The unlogic of the liberal left

You seem to be using a rather small number of students to generalise millions upon millions of people.

The vast majority of those on the left, or those who vote Labour don't care at all about any of that.

They care about stuff like the cost of housing and the NHS. I'll repeat, the only people who are obsessed with Marxism, are those such as yourself.

So then why were the following people fired:

James Damore of Google,
Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
Paula Deen of The Food Network
Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
Phil Robertson from A&E
Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
Rick Sanchez of CNN
Jimmy Snider from NFL Today

They were unpleasant people, to say it nicely. What you aren't basically saying here is that the evil left doesn't be tolerate *******s. Sounds so terrible.

So 1. How was Carole Thatcher a terrible person for using a word for a minority group that was out of date?

2. The left says that black peoples can’t be racist and doesn’t tend to take any action against blacks people who insult the white race, females who insult men (like the comic Jo Brand on TV). How how can these people be terrible people but people from protected groups who insult non-protected groups be good?

So then why were the following people fired:

James Damore of Google,
Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
Paula Deen of The Food Network
Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
Phil Robertson from A&E
Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
Rick Sanchez of CNN
Jimmy Snider from NFL Today

1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.

Right so you have actually referred to advantaged and and disadvantages groups thus proving my theory.

No. One part of it, that is undoubtedly true. Same way kids if rich parents generally are advantaged compared to those of poor. It's not rocket science.

1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.

No you didn’t refer to rich kinds and poor kids, you referred to blacks as a disadvantaged group and to whites as an advantaged group, hence you are at the centre of the theory. Probably so much so that you are unaware.

That people are fired so easily is a sign of weak employment rights. Companies are allowed to fire anyone they want for any reason, as the right have argued.

Not, 'cultural marxism'

Right you claim that it immutable that Carole Thatcher is a terrible person for using the term Gollywog. The term was in common use up till the late 80s or early 90s, in fact it was the signature icon of Robertson’s jam and people would collect Gollywog tokens with a black round fave image and send off for their free Gollywog man. The term was not considered offensive or derogatory. Then obviously one day the PC brigade decided that the term was offensive and called in the PC police to punish anyone who used the term.

If Carole Thatcher has used the term in 1985 then she is a fine person but if she uses it in the late 90s then she’s a nasty person?

So if you don’t obey the PC thought police you’re a nasty person?

So why do the left wing political establishment and pundits stand up for many people’s employment rights but never employment rights of people fired for PC transgressions?

Can I have a single example of them standing up for someone in this predicament?

So why do the left wing political establishment and pundits stand up for many people’s employment rights but never employment rights of people fired for PC transgressions?

Can I have a single example of them standing up for someone in this predicament?

It's not a theory it's fact. And you were the one talking about generic groups being formed and said some have advantages others not. I haven you another such example and asked would you deny it for that too?

You're talking actual nonsense here, and aren't even internally consistent in your argument.

If a law changes you can't say "well it was ok before".

Social norms can change too. She was given the chance to apologize but chose not to. Ergo she used that word for a reason. And that word was always wrong, people just finally got around to acknowledging that.

Well these are the laws of the PC police not he laws of the lands. So the PC language changing police determine morality, who is virtuous and who is not?

How can a word be always wrong. A word just just a reference like four letters that mean a light. How can it be good or bad? Hollywood used to mean cute Black Afro child. The word didn’t suddenly turn bad, some people decided to develop some kind of sensitivity or reaction to it.

So if someone does not share their sensitivity then they are a non-virtuous person?