News Forum - Andrew Tate spat with Greta Thumberg leads to his arrest in Bucharest

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, Soidog said:

It’s why we are having to consider building gender neutral toilet facilities.

Thats maybe not a bad thing.

If I was in work heading off to drop a batch and there was a queue at the mens toilet I would simply declare in a loud voice "From now on I want to be known as Gloria. My preferred pronouns are she/her" then head straight into the gender neutral toilet.

After I come back out I would say "I have changed my mind and want to go back to my old name".

Gotta play by the rules after all.  

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

But isn’t that the key question here John. Is it progress? 

Progress is change. It does not necessarily mean that is change for the better.

@KaptainRob makes a point that I am in full agreement with about "influence", which is a result of technological advances. The WWW is a wonderful thing, but it also opens the way to some very retrograde aspects such as fake news.

Just my opinion, but I think that the good that the Covid vax did far outweighed the adverse events that were reported. It is impossible to tell how many died because they did not take the vax due to somethng they read on the Internet. 

Does that mean that the Internet has not added progress?

[KaptainRob]

18 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Take a read and weep!

https://freespeechunion.org/faqs-on-what-to-do-if-you-are-asked-to-declare-your-preferred-pronouns-at-work/

Oh my buddha ... thankfully I'm retired and living in Thailand, oblivious to that kind of crap.

[Soidog]

13 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

Oh my buddha ... thankfully I'm retired and living in Thailand, oblivious to that kind of crap.

Well the worrying part KR is that many people are just ignoring these things and hope they will go away. They won’t. In fact they will only get worse. In my job, I spend an inordinate amount of time having to consider such issues and take careful steps to ensure myself and those working for me don’t fall foul of these issues. 
 

If and when the silent majority do finally wake up, then they will find it’s simply all far too late. Kier Starmer who is very likely to be the next PM of the U.K. struggled when he was asked the direct question in a live radio show “can a woman have a penis”. He was stumped and couldn’t or wouldn’t answer for fear of the political damage he could do. That’s how utterly ridiculous the situation has become. 
 

 

[socal]

6 hours ago, Soidog said:

Well the worrying part KR is that many people are just ignoring these things and hope they will go away. They won’t. In fact they will only get worse. In my job, I spend an inordinate amount of time having to consider such issues and take careful steps to ensure myself and those working for me don’t fall foul of these issues. 
 

If and when the silent majority do finally wake up, then they will find it’s simply all far too late. Kier Starmer who is very likely to be the next PM of the U.K. struggled when he was asked the direct question in a live radio show “can a woman have a penis”. He was stumped and couldn’t or wouldn’t answer for fear of the political damage he could do. That’s how utterly ridiculous the situation has become. 
 

The silent majority rarely wakes up for anything it seems. 

[Soidog]

37 minutes ago, socal said:

The silent majority rarely wakes up for anything it seems. 

I think that’s true.  Be it dealing with people like Putin, sorting out the Junta Government in Thailand and all the way to social issues where the majority is being driven down a path dictated to by the minority. We fool ourselves that in the West we live in a democracy. How can it be that a vocal majority dictate so much? 

[socal]

10 hours ago, Soidog said:

I think that’s true.  Be it dealing with people like Putin, sorting out the Junta Government in Thailand and all the way to social issues where the majority is being driven down a path dictated to by the minority. We fool ourselves that in the West we live in a democracy. How can it be that a vocal majority dictate so much? 

There's no difference between Irans democracy and the US's. 

 

[JamesR]

Am I wrong or is it just the English speaking world which is going thought this gender nonsense.

In German there are still separate nouns for men and women eg, Arztin, female and Arzt male.

They even have der, de, das for every object , I wonder if a table the future  will complain it is should be gender neutral as a window is. 

On a more general subject relating to the article, these people only become famous if people read what they write and why do people as another example watch TV programs where a load of idiots eat insects on a desert island, what sort of idiots are they?

 

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, JamesR said:

Am I wrong or is it just the English speaking world which is going thought this gender nonsense.

It’s seems it’s mainly the 5 Eyes countries that are leading this stupidity.

