The Commons Bar Mk VIII - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1261
Report 5 years ago
#1261
(Original post by bun)
Chuffin' 'eck! Is it really 2 years?! I can remember both those elections like they were yesterday!!
I remember thinking 'who's this running with virtually no experience whatsoever?!' And then a week or so later thinking - 'blimey, he handled that election really well - the force is strong in this one!' Similar thing happened with Moleman (though obviously not the same election etc). Couple of others too, but they disappeared after a while.

Was definitely good to see you become deputy eventually! And probably best that you took that step first rather than being launched straight into leadership!
It sure is, it's gone crazily fast. I still have all of my promotional materials left on my computer, "Leading today towards a better tomorrow" - how ****e is that?

And yeah, I was definitely not cut out for leader at either of the two elections, especially the first. The party was in quite a dire state, I think in XIV they probably all were.

(Original post by JPKC)
A funny parallel/coincidence is that the first thing I did in this place was to stand in the Labour leadership election that was held to replace Dayne. And I can't think of anything worse happening, I'd have died had I been in your position!
Ah, quite a coincidence, I never knew you went for that one (and when I became Speaker, I went on a massive binge read of all of the old discussions, so I must have missed it)

And I can't think of anything worse happening, I'd have died had I been in your position!
What, the class reading my TSR thing? Nah it was cool Quite funny really, it certainly changed their opinions of me though! Worst thing was probably the fact I was infatuated with a girl in there at the time, safe to say it didn't exactly help my chances

(Original post by Rakas21)
Aye, me, Moleman, Jarred and Bun were all around for the 14th.

An interesting parliament in that it was pretty much dead until the end but a number of important members arrived/rose to prominent positions that affected the shape of the House for the next few terms.

Who knows how it would have all turned out had the 14th being a normal parliament, they do say that timing is everything.
It was really quite a transitional parliament thinking about it, the way it ended was strikingly different from the way it started. Lots of people moving on, a "new generation" moving in. Lots of changed in leadership teams and the like. Similar to this one I guess, although we're a little bit less dead this term.

(Original post by ByronicHero)
Erm, I think burningnun was standing as well (but also with distinctly non-serious intentions, if I recall) if you know who he is. I think I probably had at least a semi-serious manifesto and played the part pretty seriously for a while just for fun. Got bored eventually and went to Labour where I was persuaded to lead them too until I again got bored. I think that is roughly when you started knocking about here.
You were in Labour by the time I arrived, I think it was only recent that you had left UKIP though, as I seem to recall that it wasn't all that long since UKIP took part in some sort of centre-left coalition, and I'm going to guess that happened under your tenure?
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1262
Report 5 years ago
#1262
(Original post by Life_peer)
No way I would besmirch them by incorrect grammar.
Well, the very same entry says it's potentially offensive. It's certainly not something I tend to here actual gay people use very often.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1263
Report 5 years ago
#1263
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
Well, the very same entry says it's potentially offensive. It's certainly not something I tend to here actual gay people use very often.
That is quite overly… well, that is beyond politically correct, actually, since there is no logical justification for a different meaning, I think. “I have met gay people” vs. “I have met gays” convey the same meaning while the latter saves a word, so I am confused. Anyway, the intention was good.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1264
Report 5 years ago
#1264
(Original post by Jarred)
It sure is, it's gone crazily fast. I still have all of my promotional materials left on my computer, "Leading today towards a better tomorrow" - how ****e is that?

And yeah, I was definitely not cut out for leader at either of the two elections, especially the first. The party was in quite a dire state, I think in XIV they probably all were.



Ah, quite a coincidence, I never knew you went for that one (and when I became Speaker, I went on a massive binge read of all of the old discussions, so I must have missed it)



What, the class reading my TSR thing? Nah it was cool Quite funny really, it certainly changed their opinions of me though! Worst thing was probably the fact I was infatuated with a girl in there at the time, safe to say it didn't exactly help my chances



It was really quite a transitional parliament thinking about it, the way it ended was strikingly different from the way it started. Lots of people moving on, a "new generation" moving in. Lots of changed in leadership teams and the like. Similar to this one I guess, although we're a little bit less dead this term.



