Be Excellent To Each Other

So you wouldn't say it to them out of politeness and courtesy because you know it would offend them. Right, we got there in the end I guess.

I'm not sure what your point really is. You seem to be talking about hypothetical situations that don't exist.

*glare*

You have the official seal of approval Cras! Print it out and put it on the wall!

I think the situation is discussing it here on Beex.

Yup, we got there in the beginning as well Myp, I'd love to know where I said I would willfully and purposefully want to upset anyone, least of all potentially vulnerable and oft-persecuted minority groups. If anyone should be getting hot under the collar here it's me TBH, and there's a danger of that happening so I'm out of this discussion, save to say people should actually read what others have said, and in the correct context of having known where they're almost certainly coming from in all of this.

The original discussion was about denying the opinions of groups being heard by other groups such as at NUS debates and suchlike, but as per we've gone from that to people thinking that I, as an individual, would call trans people "abnormal" to their faces etc., just for pointing our a global, generic truth, which apparently you can't draw any distinction between the former and latter. It's ironic that this very discussion has turned into the very thing that I describe and despise (and as per Markg's example): a clear example of someone (me) being hauled up despite it being extremely obvious that no bad intent was intended. Are people so desperate to find heinous fault where there is none? Makes me sad as well as angry.

I have read studies that say that the majority of homophobic people are 65+. I might be able to dig out polls later.


Yep, but traditional conservative opposition to equal marriage is dropping as people become more socially liberal, and they are very much Christian. We know this but we don't know so much about Islam and Muslims because we don't humanise them in the same way.

And who makes the laws of the land? Old men usually.

When I mean 'we', I mean we.

We had moved on a lot since then and we were discussing the use of 'cis' to mean 'not trans' (and as cis is the opposite of trans in Latin, it's a fair use imo). You hadn't made it clear you were talking about university speakers, so I apologise for jumping on you about a different subject.

Please do - I suspect it's a higher rate of incidence in old people but it's far from uncommon in the younger. Certainly not to the extent to describe any one other than old white men as "statistically insignificant" in this respect.


Well, yes, but again, the traditional conservative approach is not limited to old white men. Particularly in the US.


Who's this "we", paleface?


Not white ones in most of the countries I was referring to, of course.

Yes, old white men can be intolerant. But to in essence describe them as the sum total of the problem of intolerance, even when you then move the goalposts to refer only to the west, is patently unsupportable.

Yes, a lot of African countries have poor LGBT rights, because they're Christian, because white people went there as missionaries to dig them wells in return for taking bibles etc.

So still white people's fault.

Because black people have no agency? Right, gotcha.

And presumably the white people created the religions in those middle eastern countries with very poor LGBT rights as well?

And let's just forget about the historic spread of Islam in Africa.

Yes that's exactly what I think. Why not tell me about how I think about other things too, Chris?

In what way am I telling you what you think? I'm (rather snarkily, admittedly, but then you are coming across as a massively sanctimonious pain in the bum at the moment, and that's the sort of response you consequently engender) pointing out the logical conclusion of your point about Africa and explaining the massive hole in your argument that it's all the whites' fault when it comes to the middle east. Your commitment to blaming whitey for everything is laudable, but I'm puzzled why you can't see that it's a bit, well, wrong.

I blame white people (and men in particular) for the historical and ongoing oppression of women and minorities in western (white) countries, which is what I refer to when I talk about these issues. Other countries and regions around the world have different problems and I don't place the blame entirely on us for that (Although the British Empire did own 75% of the world at one point, so it's fair to say we've definitely caused more than our fair share). I've already stated is an issue with fundamentalists in general, but you don't have to read if you don't want to.

Also lol @ 'massively sanctimonious pain in the bum' coming from you. I must have learned from the best.

Well, that's all fair enough, and I can't say I disagree with it. It's just not quite what you said to begin with. If you recall, I took issue with the "it's all old white men and any other group is statistically insignificant" (I paraphrase, of course, so I apologise for the inaccurate use of quote marks). Which I maintain is incorrect and you've not said anything that backs up that original assertion. It's ok to admit you're wrong, you know. I have had practice.



Why thank you! You're too kind.

But I did read that, and my response explained (although without referring specifically to those very words, apologies for not making it abundantly clear) why that was irrelevant to the point I was making (i.e. that it's not just fundamentalists when it comes to certain religions, because the founding texts have that intolerance built in. And I'm fairly sure I recall various attitude surveys of British Muslims showing fairly widespread intolerance of homosexuality).



Aha. Goodness me. "I know you are but what am I". but I'm sorry, the sanctimonious point was an uncalled for comment and I apologise. Although it was true

But I'm sure this is getting tedious for everyone involved now (and I have to go to a school governors' meeting), so I'll let you get the last word in and we can leave it there.

Fundamentally we don't disagree about the main underlying stuff, we're doing what beex does best and arguing about the peripheral

Myp there, shaking his fist at history.

Fistory

See, I like you, but I'm bored of reading about how I'm privileged and oppressing people I simply don't care about. It's 99% of your content at the minute and wish the old you was back.

I can do something about framerates, if that'll help.