Even at the London New Year celebrations they had to cover off a number of political issues including climate change and  the comment “We’re Queer and we’re hear so accept it”. We do accept it, so just shut the F**k up and stop going on and on and on about it. 

[Marc26]

On 12/31/2022 at 12:05 AM, Soidog said:

I think there’s a topic for a whole separate debate within your post.
 

During the Morgan interview, Tate described what you may call “Traditional roles” of men and women and went on to say these were the norms in 90% of the worlds population.  As the years have rolled on for me, I find myself increasingly questioning opinions and even values I have long held. This may be a natural ageing thing? My fear as I edge to older life is that I either hold on to past values and opinions stubbornly unwilling to change, or, I accept and even promote latest trends and in later life come to the conclusion I was wrong. I guess this “conflict” of thought is why I find myself unable to 100% disagree with some of Tates comments? 
 

I was too young to remember the details, but when the majority of men and woman had what could be described as more traditional roles in western society, it seemed a safer and more enjoyable place to be. There were less one parent families. Seemingly less knife crime and random attacks. Less anger in the world. A more harmonious society. 

Ahhh....the good old days when half the population had less rights 

Well except for white men, which I guess is sort of your point 

 

Barbara Walters just died

And absolutely iconic journalist

Of course she faced extreme sexisim trying to do her job by men far inferior to her......in "good old days"

 

The "good old days" when this could be said with barely any backlash 

 

 

[Marc26]

On 12/30/2022 at 8:50 AM, socal said:

Whether it is Julian Assange, John Mcaffe or now Tate, if you are any kind of personality that the globalist regime doesn't like, they will just take you down. They didn't like the contrarian message that any of these men were putting out there, so they take them out. This is just the first go around for Tate. He'll probably wrangle out of this one. Just like Assange and Mcaffe wrangled out of their first ones too. 

Somewhere along the line, Tate must have taken on some dodgy little crypto sponsorship. That'll be enough for a whole string of other charges. Tax evasion, racketeering. You made fun of the global warming girl and our various other propaganda pet projects. So down with you.  

He'll be burned at the stake and everyone will gather around the fire. 

They should have spent all their energy taking out Trump for good instead. That one i'd actually agree with. 

Yeah because this guy would never possibly do what he's accused of

 

 

[Soidog]

10 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Ahhh....the good old days when half the population had less rights 

Well except for white men, which I guess is sort of your point 

Barbara Walters just died

And absolutely iconic journalist

Of course she faced extreme sexisim trying to do her job by men far inferior to her......in "good old days"

The "good old days" when this could be said with barely any backlash 

And there in lies the problem Marc. When anyone even dares to question the direction of travel with todays society you are accused of wanting the rights of people removed and a not so vailed suggestion of racism, which I find predictable and more than a little insulting. 
 

Yesterday I read a news article (the second one in the last month oddly enough) where people are now starting to suggest that we should be more tolerant of people who find children sexually appealing. That these people are not sick but simply have a different sexual orientation. We should refer to them as “Minor-attracted”. And why not right? People have rights and should be treated equally right?  Everyone’s opinion should be respected and treated with equality? No one should dare to question this as it’s shaming and discriminating minorities.  
 

The fact is that many things were better and many things were worse 30-50 years ago. Why can’t we learn from our past and the mistakes we have made in the intervening years? Why can’t we have a sensible debate without the usual Racist, Sexist labels being applied? 
 

I personally would like to see people less overweight and with less mental health issues. I would like to see people have more respect for each other and where opening a door for a woman is seen as polite rather than sexist. For parents to feel their children were safe to enjoy the outdoors. When there were less children living in one parent families and they would sit around the table having dinner and learning to exchange opinions face to face. Where criticism was reasonable and not relabelled as  “Shaming”.  Where people could more easily afford to buy a home. Where not everyone is on a “Journey” or has their bleeding heart on display. 
 

Of course there are many many things better today than in the past. Civil rights and LGBT rights. Employment laws (maybe not in the US!). Technology has provided some amazing leaps in health and entertainment. Laws have been passed to remove much inequality in developed countries. But progress has not always been perfect.  Why is it not possible to have a debate on any of this without it being dragged back to the racism and sexism nonsense? Maybe that’s what you call progress? 
 