You were in Labour by the time I arrived, I think it was only recent that you had left UKIP though, as I seem to recall that it wasn't all that long since UKIP took part in some sort of centre-left coalition, and I'm going to guess that happened under your tenure?
Aye it did.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1265
Report 5 years ago
#1265
(Original post by Life_peer)
That is quite overly… well, that is beyond politically correct, actually, since there is no logical justification for a different meaning, I think. “I have met gay people” vs. “I have met gays” convey the same meaning while the latter saves a word, so I am confused. Anyway, the intention was good.
Yeah, it isn't logical in that way really and I wouldn't take offence myself, was just surprised it made that dictionary as a noun at all and thought their comment worth pointing out. I'd say it's more colloquial and predominantly used by people who aren't in the LGBT community themselves, so I can see how a very very mild homophobic connotation may have came about. Hey, our language is just bloody odd, that's the top and bottom of it :lol:
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1266
Report 5 years ago
#1266
(Original post by Life_peer)
That is quite overly… well, that is beyond politically correct, actually, since there is no logical justification for a different meaning, I think. “I have met gay people” vs. “I have met gays” convey the same meaning while the latter saves a word, so I am confused. Anyway, the intention was good.
I'm wondering whether language will evolve so that I have met gays becomes socially acceptable. I mean in Greek you had the tendency to repeat the word man after some professions e.g. working man man effectively until the last man was dropped. I suppose it all depends on how superfluous the word 'people' in eventually considered in that situation.
0
Kittiara
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1267
Report 5 years ago
#1267
Must remember to begin writing my essays at least a few days before the deadline, instead of within the final 12 hours or so. It would avoid being up at 04:22 am, having only just submitted the bloody thing *twitch* *fried brain* *runs to check it one final time, as it's unlikely the tutor will be up at this hour*. :crazy:
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1268
Report 5 years ago
#1268
(Original post by Kittiara)
Must remember to begin writing my essays at least a few days before the deadline, instead of within the final 12 hours or so. It would avoid being up at 04:22 am, having only just submitted the bloody thing *twitch* *fried brain* *runs to check it one final time, as it's unlikely the tutor will be up at this hour*. :crazy:
12 hours is enough time for several essays.
0
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1269
Report 5 years ago
#1269
(Original post by ByronicHero)
12 hours is enough time for several essays.
Indeed. Still need to write an essay persuading the uni to let me play with gamma radiation next month.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1270
Report 5 years ago
#1270
(Original post by Kittiara)
Must remember to begin writing my essays at least a few days before the deadline, instead of within the final 12 hours or so. It would avoid being up at 04:22 am, having only just submitted the bloody thing *twitch* *fried brain* *runs to check it one final time, as it's unlikely the tutor will be up at this hour*. :crazy:
That's pretty normal. I was rather happy with myself for managing to do a 2,000 word essay on Plato on Monday, and a 3,000 word essay on colonial working condition tuesday night/wednesday morning. Although I am now still tired, which is annoying. Agh uni.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1271
Report 5 years ago
#1271
I remember in college i actually put some effort in and had essays done 1-2 weeks before a deadline (i never really revised for exams though which costed me distinctions). Since being at university I've definitely slipped a bit, i did a Eurozone essay in 2 hours (thank god i got a choice of questions) but last week despite saying i would do a sustainable development essay properly i eventually put it off and had to do it on Sunday.
0
Mazzini
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1272
Report 5 years ago
#1272
(Original post by Life_peer)
That is quite overly… well, that is beyond politically correct, actually, since there is no logical justification for a different meaning, I think. “I have met gay people” vs. “I have met gays” convey the same meaning while the latter saves a word, so I am confused. Anyway, the intention was good.
As a member of the LGBT community, using 'gay' as a noun has derogatory connotations for me. I understand your confusion though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1273
Report 5 years ago
#1273
(Original post by Mazzini)
As a member of the LGBT community, using 'gay' as a noun has derogatory connotations for me. I understand your confusion though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Could you explain why? I have found that according to Wikipedia, “some gay people argue that the use of homosexual as a noun is offensive, arguing that homosexual people are people first, homosexual being merely an attribute of their humanity”, but that is quite rubbish and hypersensitive, to be honest, because one's intellect is also an attribute to their humanity, yet some are called geniuses and some idiots.

These politically correct attempts at effectively creating newspeak make me want to use it as a noun even more. In my native language, it is perfectly correct to call them gays or lesbians as well as use the word Negroid in scientific context, for which I was permanently banned by an angry and indeed stupid black female moderator on another forum. Hopefully this Western trend at least stays behind the border otherwise I shall really become a political activist.

(You are not the source of my frustration so please do not take this personally.)