Superb

We need to bring back POTW just for Chopley.

"The student has argued that he isn’t a beneficiary of Rhodes money and that he simply taking back “tiny fractions” of what he looted during his time in Africa. "

Wow. That's some logic there.

As a person of Irish descent there must be some toffs around I can rob legitimately then.

I hope I get you in secret santa at xmas

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ouncillors

I'm guessing there is a link here.

Diesel is cheaper again!

wasn't where I filled up yesterday, 99.9 for u/l 107.9 for diesel.

97.9 for diesel round our way, unless they had priced it up wrong!

.

I hope they fix the frame rate issues on XCOM 2 soon.

More reports on the news today about ongoing build-ups in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. Probably necessary to restrain Mr Putin, but troubling nonetheless. Disappointing that Labour are tearing themselves apart over defence at the moment so are not capable of providing credible scrutiny.

Trump and Sanders win their respective primaries.

Not unexpected, but Trump is just getting more annoyed by the minute.

I'm not always a fan of the Huffington Post, but I was amused by their headlines openly calling him a racist, xenophobic demagogue.

Annoyed or annoying?

You know things are desperate in the Republican party when candidates like Cruz or Rubino are considered 'moderate' in comparision to Trump.

That's my main worry with him, he'll let some other right wing fucknut in through the back door. I've read some articles that the party would even prefer Trump to Cruz as they view him as someone who could more easily be manipulated.

It really worries me to be honest, the world's in too fragile a state to have some hawkish lunatic in the White House.

Both?

I meant annoying though.

I don't think he'll win the Presidency, but if he did I would expect either the end of the world, or him to quit in short order when he finds out that he can't just tell Mexico to build a big wall.

Anyone catch that interview on R4 Today at around 8:30, they had some guy in defence of the government's position re. junior doctors' striking, saying in his day in the 70s and 80s junior doctors routinely worked 70-90 hours per week in order to gain the required experience/on the job training in the first couple of years especially (as part of what he described as a "10 year training cycle")

His opposite number - a junior doctor herself from what I could tell - immediately retorted with something along the lines of "... thank goodness we're not in the terrible old days of working 70-90 hours" or whatever/somesuch, because of some 2003 Act or other brought in by our old pals Labour. Which may have been fair comment but for the fact that in the next breath she claimed to be working 145 hour weeks...? 145 HOURS? That's 21 hours a day, 7 days a week fact-fans, leaving just THREE hours per day (including weekends) for eating, sleeping, washing, getting dressed and undressed, travelling to and from work, shopping for food, taking a dump etc.

I daresay someone should tell her that, y'know, 145 hours is more than 70-90 hours. Also, does anyone actually *believe* these absurd claims? 145 hours per week? Bollocks!!

It'll be 390 hours per week at this rate. Man, I would've loved to have challenged these claims but as per usual the useless, supine BBC interviewers were either too innumerate, too thick or most likely too sympathetic to their "right on" strike to say owt.

Yeah doctors, fucking arseholes!

...Which I didn't say of course, but heaven forbid anyone - least of all me - having the temerity to call out anyone who works in the NHS and must therefore be beyond all reproach and any criticism according to the impartial St Markg.

145 hours/week is in my opinion just not credible, especially when just going on about how terrible 70-90 hours was/is just seconds before. Let's at least have some accuracy in the claims and justifications aired to millions of (TV licence-paying) people listening to this interview - if that's not *too* much to ask that is.

I did not catch the interview in question however two possible scenarios that would explain the answer

1) She is including some time she is being paid to be on call , as such she can sleep (but would need to get up and deal with an issue if one occurred)
2) She's a junior doctor , working really long hours and the lack of sleep is affecting her basic math skills , and she actually means another number but was too tired / flustered / anxious to get the correct number out.

I was listening intently to this debate on R4 with my ears fully open.

She said she worked 145 hours over 12 days.

Amazing scenes.

Arse! Sorry, you're quite right, just listened back at my desk (as opposed to half listening in car). My apologies.

Wot, no gif Doc? Your standards are slipping.

You know, it says a lot that when faced with something that was (to my reading) clearly either a misunderstanding or the result of a flustered interviewer, Cavey comes out with:



I don't understand how one doesn't question oneself for a moment. I don't understand the reflex to immediately bash the Labour party and the BBC in the same breath, as opposed to using that breath to reflect on how maybe the obvious nonsense you think you just heard wasn't what you just heard. I don't understand people who are so incautiously accepting of confirmation bias, basically.

Oh man, and like you've never been wrong about stuff? Stop being so bloody precious, at least I admit I made a mistake and an arse of myself & acknowledged error; it's an easy enough mistake to make whilst listening/driving.

"How can I live with myself" etc. etc. /violins

(Edit: Even then, 145 hours over 12 days is 85 hours per week pro-rata, which is well inside the 70-90 hour/week range quoted by her opposite number? So if nothing's changed on that score since the '70s/'80s according to her - very difficult to see how much further we've traveled since the bad old days before 2003 or whatever).

Can we clarify the whole Junior Doctor term? Am I correct in thinking its every Doctor below the rank of consultant?