3 in 1 - An ex player, political correctness and the BBC...

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

It has in certain workplace environments some of which have been highlighted on this thread. If the 'loons' didn't have any influence or power it wouldn't be a concern.

Thankfully the majority haven't been impacted and can just ignore it or laugh it off.

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.

It's a very slippery slope.

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the norm

ElfsborgAddick said:

Chizz said:

Boom said:

Chizz said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

killerandflash said:

At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot

No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.

Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 

There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.

No-one has taken offence. 

A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 

How do you know he’s mediocre? 

Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?

If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?

If he were better than mediocre, he would be broadcast on an even bigger broadcast medium than Radio Lincolnshire. That's how meritocracy works. Radio Lincolnshire may well be one of the best stations in the whole of the Lincolnshire area, but it's not the pinnacle to which broadcasters aim. 

Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire? 

BR7_addick said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the norm

What would be the norm?  Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?

Chizz said:

Boom said:

Chizz said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Chizz said:

Leuth said:

killerandflash said:

At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot

No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.

Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 

There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.

No-one has taken offence. 

A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 

How do you know he’s mediocre? 

Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?

If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?

If he were better than mediocre, he would be broadcast on an even bigger broadcast medium than Radio Lincolnshire. That's how meritocracy works. Radio Lincolnshire may well be one of the best stations in the whole of the Lincolnshire area, but it's not the pinnacle to which broadcasters aim. 

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.

It's a very slippery slope.

Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that.  The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.

.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.

This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.

People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.

It's a very slippery slope.

Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that.  The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.

.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.

This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.

People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.

I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”.  I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.

It's a very slippery slope.

Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that.  The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.

.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.

This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.

People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.

I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”.  I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.

Nobody is getting wound up and claiming such doesn't help the debate. People are debating the issue. Nothing more.

BR7_addick said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

BR7_addick said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the norm

What would be the norm?  Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?

People getting sacked for using the term handbags?

Okay so you’re worried you might get sacked for using that at work?  I’m not.

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

Big_Bad_World said:

BR7_addick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

BR7_addick said:

Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.  

The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.

I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.

Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy.  👍🏻 

It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.
Obviously it affects some more than others.

Has it?  I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?

Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.

It's a very slippery slope.

Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that.  The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.

.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.

This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.

People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.

I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”.  I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.

Nobody is getting wound up and claiming such doesn't help the debate. People are debating the issue. Nothing more.

I don’t think you’d have to go far to find someone wound up by such issues.