Politically Correct or Incorrect Bullshit Of The Day

[Rogerbh]

Starbucks is the latest place to face the wrath of the SJWs. Apparently Black people can use their tables and bathrooms without being paying customers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4fb624a6b6ab Reminds me of the story I saw where at a Chinese Restaurant, a waiter went to a newly arrived Caucasian couples table and found them eating their brown bag lunch. He looked at them in shock and the two meekly without a word being said gathered their items and left. It would have been interesting if they had stayed - to see what would have happened, but they did not feel entitled.

[lothian]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Starbucks is the latest place to face the wrath of the SJWs. Apparently Black people can use their tables and bathrooms without being paying customers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4fb624a6b6ab Reminds me of the story I saw where at a Chinese Restaurant, a waiter went to a newly arrived Caucasian couples table and found them eating their brown bag lunch. He looked at them in shock and the two meekly without a word being said gathered their items and left. It would have been interesting if they had stayed - to see what would have happened, but they did not feel entitled.

And to stir the pot a little more , this guy , Bryan Sharpe AKA ''Hotep Jesus'' a conservative political/social commentator . posed as an aggrieved BLM member to get his ' reparations '
.
https://youtu.be/1FvwMsb9CRg

[Decadence]

In another attempt to save people from themselves, Penn State University says it has banned its near century-old outdoor recreation club from going outside because it is too dangerous out in the wilderness.

The 98-year-old Penn State Outing Club announced last week that the university will no longer allow the club to organize outdoor, student-led trips starting next semester. The university’s offices of Student Affairs and Risk Management made the determination that the hiking, camping and other outdoors-focused activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky.

Can't get too far away from those safe spaces, I guess.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by ********

Did this shit have to be started up again? It's just conservative snowflakes being trigged by stuff they don't like, and ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I'll let you in on a little secret ready

There are believe it or not people on both sides of politics who get ticked off by their opposing side , I will say it is more the left who seem to see the need to move the world away from some good old fashioned values and make the general population weaker in general.

Special Note
I didn't see the need anymore to deny the members that originally started posting in this thread, I won't deny that to them again but it is now ruined due to a select few, so from now on, there will be a warning with any post removal. Think before you want to make a post that requires it removed with respect to the forum rules, I'll extend that to smart ass comments directed at others that don't actually break forum rules.

Free speech is not a defence either, this place is owned by an individual, you're a guest in their house so it's their rules.

[Thinkwell]

I was doing a Daily Telegraph cryptic crossword.

One of the clues was:

Shelf-life? (12)

The answer (which I got) was Spinsterhood - because a spinster is 'on the shelf'.

This was not a recent crossword. It was in a paperback crossword book published in 2003.

I don't think that clue would be acceptable today, because the word spinster has gone out of favour, and, more important, because we no longer choose to think that an unmarried woman is a failure; some women have chosen not to marry.

It would not be acceptable today - and acceptable and unacceptable are vogue words, used to justify all sorts of politically correct bullshit. But to my surprise, I dislike this clue. Although it is clever and amusing, I think it alludes to an unkind joke, an unkind way of thinking.

Am I now a victim of political correctness? Or am I showing proper consideration and respect?

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by Thinkwell

I was doing a Daily Telegraph cryptic crossword.

One of the clues was:

Shelf-life? (12)

The answer (which I got) was Spinsterhood - because a spinster is 'on the shelf'.

This was not a recent crossword. It was in a paperback crossword book published in 2003.

I don't think that clue would be acceptable today, because the word spinster has gone out of favour, and, more important, because we no longer choose to think that an unmarried woman is a failure; some women have chosen not to marry.

It would not be acceptable today - and acceptable and unacceptable are vogue words, used to justify all sorts of politically correct bullshit. But to my surprise, I dislike this clue. Although it is clever and amusing, I think it alludes to an unkind joke, an unkind way of thinking.

Am I now a victim of political correctness? Or am I showing proper consideration and respect?

I don't see any problem with the clue.

But if you're scared that someone else might be offended by this, you might have some cee in your pee

[Decadence]

Another one to file under "rampant hypocrisy"--

About a year ago, accountant Greg Piatek and some friends went into a Manhattan pub for some adult beverages. Upon receiving rude service from a bartender, they complained.

The response of management was "anyone who supports Trump — or believes in what you believe — is not welcome here. You need to leave right now because we won’t serve you”. The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street is apparently a bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Piatek had committed the unforgivable sin of wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat into the pub.

So, as is the custom in America, Piatek sued the bar in a Manhattan Court claiming the incident offended his sense of being American.

Yesterday, a judge threw out the case stating that there's nothing outrageous about throwing Trump supporters out of the bar because the law doesn't protect against what he called "political discrimination".

I know where Mr. Piatek went wrong. He should have told the pub manager he was gay and wanted them to cater his wedding.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Another one to file under "rampant hypocrisy"--


So, as is the custom in America, Piatek sued the bar in a Manhattan Court claiming the incident offended his sense of being American.

Yesterday, a judge threw out the case stating that there's nothing outrageous about throwing Trump supporters out of the bar because the law doesn't protect against what he called "political discrimination".

I know where Mr. Piatek went wrong. He should have told the pub manager he was gay and wanted them to cater his wedding.

Finally a judge with some cojones! What a pity there isn't an actual charge of "attempting to waste the courts time" and "attempting to bring the law into disrepute"-and then the judge could have found against them...!

In NZ we actually have a charge of "wasting police time"-occasionally used against those who make frivolous or false complaints-but I'm not sure if there is the equivalent regarding the actual court system. I do know however that you can be declared a 'hostile plaintiff' or something like that for people who continually tie up the court with unsustainable actions-on one occasion during my army career we had to do this to an obnoxious landowner who was being wilfully obstructive.

[Dr Pepper]

I just remembered the term I couldn't quite recall in the post above-it is 'vexatious litigant' -someone who brings unnecessary-and usually unwinnable-court actions purely to obstruct or cause a nuisance, without having any legal grounds to do so. We have a few such here in NZ-generally crusaders of some sort riding their own particular hobby horse-who bring private prosecutions-which are allowed under our legal system.
...this asshole is a prime example of the type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_McCready

...and as the above Wiki entry shows-he is an absolute paragon of virtue himself.....

[Old Jud]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

I just remembered the term I couldn't quite recall in the post above-it is 'vexatious litigant' -someone who brings unnecessary-and usually unwinnable-court actions purely to obstruct or cause a nuisance, without having any legal grounds to do so. We have a few such here in NZ-generally crusaders of some sort riding their own particular hobby horse-who bring private prosecutions-which are allowed under our legal system.
...this asshole is a prime example of the type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_McCready

...and as the above Wiki entry shows-he is an absolute paragon of virtue himself.....

Going off the Wiki entry, we can sum him up as a convicted criminal living on state handouts and living in a council flat, whilst trying to criminalise other people? And he is a former 'piss head'.

I do believe we have folk of a similar ilk here in the UK.....