Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Hilarious things that Guardian readers and other so-called Leftists think watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    scrotgrot
    redferry

    The Conversation is where it's at.


    https://theconversation.com/uk
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Is it? Oxbridge is one of the most elitist institutions in the UK, its a pretty good indicator.


    Not really, what affects somebody's social mobility more than education?


    How do you know evidence has been collected? If it hasn't, doesn't make the point factually incorrect.
    Yes it is.Social mobility is about people being able to benefit due to their own means, not the means of established privilege. While Oxbridge attendance may be an indicator, but should not be the only one.

    I didn't say education wasn't important. I dispute that it is the ONLY significant factor and that grammar schools are an effective way of increasing social mobility.

    If you make a claim, you need to support it with evidence, there is no way to know if it's factually correct or not. I did a quick google search last night, in 20 minutes I could find no study which supported the claim that grammar schools increase mobility. If you can, I might consider changing my position.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Moral relativism: The Guardianista's particular brand of moral relativism is based around the idea that morality is nothing more than cultural traditions that the collective has inherited and is never derived from reasoned ethics considered by individuals, with intelligence and good education largely dictating their ability to come to cogent conclusions. Whilst thinking this, they continuously criticize British culture. But surely, if it's "just our culture", then that makes it OK? I mean that's why they think it's OK for women to have to veil themselves in Muslim countries, right, because it's "just their culture, man"?

    Rape culture: Following on from the last point, if we really are living in a "rape culture" then doesn't cultural relativism tell us that rape is just A-OK, because it's just an accepted part of the culture? I mean, that's what "rape culture" means isn't it? That rape is considered acceptable? Or is it that it has no meaning whatsoever? Is it that they use the term to describe anything that men do that they don't like, and then anyone who disputes them can be condemned as a "rape culture apologist", which sounds as if it's just one step away from a "rape apologist"?

    Islamophobia: It is absolutely, totally wrong to vilify people who follow an ultra-conservative ideology called Islam. However, it's fine to refer to the centre-right conservatives of this country as "Tory scum".

    Cultural appropriation: The idea that cultures should never mix or imitate each other.

    The exploitation of women: You can consider everything in life as exploitation. As Nietzsche said, all life, no matter how we idealize it, is nothing more nor less than exploitation. Generally though, when we talk about someone being exploited, we mean people are getting something out of them against their intentions. However, those who ride on the right-on like to use the term as it exists in its most broad and empty sense, while using it as if it's penetrating. Rather like "piece of meat" or "sex object", it's brazen hyperbole that's pretty empty when you actually think about it. Of course, if they are talking about trafficked women, then I'm totally on their side; that is using the term in an incisive manner. But 99% of the time they're talking about the "exploitation" of highly paid models who very much enjoy working for the likes of Playboy or other men's magazines, highly paid actresses, or paid porn stars who often think of their shagging abilities as an art and have their own award shows to celebrate their, ahem, "unappreciated" talents.

    There's no such thing as "reverse racism": We all know that Guardianistas love their straw-men even more than those weird Scottish folk in The Wicker Man, but this has to be the most extraordinary dialogue against a straw-man that they have ever attempted. No one, ever, complained about "reverse racism". What they may have complained about is just "racism". Because racism just and only means prejudice against a race. It says nothing about whether the prejudice is justified or not.

    White insensitivity: It is completely abhorrent for white British people to deny or disregard the opinions of people of other ethnic backgrounds on the cultures they are from.

    (Unless its Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie or in fact anyone who isn't on-board with their cause.)

    Feminist choice: Women should be free to choose what they want to do, unless it's anything that feminists don't like.

    Sexual objectification: The idea that when a man gains sexual gratification by looking at a woman it becomes impossible for him to think of her as anything more than an object. This is due to the fact that he is only looking at her to enjoy her sexuality. Not only that, the fact that women are more sexualized than men stops him from thinking of all women as anything more than objects.