 

[Marc26]

5 hours ago, Soidog said:

And there in lies the problem Marc. When anyone even dares to question the direction of travel with todays society you are accused of wanting the rights of people removed and a not so vailed suggestion of racism, which I find predictable and more than a little insulting. 
 

Yesterday I read a news article (the second one in the last month oddly enough) where people are now starting to suggest that we should be more tolerant of people who find children sexually appealing. That these people are not sick but simply have a different sexual orientation. We should refer to them as “Minor-attracted”. And why not right? People have rights and should be treated equally right?  Everyone’s opinion should be respected and treated with equality? No one should dare to question this as it’s shaming and discriminating minorities.  
 

The fact is that many things were better and many things were worse 30-50 years ago. Why can’t we learn from our past and the mistakes we have made in the intervening years? Why can’t we have a sensible debate without the usual Racist, Sexist labels being applied? 
 

I personally would like to see people less overweight and with less mental health issues. I would like to see people have more respect for each other and where opening a door for a woman is seen as polite rather than sexist. For parents to feel their children were safe to enjoy the outdoors. When there were less children living in one parent families and they would sit around the table having dinner and learning to exchange opinions face to face. Where criticism was reasonable and not relabelled as  “Shaming”.  Where people could more easily afford to buy a home. Where not everyone is on a “Journey” or has their bleeding heart on display. 
 

Of course there are many many things better today than in the past. Civil rights and LGBT rights. Employment laws (maybe not in the US!). Technology has provided some amazing leaps in health and entertainment. Laws have been passed to remove much inequality in developed countries. But progress has not always been perfect.  Why is it not possible to have a debate on any of this without it being dragged back to the racism and sexism nonsense? Maybe that’s what you call progress? 
 

I absolutely loved my childhood in the 70's

 

But I also think the whole "family" aspect is overblown and all the many problems are swept under the rug

 

There was a lot of dysfunction in family's in the "good Ole days"

 

You've talked about less single parents homes

Because there were many that didn't get divorced and just lived in a loveless house 

That occurred way more than it does today and it has a big effect on children vs getting a divorce and having two loving homes

 

We romanticize our families, I certainly do

But I'd say parents now have way better relationships with their kids and I think that produces much smarter and better prepared kids then we were

 

I'm not bashing the "good Ole days"

I loved them to death 

 

I'm just pointing out, they weren't as good for a lot of peope and there were a lot of problems back then as well

[Soidog]

6 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

I'm just pointing out, they weren't as good for a lot of peope and there were a lot of problems back then as well

Of course there was problems. There are problems today also. My ask is that we have an open debate on how to get the best of both worlds. That’s something that in the most part isn’t allowed. Any suggestion of it triggers the “living in the past” attitude. We should learn not to throw each generations baby out with the bath water.

On the point you raised about it being easier for families to break up these days than it was in the 70’s. I totally agree that it’s easier. One reason it’s easier is all of the handouts that tax payers give to single parent families. I would also take exception at the suggestion kids are better off in single parent families. Couples who break up acrimoniously invariably carry that on after divorce. This idea that they have two good homes rather than one bad one I don’t think is generally true. There are too many kids being left to fend for themselves. No role model for kids, especially boys to look up to. Society needs to get much better at deterring marriage or people having kids, until they know what it really means. There is still a stigma about couples who don’t have kids. That’s definitely an attitude the modern world should tackle. 

[Marc26]

2 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Of course there was problems. There are problems today also. My ask is that we have an open debate on how to get the best of both worlds. That’s something that in the most part isn’t allowed. Any suggestion of it triggers the “living in the past” attitude. We should learn not to throw each generations baby out with the bath water.

