| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:44 - Dec 5 with 710 views | Xatticus |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 12:02 - Dec 5 by BlueBadger |
Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. |
I have an issue with this line of thinking.
There is the theory of intersectionality. We are complex and these broad and sweeping categorizations do a disservice to individuals because privilege can't really be assigned this way and neither can justice be meted out through such a narrow lens.
The argument goes... "if everything else is equal, then 'variable X' is a disadvantage." The issue with this is that everything else never is equal. We can measure disparities in society statistically, but inequality isn't a flat tax and everyone is a victim through some particular lens, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.
50 years ago, one of the arguments for feminism in the United States was the disparity in post-secondary education opportunities, but the rates have flipped to where females are much more likely to attend college and to receive a degree than their male counterparts. The conversation is clearly far more complex than something that can be distilled down to a flippant comment like, "Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. " One can certainly be a member of a perceived minority group and still hold prejudices and discriminate based upon those prejudices.
The goal isn't to change the beliefs of everyone to reflect societal mores. The goal is to stamp out discrimination. This initiative seems to be attempting the former and I fail to see how it can lead to the latter. |  | |  |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 15:12 - Dec 5 with 653 views | Bucklebury_blue |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:44 - Dec 5 by Xatticus |
I have an issue with this line of thinking.
There is the theory of intersectionality. We are complex and these broad and sweeping categorizations do a disservice to individuals because privilege can't really be assigned this way and neither can justice be meted out through such a narrow lens.
The argument goes... "if everything else is equal, then 'variable X' is a disadvantage." The issue with this is that everything else never is equal. We can measure disparities in society statistically, but inequality isn't a flat tax and everyone is a victim through some particular lens, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.
50 years ago, one of the arguments for feminism in the United States was the disparity in post-secondary education opportunities, but the rates have flipped to where females are much more likely to attend college and to receive a degree than their male counterparts. The conversation is clearly far more complex than something that can be distilled down to a flippant comment like, "Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. " One can certainly be a member of a perceived minority group and still hold prejudices and discriminate based upon those prejudices.
The goal isn't to change the beliefs of everyone to reflect societal mores. The goal is to stamp out discrimination. This initiative seems to be attempting the former and I fail to see how it can lead to the latter. |
Well said, thank you | | | |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 15:31 - Dec 5 with 619 views | SE1blue |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:18 - Dec 5 by Mullet |
When have you been disrespected by the rainbow people? |
I always found Zippy a tad aggressive but Bungle, Georgeand Geoffrey were the calming influences I needed. |  |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 16:05 - Dec 5 with 587 views | blueasfook |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:44 - Dec 5 by Xatticus |
I have an issue with this line of thinking.
There is the theory of intersectionality. We are complex and these broad and sweeping categorizations do a disservice to individuals because privilege can't really be assigned this way and neither can justice be meted out through such a narrow lens.
The argument goes... "if everything else is equal, then 'variable X' is a disadvantage." The issue with this is that everything else never is equal. We can measure disparities in society statistically, but inequality isn't a flat tax and everyone is a victim through some particular lens, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.
50 years ago, one of the arguments for feminism in the United States was the disparity in post-secondary education opportunities, but the rates have flipped to where females are much more likely to attend college and to receive a degree than their male counterparts. The conversation is clearly far more complex than something that can be distilled down to a flippant comment like, "Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. " One can certainly be a member of a perceived minority group and still hold prejudices and discriminate based upon those prejudices.
The goal isn't to change the beliefs of everyone to reflect societal mores. The goal is to stamp out discrimination. This initiative seems to be attempting the former and I fail to see how it can lead to the latter. |
I wouldnt have wasted your time. He doesn't really think through what nonsense he posts. He just has a collection of a few catch phrases he posts ad nauseum because he thinks it makes him look "right on". |  |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 17:03 - Dec 5 with 516 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 10:32 - Dec 5 by Bucklebury_blue |
If he believes what he says ('To be clear - if clarity is in fact needed - the rainbow armband's objective is not to promote homosexuality. It is supposed to help fight discrimination.') then there needs to be a reset. I don't know anyone who thinks the rainbow represents anyone but the LGBTQ+ people. If it did why isn't there an H in there for heterosexual or S for straight? Seems to me they want tolerance for everyone except people who don't agree with them. |
This is the same argument as people who say All Lives Matter.