Edit: “Also, some gay people recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy.” Really? Let us call them You-Know-Who or Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. :rolleyes:
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1274
Report 5 years ago
#1274
(Original post by Life_peer)
Could you explain why? I have found that according to Wikipedia, “some gay people argue that the use of homosexual as a noun is offensive, arguing that homosexual people are people first, homosexual being merely an attribute of their humanity”, but that is quite rubbish and hypersensitive, to be honest, because one's intellect is also an attribute to their humanity, yet some are called geniuses and some idiots.

These politically correct attempts at effectively creating newspeak make me want to use it as a noun even more. In my native language, it is perfectly correct to call them gays or lesbians as well as use the word Negroid in scientific context, for which I was permanently banned by an angry and indeed stupid black female moderator on another forum. Hopefully this Western trend at least stays behind the border otherwise I shall really become a political activist.

(You are not the source of my frustration so please do not take this personally.)

Edit: “Also, some gay people recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy.” Really? Let us call them You-Know-Who or Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. :rolleyes:
Why can't you just respect our wishes as people, or the wishes of black people for that matter? This comes down to respect and ultimately reveals that you have none for either of our communities. Defining a person with reference to a single dimension of their character is absolutely bizarre... If you want to persist then do, but don't be surprised at the dirty looks you get for being a ****.
0
bun
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1275
Report 5 years ago
#1275
At the end of the day it comes down to one thing: sensitivity.

Peopl who cry when someone calls them something they don't like are far too oversensitive - insults are a good thing, man up [yes, I'll probably get attacked for saying that too]. I call some of my french friends frogs - they don't mind. They call me fatso - I don't mind. Has no-one ever listened to Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue"?!

But also people who moan that they can't say what they like just aren't sensitive enough. If a word clearly, and genuinely upsets or angers someone, whether you agree with it or not, it's just common decency not to say it. English is a rich and diverse language, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate, less insulting term.
Ive always taken the 'call a spade a spade, and an idiot an idiot' route. No point sugarcoating things. BUT - If someone then tells me they'd prefer me not to say x or y, then I will immediately apologise and not use it again. I'm not going to purposefully hurt someone just because I think they're being pathetic
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1276
Report 5 years ago
#1276
(Original post by JPKC)
Why can't you just respect our wishes as people, or the wishes of black people for that matter? This comes down to respect and ultimately reveals that you have none for either of our communities. Defining a person with reference to a single dimension of their character is absolutely bizarre... If you want to persist then do, but don't be surprised at the dirty looks you get for being a ****.
Because they do not make any logical sense and I refuse to support any oppression of the freedom of expression. Demanding to be called “gay people” instead of “gays” because they are “people first” is one of the biggest brainwashed ridiculous stupidities I have ever heard. Is a doctor or a lawyer not a person first? Or a ginger, or a Belgian? Is the Queen not a person first? She should be called the ruling person, then! :rolleyes:

Some black people who were not cataclysmically ignorant even stood up for me and I see no reason to change my vocabulary because a subset of a certain group have chosen to be hypersensitive. Their attempts at demonstrating the political power they posses due to this society being overly liberal are simply opportunistic and not to be tolerated.

I respect people who are sensible and deserve the respect, not those who encourage positive discrimination and things like newspeak.

Defining a person? :eek: I am simply noting their characteristic which is crucial to the context, not defining a person. That would be if you asked me to describe someone whom I have met and my response was: “He is a gay.” Additionally, telling you that “he is gay” conveys literally the same information so there is absolutely no difference in using the word as a noun versus an adjective.

The most infuriating fact is that LGBT activists choose to ***** about unimportant silly details such as this and to society falls to its knees before them while actually important problems are overlooked and swept under the carpet. Knowing there are homeless people in our Wester civilisation who live in worse conditions than sewer rats, yet some choose to invest their energy to force others to speak as they wish is abhorrent and makes me disgruntled.

Finally, I am sincere and direct but only when the things I say are constructive. There is no point in noting that a person has a bad hairstyle when he is not interested in my opinion, but when I am asked, I tell the truth. People get offended for banalities these days and sometimes I think they should be reminded what real problems like war are. The so called “men” of today would probably attack each other with iPhones while mounting fixies… :rolleyes:

Edit: I remember watching an interview with the cast of Django Unchained in which Samuel L. Jackson was explicitly encouraging the interviewer to use the word ****** in order to be able to speak freely about the historical context and the coward caricature of an interviewer refused to, giggling like an idiot. Do we really want to encourage such fear of words?