On the point you raised about it being easier for families to break up these days than it was in the 70’s. I totally agree that it’s easier. One reason it’s easier is all of the handouts that tax payers give to single parent families. I would also take exception at the suggestion kids are better off in single parent families. Couples who break up acrimoniously invariably carry that on after divorce. This idea that they have two good homes rather than one bad one I don’t think is generally true. There are too many kids being left to fend for themselves. No role model for kids, especially boys to look up to. Society needs to get much better at deterring marriage or people having kids, until they know what it really means. There is still a stigma about couples who don’t have kids. That’s definitely an attitude the modern world should tackle. 

That may all be regional 

 

I do believe that dicorced parents in the US/Canada do a very good job of parenting in both homes

Obviously won't be the case in every divorce

 

In all these forums I've been on there is obviously a lot of divorced guys and you just don't see guys from the US feel as aggrieved as guys from other countries seem to be

I have my opinions on why that is, but for once I will keep those to myself. 

[Soidog]

58 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

That may all be regional 

I do believe that dicorced parents in the US/Canada do a very good job of parenting in both homes

Obviously won't be the case in every divorce

In all these forums I've been on there is obviously a lot of divorced guys and you just don't see guys from the US feel as aggrieved as guys from other countries seem to be

I have my opinions on why that is, but for once I will keep those to myself. 

You may well be right. All I know is that I wouldn’t have wanted to grow up without both parents there in the morning and at night. I’m fairly sure I would be carrying around some issues if I had been brought up by just one parent with weekend visits to the other. I think as a society we have lost so much when it comes to family life in the West. We have broken families and lots of older family members spending their later years mostly alone in care homes. I think a large part of the reason why that is, relates to the breakdown of the natural roles men and women play.
 

We may not like that brutal truth and many will say so that means women at home and men at work. Women taking care of children while the man works to provide security for the family. That’s a very generalised comment, but it is the order society followed for hundreds of years. We have bucked that trend in the last 60 years and have never stopped to check if it was the right decision. 

[Marc26]

22 hours ago, Soidog said:

You may well be right. All I know is that I wouldn’t have wanted to grow up without both parents there in the morning and at night. I’m fairly sure I would be carrying around some issues if I had been brought up by just one parent with weekend visits to the other. I think as a society we have lost so much when it comes to family life in the West. We have broken families and lots of older family members spending their later years mostly alone in care homes. I think a large part of the reason why that is, relates to the breakdown of the natural roles men and women play.
 

We may not like that brutal truth and many will say so that means women at home and men at work. Women taking care of children while the man works to provide security for the family. That’s a very generalised comment, but it is the order society followed for hundreds of years. We have bucked that trend in the last 60 years and have never stopped to check if it was the right decision. 

You sound like you age 10 years in every new post.   

 

Do you think marriage problems didn't exist 30/40/50 years ago?

 

Of course they did and a lot of times resulted in a tension filled house with no love shown

 

And I've had this discussion many times on this forum and what people outside North America is just foreign to me 

I can honestly say, now lived in both Canada and the US, that I don't know one family whose older parents aren't an integral part of their lives, with a lot living with them 

 

And I said before, divorce doesn't mean the worse for kids(once it is over and settled)

 

Again, it's anecdotal, but eveey divorced couple I know do an amazing job co-parenting their kids 

[Soidog]

11 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

You sound like you age 10 years in every new post.   

Do you think marriage problems didn't exist 30/40/50 years ago?

Of course they did and a lot of times resulted in a tension filled house with no love shown

And I've had this discussion many times on this forum and what people outside North America is just foreign to me 

I can honestly say, now lived in both Canada and the US, that I don't know one family whose older parents aren't an integral part of their lives, with a lot living with them 

And I said before, divorce doesn't mean the worse for kids(once it is over and settled)

Again, it's anecdotal, but eveey divorced couple I know do an amazing job co-parenting their kids 

Of course there were marriage problems and of course for some people it is better to split for the sake of everyone. My assertion is that today, on balance, the finances make it far easier to split up a family without time to pause and think if this is the best thing to do. 
 

It’s impossible to make generalisations on such a topic. My worry is the poor decisions young people sometimes make today are often made in the subliminal knowledge that there is a social safety net to catch them. Child credits, single parent allowances. Tax credits. Child care credits etc etc That results in flippant and ill judged decisions. A bit like your opening insult towards me