Politically Correct or Incorrect Bullshit Of The Day

[haroldeye]

Isn't that sedition?

[ultimatewarlord]

Six male BBC employees have agreed to take wage cuts to bring them in line with their female colleagues. I'm delighted. That means that the likes of Jane Garvey won't get any more money to add to the big contracts they were more than happy to sign.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

Six male BBC employees have agreed to take wage cuts to bring them in line with their female colleagues. I'm delighted. That means that the likes of Jane Garvey won't get any more money to add to the big contracts they were more than happy to sign.

Which only proves that the BBC has a "wuss only" bias when it comes to hiring men.

[anothercustom]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

Six male BBC employees have agreed to take wage cuts

I note that Gary Lineker wasn't on the list. The £2M the BBC pay him is a disgraceful waste of TV licence payer's money. The viewing figures for Match of the Day will be the same regardless of who presents it.

[ManofKent]

Originally Posted by movieman88

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...iel-greenfield

But "only white people can be racist"... totally.

Well that sounds like a challenge!

[ManofKent]

Originally Posted by the_knicker_inspector

The Independent reports: "The FT said that at their initial interviews, Caroline Dandridge, the founder of Artista, warned the women that the men at the dinner might be “annoying”. Ms Dandridge was reported to have told one hostess: “It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again. You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine.”


It's possible that some ladies enjoy that sort of attention or, at least, consider the money (quite low at £150 plus up to £25 for a cab fare home) to outweigh any discomfort. I wonder whether Ms Dandridge, though, was completely honest in her job description. It's possible that in her selection the comfort of her staff was a lower priority than fulfilling the brief concerning the physical attributes of the waitresses.


Even if Ms Dandridge was economical in the truth The Guardian reports: "Two days before the dinner, staff were allegedly informed their phones would be “safely locked away” and were told to wear black underwear to match short, black skirts they were given for the evening. The women were allegedly . . . made to sign non-disclosure agreements." (How one can be "made" to sign a non-disclosure agreement I'm not sure.)


I can only think, therefore, that the ladies who were uncomfortable whether or not they were misled were either naive or were willing to undergo the discomfort in return for the payment. They also would have discounted the possibility of leaving during the event (surely compensation would have followed to avoid the publicity) and, in the clear case of indecent exposure, calling the police.


I'm not condoning the behaviour of the men and in my view it's not so much sexual as an exercise of power. It's also a question about whether people who are paid to behave sexually in ways that they would not otherwise do are exploited in a qualitatively different way than other workers who earn a tenth of the salary of the most powerful employees in an organisation but who experience less workplace control and more stress.


Following on from this it's also a question about whether the reporter was sent to bring back what amounts to no more than a salacious and titillating story to entertain the readership and encourage the circulation!

This is the kind of think my father pointed out:

Of all the women who were actually working there that night exactly how many of them actually complained about it other then this journalist?
Seeing how they are 'the victims' the press seems to have said very little in comparison about them making statements.

[Decadence]

One topic the politically correct crowd won't let go of is that of certain sports teams' names/mascots.

In the past, crusaders have unsuccessfully lobbied to get organizations like The Washington Redskins to change their name and likeness to something that isn't so "overtly insensitive to Native Americans".

It's primarily a made-up controversry -- even polls take by such outlets as the Washington Post indicate 90% of Native Americans are not offended (let alone give a shit) by teams with names like the Redskins.

Earlier this week, America lost an icon of sorts when the Cleveland Indians decided to retire Chief Wahoo, their 'mascot' and logo since the late 1940s.


Max Kellerman, of ESPN, was so full of glee he nearly peed his seat at this news and had to take a step further.. he opined that ethnic mascots should be changed "even if it is a minority of the group that is offended," and said that rule also should apply to the University of Notre Dame, whose athletic teams are known as the Fighting Irish.

"Many Irish-Americans are not offended, but many are. And should that also change? The answer is yes, unequivocally yes," Kellerman said.



Depending upon who you believe, the term "Fighting Irish" has been in use for over 100 years. Try and change it. The Irish will come and beat your sorry ass.

This guy should simply report rather than editorialize. I doubt anyone requires his input on what is or isn't offensive.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Decadence

One topic the politically correct crowd won't let go of is that of certain sports teams' names/mascots.

Chief Wahoo is pretty gross and a cartoonish caricature of Native Americans. He is kind of a perversion of a name that was chosen to honor the American Indian heritage of members of the old National League Cleveland franchise. But what the hell, sports are games and supposed to be lighthearted and fun. something we competitive male types too often forget.

As a person of Irish heritage, while fighting Irish is certainly an ethnic stereotype, it is preferable to the common stereotype of drunken Irish.

I wonder if the women of the University of Nevada's sports teams would be OK with honoring their state's unique recognition of female empowerment and rename their squads. "Whores" might be taken the wrong way. Perhaps, "bawds" or "trollops" would be work. The more polite "courtesans" is too awkward and "escorts" doesn't seem quite right.

[SanteeFats]

Team logos and names are not really a tough call IMO. The only ones the ass holes go after are the high profile ones. Some of those they won't even touch. When is the last time they went after the Seminoles (Florida State)??
Ain't gonna happen.
There are hundreds of teams with Indian names from high school up and not many are challenged.
Now keep an eye on Central Michigan Chippewas as they are starting to make some noise in football.
I have also noticed that a lot of the furor is promoted by non natives of whatever is the team name. My team is the San Diego State Aztecs. The pathetic voices calling for a change are not even descendants of any ethnicity close to the now extinct people.
Gotta love my country at this time----NOT.
Oh and I am of Scot and Irish descent and do not find the Fighting Irish name offensive in the least. I do find the team to be detestable though.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Earlier this week, America lost an icon of sorts when the Cleveland Indians decided to retire Chief Wahoo, their 'mascot' and logo since the late 1940s.

Here's the kicker: They are only removing the Chief from their field uniforms. They still plan to sell merchandise with his smiling visage. What a bunch of pussies. Either remove him entirely or not.