Posts Tagged ‘homophobic’

Baby Boomers have a lot to answer for.

January 5, 2016

In 1967 I turned 20 years old and after a Summer on the buses I was down at Portsmouth Polytechnic doing my degree course.

The World was wonderful.

England had won the World Cup and their Manager knighted (nowadays he’d have got a peerage).

The Mersey Beat was everywhere. It seemed that anyone, who had a guitar was cutting No.1 records, even those who couldn’t play them (Graham Nash?). The Beatles were getting hippy and California was moving into “The Summer of Love” with Americans protesting their Government’s Colonialist war in Viet Nam.

Revolution was in the air, with some serious clashes with massed police in London. We hadn’t been widely aware of much of the Civil Rights movement in the USA, mainly because we had little real public contact with America. Telephone calls to the USA cost huge sums and radio was crackly.

This was the year of the first live global television link by satellite when 400 million people saw and heard the Beatles play “All you need is love”.

It wasn’t until the following year at the Olympics and the Black Power Salute, that we fully realised how much hotter it was in the USA.

Meantime UK was about to become rich, because the The first North Sea oil was being pumped ashore. It never occurred to us that politicians would find means to squander the new found wealth, e.g. the launch of the first Polaris Submarine.

(That was one nasty little political ploy, where we gave away our own successful rocket (Blue Streak, thereafter the Ariane) as a bribe to the French to let us join the Common Market. It didn’t work Charles de Gaulle vetoed British entry.

Parliament decriminalised male homosexuality with the Sexual Offences Act.

The British steel industry was nationalised

The Abortion Act, passed in Parliament, legalising abortion on a number of grounds (with effect from 1968).

Lots of other things happened in that year such as first broadcast of colour TV, opening Milton Keynes, first conviction under the Race Relations Act 1965.

By the time I was in my thirties, being absorbed into mainstream working life, my generation had undergone Social changes, normalising homosexuality and recognising a need for racial co-existence. The Dagenham girls had forced the equal pay act into draught. We were engaging in an economic alliance with our near neighbours (although I had, for one, had voted against it). We had North Sea Gas and Oil coming ashore in sufficient quantities to enable us to pay off our debts, fully fund our State pensions, build new hospitals etc.

It’s not the generation now deriding mine as being racist and homophobic, who created the world that they see around them. It’s my generation and those who remembered rationing and the aftermath of WWII, who created their world.

The world that the next generation will be living in is the one created by Thatcher’s children. The one where State Assets were destroyed to sell them into private hands, where income was frittered away on grandstanding displays such as the Eurotunnel and other E.U. projects. Where PFI’s, banking deregulation, creeping privatisation of State Assets was destroying The Welfare State built by my parents’ generation.

Next time some snotty stand-up comedian sneers at our homophobic, sexist and racist generation, just remind them that we were the generation who put a stop to it, while we were busy wiping their bums and teaching them to love one another.

@BBCNews I’m strong-minded,you’re a bigot, he’s a fascist…. “shut-up” words

September 12, 2012

Nick Clegg is correct: Anyone, opposed to gay’s marrying, is a bigot. However, so is Nick Clegg.

If you hold an opinion, which you are not prepared to change and which is not based on fact, then you are a bigot. (stating your opinion as being fact is also bigotry).

The problem is that calling someone a bigot is considered to be an insult and a winning argument.

Often, the only way of refuting such a charge is by accepting the other person’s bigotted view, despite your own convictions.

Unless your own view is based on irrefutable and demonstrable fact, then calling someone else a bigot is merely hectoring and shows that you have effectively admitted that you can’t support your own viewpoint.

There is a lot of this sort of argument based on “shut-up” words. Words such as Homophobic, islamophobic, racist and so forth are all used as “shut-up” words.

A Christian can be “accused” of being Islamophobic and therefore having no right for his views to be heard.

There is no equivalent word.

You could accuse a Muslim of being Christianophobic but people would laugh, because that has not achieved acceptance as a a “shut-up” word.

It’s time that these semantically loaded words were recognised for what they are.

They are “shut-up” words, or words of surrender, meaning “I can’t justify my arguments, so I’m going to give you the social equivalent of a kick in the groin”

Next time, someone uses a “shut-up” word you should claim victory and denounce them for resorting to a “shut-up” word.


