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

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.

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

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

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaah

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?

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.