Of course they do. It's implicit. And the rest of us don't need it saying because we aren't, overall, being persecuted.
These campaigns are to support people who are marginalised in some way. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 18:47 - Dec 5 with 451 views | BlueBadger |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 13:52 - Dec 5 by blueasfook |
Says a straight (presumably) white bloke. |
Exactly. I know what I'm talking about when I say we're the REAL victims here.
And it's all because of Woke. |  |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 18:56 - Dec 5 with 440 views | Whos_blue |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 15:31 - Dec 5 by SE1blue |
I always found Zippy a tad aggressive but Bungle, Georgeand Geoffrey were the calming influences I needed. |
Yeah, but Rod, Jane and Freddy could be right c units on a night out. |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 18:57 - Dec 5 with 440 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 10:32 - Dec 5 by Bucklebury_blue |
If he believes what he says ('To be clear - if clarity is in fact needed - the rainbow armband's objective is not to promote homosexuality. It is supposed to help fight discrimination.') then there needs to be a reset. I don't know anyone who thinks the rainbow represents anyone but the LGBTQ+ people. If it did why isn't there an H in there for heterosexual or S for straight? Seems to me they want tolerance for everyone except people who don't agree with them. |
Christ, where has THIS prick crawled out from?! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 19:09 - Dec 5 with 412 views | Mullet |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:44 - Dec 5 by Xatticus |
I have an issue with this line of thinking.
There is the theory of intersectionality. We are complex and these broad and sweeping categorizations do a disservice to individuals because privilege can't really be assigned this way and neither can justice be meted out through such a narrow lens.
The argument goes... "if everything else is equal, then 'variable X' is a disadvantage." The issue with this is that everything else never is equal. We can measure disparities in society statistically, but inequality isn't a flat tax and everyone is a victim through some particular lens, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.
50 years ago, one of the arguments for feminism in the United States was the disparity in post-secondary education opportunities, but the rates have flipped to where females are much more likely to attend college and to receive a degree than their male counterparts. The conversation is clearly far more complex than something that can be distilled down to a flippant comment like, "Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. " One can certainly be a member of a perceived minority group and still hold prejudices and discriminate based upon those prejudices.
The goal isn't to change the beliefs of everyone to reflect societal mores. The goal is to stamp out discrimination. This initiative seems to be attempting the former and I fail to see how it can lead to the latter. |
How does the rate of degrees by gender prove whatever your point is there? |  |
| |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 19:29 - Dec 5 with 389 views | tcblue |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 14:44 - Dec 5 by Xatticus |
I have an issue with this line of thinking.
There is the theory of intersectionality. We are complex and these broad and sweeping categorizations do a disservice to individuals because privilege can't really be assigned this way and neither can justice be meted out through such a narrow lens.
The argument goes... "if everything else is equal, then 'variable X' is a disadvantage." The issue with this is that everything else never is equal. We can measure disparities in society statistically, but inequality isn't a flat tax and everyone is a victim through some particular lens, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.
50 years ago, one of the arguments for feminism in the United States was the disparity in post-secondary education opportunities, but the rates have flipped to where females are much more likely to attend college and to receive a degree than their male counterparts. The conversation is clearly far more complex than something that can be distilled down to a flippant comment like, "Will no-one think of the truly persecuted people here, straight white blokes. " One can certainly be a member of a perceived minority group and still hold prejudices and discriminate based upon those prejudices.
The goal isn't to change the beliefs of everyone to reflect societal mores. The goal is to stamp out discrimination. This initiative seems to be attempting the former and I fail to see how it can lead to the latter. |
Let me help you.
 | | | |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 22:53 - Dec 5 with 314 views | MattinLondon |
| Hitzlsperger has his say on 18:57 - Dec 5 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
Christ, where has THIS prick crawled out from?! |
I’m guessing, the 1980s. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
