels left wingers and Hillary supporters have been given.
Blairites, leftards (still not removed), stupid, etc.

Odd how whenever I ask that question, the only example that emerges I'd Rotherham. Which is very complex, and which, while fear of racism as certainly a factor , seems to have hinged as much on the attitude of the authorities to young disadvantaged women than anything else.

Do you actually have any that you, personally, want to say or do that political correctness prevents you from saying or doing?

Sitting on information like that would be terrible, and in this case the fear of stoking racial division certainly was a factor in the disgusting cover-up, but it wasn't the only factor. Those poor girls were let down by the very people who should have been protecting them, and we have seen (and continue to see) other vulnerable children let down in scandal after scandal. It seems there was (and maybe still is) a belief among some that protecting women and children is at the bottom of a long list of priorities. Whether that's football, fund raising celebrities, race relations, or even electing a leader that "will get the job done".
I have nothing but condemnation for people who throw women and children under the bus for any reason, nor for those who victim blame and minimise.

If any of you were new in a job, and someone had already gone round the dept and said 'I've just spoken to that new girl. I think she's going to be a problem ..... she didnt say anything when I said Hello to her, etc etc.

Don't you think that that would queer that new person's pitch and she would hv more of a struggle in establishing herself because the image of her (by one person) is already tainted.

"If discussing your neighbour up the road, and someone says Oh yes, Peter the homophobe, that immediately manipulates another's impression about Peter in his entirety."

I have never suggested using the word as the defining feature of a person regardless of context. It wouldn't occur to me to do that. But would think it would be wrong for me to think of Peter as homophobic? If a discussion came up about peter's views on homosexuality, what would you say would be the politically correct way for me to describe them?

Where have I innapropriately used labels on this thread South? I will concede that I have used words, though.... to disagree with you. Not oppress you.

Blairites, leftards

The first is applied to those who support Blair's political path. The other word I have never heard of.

"If any of you were new in a job, and someone had already gone round the dept and said 'I've just spoken to that new girl. I think she's going to be a problem ..... she didnt say anything when I said Hello to her, etc etc."

What is this in relation to?

"The first is applied to those who support Blair's political path. The other word I have never heard of."

By they're labels, right?

Do you actually have any that you, personally, want to say or do that political correctness prevents you from saying or doing?

Of course, as you do too. But I have no political clout to effect change.

If someone went round continuously saying those examples you gave, South, I would probably label them as a gossipy shit stirrer.
Is that allowed?