Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Barry_Badrinath]

This is Part 3 of this thread.

We roll threads over about every 10,000 posts.

Started in Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left.1079388/

Continued from Part 2: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left-part-2.1141142/

Continued in Part 4

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left-part-4.1389268/

 

[King Brown]

Maybe so, not sure how that is relevant to the thread though.

Watch the Pinker video I posted earlier. Stating a truism, like 'capitalism makes for better societies than communism' or 'Western secular societies are always better than Islamic ones' is outright rejected by a fair portion of politically minded people.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Watch the Pinker video I posted earlier. Stating a truism, like 'capitalism makes for better societies than communism' or 'Western secular societies are always better than Islamic ones' is outright rejected by a fair portion of politically minded people.

How is that relevant?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I didn't realise the USA was Australia. Makes a lot of sense now.

The Australian constitution is not for Australian citizens, derp. It's the overall law that governs this country. Derpy derp.

Oh and wow, a bolt article.. who would have guessed.

Who does this country govern ? Australian citizens ,what are you suggesting people who live in Canada or Mexico are governed by the Australian constitution ?

The Constitution states that the Commonwealth "shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth" (section 116).

Which part of the constitution would be violated ? the US supreme court has said it is legal in the US so it would most likely be the same in Australia.

The only part you could claim is violated would be prohibiting free exercise of religion but that's not happening at all, no Muslim is being prevented from exercising their religious belief.

 

[Mofra]

Watch the Pinker video I posted earlier. Stating a truism, like 'capitalism makes for better societies than communism' or 'Western secular societies are always better than Islamic ones' is outright rejected by a fair portion of politically minded people.

Really?
I have more friends who are left than right and they would all agree with those statements.

Do you have any evidence of this rejection?

 

[King Brown]

How is that relevant?

How isn't it?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What impact will that have?

Firstly you are denying basic biology
Secondly you are trying to fundamentally change social norms
Third people will be punished most likely for using terms such as boy or girl.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

How isn't it?

So you can't explain it?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Firstly you are denying basic biology
Secondly you are trying to fundamentally change social norms
Third people will be punished most likely for using terms such as boy or girl.

1. It's an adjustment of language.
2. Social norms are always changing.
3. How will they be punished?

 

[Bradesmaen]

Who does this country govern ? Australian citizens ,what are you suggesting people who live in Canada or Mexico are governed by the Australian constitution ?

The Constitution states that the Commonwealth "shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth" (section 116).

Which part of the constitution would be violated ? the US supreme court has said it is legal in the US so it would most likely be the same in Australia.

The only part you could claim is violated would be prohibiting free exercise of religion but that's not happening at all, no Muslim is being prevented from exercising their religious belief.

It's like you read words and make up what they mean in your head.

They govern the law of this land. Therefore we cannot introduce anything that is based on religion into our laws. Pretty simples.

 

[King Brown]

Really?
I have more friends who are left than right and they would all agree with those statements.

Do you have any evidence of this rejection?

They're illustrations by Pinker. I know from this forum itself that discussing problems with the Islamic world is a strict taboo, and always dimly compared to Westboro for some reason.

One current example is the Google employee fired for discussing the idea that men and women might have different motivations.

 

[King Brown]

So you can't explain it?

What do you define as political correctness?

Is it simply using polite terms, ie not being explicitly racist, sexist etc?

Or avoiding subjects for debate because they cannot be explained by the current political orthodoxy?

Because the former question is a solved one.

 

[Mofra]

They're illustrations by Pinker. I know from this forum itself that discussing problems with the Islamic world is a strict taboo, and always dimly compared to Westboro for some reason.

One current example is the Google employee fired for discussing the idea that men and women might have different motivations.

I read the Google employee transcript, it goes much further than just stating men and women are a little different.
If an employer has standards with respect to treatment of employees, anti-discrimination and values statements they have the right to terminate employees who break those statements. This isn't new.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I know from this forum itself that discussing problems with the Islamic world is a strict taboo

There were that many threads about islam and muslims, the mods had to consolidate into one thread.

If a thread on this board goes on long enough, it will get back to islam.

As you've just demonstrated.

 

[King Brown]

I read the Google employee transcript, it goes much further than just stating men and women are a little different.

How much further?

If an employer has standards with respect to treatment of employees, anti-discrimination and values statements they have the right to terminate employees who break those statements. This isn't new.

It's sort of strange when left wingers side with the employer against the employee. Would you feel the same if Walmart sacked a woman for having an abortion?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What do you define as political correctness?

Is it simply using polite terms, ie not being explicitly racist, sexist etc?

Or avoiding subjects for debate because they cannot be explained by the current political orthodoxy?

Because the former question is a solved one.

What subjects arent up for debate?

 

[King Brown]

There were that many threads about islam and muslims, the mods had to consolidate into one thread.

If a thread on this board goes on long enough, it will get back to islam.

As you've just demonstrated.

You're not answering the question. Again, you demonstrate lack of perspicacity.

 

[King Brown]

What subjects arent up for debate?

If someone is sacked for a political stance, is that not shutting down debate?

Let's say your boss sacks you because you have strong opinions about refugees - fair?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

How much further?

It's sort of strange when left wingers side with the employer against the employee. Would you feel the same if Walmart sacked a woman for having an abortion?

He was essentially arguing women weren't capable of fulfilling certain roles.

If the US had stronger roles for union, he might still be in a job.

 

[King Brown]

He was essentially arguing women weren't capable of fulfilling certain roles.

No he wasn't.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If someone is sacked for a political stance, is that not shutting down debate?

Let's say your boss sacks you because you have strong opinions about refugees - fair?

If Im working with refugees, and I think they're biologically unsuited to life here, and I make that known, yeah fair enough.

 

[Mofra]

It's sort of strange when left wingers side with the employer against the employee. Would you feel the same if Walmart sacked a woman for having an abortion?

It's not about left vs right, this is someone releasing a public statement that is at odds with their employer's standards of inclusiveness.

 

[King Brown]

If Im working with refugees, and I think they're biologically unsuited to life here, and I make that known, yeah fair enough.

A lack of perspicacity once again. Snark doesn't address the question.

In this instance, your boss is a right winger. Now work with it.

 

[King Brown]

It's not about left vs right, this is someone releasing a public statement that is at odds with their employer's standards of inclusiveness.

Except it wasn't a public statement. It was an internal discussion.

Get the facts right and come back to me.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

A lack of perspicacity once again. Snark doesn't address the question.

In this instance, your boss is a right winger. Now work with it.

We're getting closer to the cake baker scenario aren't we?

My point was clear.

 

[King Brown]

We're getting closer to the cake baker scenario aren't we?

My point was clear.

Nothing you say is clear - it's just snark. You have no ability to express your ideas except in reaction to those you don't like.