Moral high Ground AKA chatterati’s tort

May 15, 2011

Many decades ago, Brits woke up to the realisation that complaining got results.
The more vociferous the complaints, the speedier the  required response.
This worked because the reticent English preferred to avoid a scene.
Eventually, someone hit on the idea on having young girls as receptionists and telephonists.
This brought much needed relief to Companies on the losing end of such tactics, because the moment a four-letter word was used, the receptionist/telephonist was automatically awarded the moral/social superiority and the complainant could be abruptly dismissed, or even forcibly ejected from premises, as appropriate.
Since then, the “Moral higher ground strategy” has been exploited to an ever increasing degree.
First women’s-libber’s, figuratively, tearing out the throat of any man referring to them as “ladies”, “girls”,”women”,”females” or any gender based collective noun.
The snarling “mizz”, hissed by these women, immediately put any male addressing them, by the formerly acceptable terms of “Miss” or “Mrs”, on the back foot.
The protection of racial minorities, employed the same tactics with “Negro”, then “black”, then “coloured” becoming, in turn, terms that were classed as abusive and thus placed the user at a disadvantage. Although “black” is deemed acceptable, once more.
From hereon, the concept of “hate-crimes” developed with people winning arguments, not by reasoned debate but by being able to accuse one’s opponent of being politically incorrect. (“you’re homophobic, I win” / “you’re racist, I win” / “you’re sexist, I win” / “you’re xxxxx-ist, I win”)
We even have the more accomplished proponents devising new words to assign as non-PC.
e.g.”brain-storming” was introduced as a term to describe a group throwing around ideas. It proved ephemeral, because someone thought it might upset epileptics and axe-murderers.
However, it has been the rise of “Health and Safety”, which has really proved the bludgeon in the armoury of those who wish to gain the “moral upper-ground” and, thereby, avoid any valid re-buttal of their actions.
Consider the case of an employee with a decades long unblemished record, who may even have a long list of commendations and awards.
There may come a time, when financial considerations make it advantageous to remove that person from his post and dump him on the scrap heap.
It may be possible to prove that he has “stolen” a Company pencil.
However; this requires, actually, taking the case to court, which costs money and makes the Company look petty.
Much better to be able to claim a breach of “H&S”. “Used a chair to straighten a picture”, “removed a supermarket trolley from a railway line” or “wore certain jewelery”.
In all these cases, employees can be dismissed without fear of contradiction by employment tribunals, or unions, or the Media.
Let’s stop this practice of allowing P.R’s, politicians and pundits to hide behind these coward’s meme’s, by introducing a new meme.
Puritan, prodnose,hypocrite etc. don’t fit. I would like something that convey’s the idea of this being a sort of posh yobbishness, a social Yahooism and a slimeball’s avoidance of advancing a solid argument.
I can’t devise a suitable term but will propose, Pro Tem, the term shrillism, because, when I listen to such people debate, I hear their voices becoming shriller and shriller as they seek to drown out anybody trying to put an opposing argument. (I’m, presently, listening to the BBC’s “The Big Question” and the latest “I win” phrase seems to be islamophobe)

Alternative comedy.

April 28, 2011

I used to enjoy jokes and watched shows like The Comedians but then there came a big Social Engineering exercise and those entertainers were replaced by a new breed of entertainer, called Comics, because they were a verbal version of Charlie Chaplin et al.

But you can only go so far with Situational Comedy and the alternative comedians, having also exhausted scatological humour, then switched from attacking stereotypes to attacking individuals, who fitted that stereotype. e.g. jokes about Julian Clary and buggery aren’t homophobic, whilst jokes about an unnamed “puff” and buggery are. The thick Paddy Jokes are totally unacceptable but okay in programs such as Father Ted. It’s the same as how cartoons exaggerating racial characteristics are OK, providing the character is recognisable as a particular person and not given a name like Sambo, Jock or Ali.

However Frankie Boyle and Mock The Week seemed to have soured that particular seam, so now we have Stand-up that seems to consist of repeating the same phrase, repeatedly in several different ways, whilst acting in a manic fashion. Sometimes a 20 minute spot can be broken down into five mildly amusing observations that would have been by-passed in ordinary conversation.

It’s small wonder that I still receive so many old fashioned jokes by email.

Some may just be childish or psychotic but many are funny and can be laughed at, in private, without fear of being “told off”. 

Unsurprisingly, with Europe becoming ever more oppressive, it seems to have become OK to start making adverse comments about cheese-eating surrender monkeys, even although The French seem to have had the same mix of heroes and cowards as any other Nation. I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing jokes about garlic-chewing, onion sellers and maybe humourless jack-booters.