    If the only women he ever saw were in images in Playboy, then this would make sense. But women make up half the population and we all have mothers, daughters, nieces, sisters and wives. As it stands, saying that sexualized images of women makes men think of them as sex objects is equivalent to saying that when you watch football you are only able to think of the players as football playing machines, and are unable to comprehend that they are actually human beings with their own lives. But not only that, it's also like saying that because their is vastly more public interest in watching men playing football than women, that means that any women who watches football must think that all men are football playing machines.

    Good and evil isn't black and white: According to your average fully paid up Guardian reader, everyone has good in them. The idea that people can be good or evil comes from outdated Christian or right-wing ideas. No one is truly evil, except:
    Israelis
    Bankers
    Rupert Murdoch
    Disney
    CEOs of multinational companies
    Zionists
    Fox News
    Men's Rights Activists
    Fundamentalist Christians
    The Daily Telegraph
    Pro-lifers
    Tea Party supporters
    Sky News
    The Tories
    The Republican Party
    The Sun
    UKIP
    Pornographers
    Islamophobes
    Men's magazines
    The Daily Mail
    Libertarians
    Conservatives
    Capitalists
    Global warming deniers
    "Lads"
    Homophobes
    White supremacists (unless from an impoverished background)
    Mothers who choose to stay at home
    UKIP
    Non-organic farmers
    Grammar school students and teachers
    Private school students and teachers
    SUV drivers
    Oil companies
    Gun owners
    Well played Your Highness

    :congrats:

    :top2:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h8skoooooool)
    No, it isn't at all. It means that you've head your head buried in the Daily Mail for so long that you can no longer think independently, and therefore anything you hear that is conflicting with a traditional right-wing opinion is deemed to be false leftist propaganda.
    I am a long-term Guardian reader and Corbyn voter, and I recognise many of those traits in editorial policy and contributors.

    However, the majority of BTL comments are more old-school liberal left.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I am a long-term Guardian reader and Corbyn voter
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahhahahahaah
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Start the Fire)
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahhahahahaah
    Ah, mocking the disadvantaged. How very right-wing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    White = guilty offender

    Not-White = victim


    Guardian social justice warriors in a nutshell
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The latest example: The Guardian defending a racist, misandrist, inciter of violence.
    "I can't be racist or sexist to white men because I am a BME woman".
    She also orginised meetings where people were excluded by colour. She is the college Diversity Officer.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...mment-62767015
    This is she.
    Name:  bahar_mustafa.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  125.1 KB
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    If you make a claim, you need to support it with evidence, there is no way to know if it's factually correct or not. I did a quick google search last night, in 20 minutes I could find no study which supported the claim that grammar schools increase mobility. If you can, I might consider changing my position.
    Some people in this world need studies to learn things. The rest of us use our eyes and brain....

    With no Grammar schools the best comprehensives are in catchment areas with average house prices £400k+.

    Can you please tell me, under this scenario, how is a poor kid going to get a good education?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Some people in this world need studies to learn things. The rest of us use our eyes and brain....

    With no Grammar schools the best comprehensives are in catchment areas with average house prices £400k+.

    Can you please tell me, under this scenario, how is a poor kid going to get a good education?
    Well it seems to me we have come to an impasse.

    I think a fact is something proven by evidence, evidence gathered by rigorous study and examination. You seem to think a fact is a fact because you say it is.

    That's the end of this discussion as far as I'm concerned, you clearly won't change your opinion because you believe it to be a fact, contrary to the available evidence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PRSOM. Unsurprising that the Guardianistas posting in this thread appear to have limited their responses to *****ing/personal attacks, rather than engaging the constituents of this reasonably accurate if somewhat caricature, essential overview. Unfortunately ideologues on the left are typically rather vulnerable to cognitive dissonance and licensing immoral/anti-intellectual rhetoric when their (world)view is challenged e.g. on the basis of assumed moral/intellectual superiority

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    only able to think of the players as football playing machines, and are unable to comprehend that they are actually human beings
    Football players are human beings? Who knew.. :mmm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Ah here's another good one. Anyone who isn't down with the fully paid up Guardian reader club is a racist. A brilliant way to make yourself feel even more righteous.
    PRSOM.

    Don't pay attention to her, she's bat **** crazy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I remember seeing a daft Guardian article start with "Dear white people...". I found it impossible take it seriously after that.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.