Edit 2: The stupid TSR censors even that so the word in question is similar to the African country and river Niger.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1277
Report 5 years ago
#1277
"What is there in our society that makes empathy in such short supply? I'm more shocked by that than other people... the inability to picture what it is like to be somebody else. I'm always startled by some people, when you suddenly see there is no ability to identify with anyone else except from themselves."

It's hard to argue with a body of opinion that amounts to sheer and unadulterated small-mindedness. It just seems that some people genuinely believe that the value of an expression comes from exactly how much offence and upset it causes, and that those who ask that they tender their language to fit more civil mediums are waging a war against open discussion. Why must LGBT people be labelled according to their sexual status? Should we do this for everyone else in society as well? If I had a lawyer who was heterosexual, should I insist that they let me and everyone else call them some term denoting their sexual preferences? This is utterly ridiculous. (It's a reappearance of that same logic used to arrive at the conclusion that black people can't properly speak English.)

I have no time for it.
2
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1278
Report 5 years ago
#1278
(Original post by JPKC)
"What is there in our society that makes empathy in such short supply? I'm more shocked by that than other people... the inability to picture what it is like to be somebody else. I'm always startled by some people, when you suddenly see there is no ability to identify with anyone else except from themselves."

It's hard to argue with a body of opinion that amounts to sheer and unadulterated small-mindedness. It just seems that some people genuinely believe that the value of an expression comes from exactly how much offence and upset it causes, and that those who ask that they tender their language to fit more civil mediums are waging a war against open discussion. Why must LGBT people be labelled according to their sexual status? Should we do this for everyone else in society as well? If I had a lawyer who was heterosexual, should I insist that they let me and everyone else call them some term denoting their sexual preferences? This is utterly ridiculous. (It's a reappearance of that same logic used to arrive at the conclusion that black people can't properly speak English.)

I have no time for it.
I think that sheer and unadulterated small-mindedness adequately describes your fail to notice that the offence resulting from use of words can only be attributed to the ones who choose to be offended.

Christians are a majority religious group, yet claims that deny the existence of God and ridicule Him are tolerated, while conscientious objectors against homosexual marriages are victimised. Why the double standards, mister empathetic?

Gays even sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-church.html

Your analogy is absurd. If I asked about his orientation, then the lawyer would be called a heterosexual, just like I referred to gays when the characteristic of their sexual orientation was necessary to the context (I was describing my behaviour towards gays, so naturally, their sexual orientation needed to be mentioned somewhere). Your attempts to imply that I would let them wear pink triangles at all times are quite futile. We are not discussing labeling – the original point of this discussion is the difference between the word gay as a noun and as an adjective. If using one is labeling, then the other is too.

Finally, homosexuals are a minority, there is less than a per cent of them in our population, so this characteristic clearly sets them apart just like the quality of having red hair (a ginger) or being wealthy (a millionaire).
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1279
Report 5 years ago
#1279
(Original post by JPKC)
"What is there in our society that makes empathy in such short supply? I'm more shocked by that than other people... the inability to picture what it is like to be somebody else. I'm always startled by some people, when you suddenly see there is no ability to identify with anyone else except from themselves."

It's hard to argue with a body of opinion that amounts to sheer and unadulterated small-mindedness. It just seems that some people genuinely believe that the value of an expression comes from exactly how much offence and upset it causes, and that those who ask that they tender their language to fit more civil mediums are waging a war against open discussion. Why must LGBT people be labelled according to their sexual status? Should we do this for everyone else in society as well? If I had a lawyer who was heterosexual, should I insist that they let me and everyone else call them some term denoting their sexual preferences? This is utterly ridiculous. (It's a reappearance of that same logic used to arrive at the conclusion that black people can't properly speak English.)

I have no time for it.
agree with this so much!
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1280
Report 5 years ago
#1280
(Original post by Life_peer)
I think that sheer and unadulterated small-mindedness adequately describes your fail to notice that the offence resulting from use of words can only be attributed to the ones who choose to be offended.

Christians are a majority religious group, yet claims that deny the existence of God and ridicule Him are tolerated, while conscientious objectors against homosexual marriages are victimised. Why the double standards, mister empathetic?

Gays even sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-church.html

Your analogy is absurd. If I asked about his orientation, then the lawyer would be called a heterosexual, just like I referred to gays when the characteristic of their sexual orientation was necessary to the context (I was describing my behaviour towards gays, so naturally, their sexual orientation needed to be mentioned somewhere). Your attempts to imply that I would let them wear pink triangles at all times are quite futile. We are not discussing labeling – the original point of this discussion is the difference between the word gay as a noun and as an adjective. If using one is labeling, then the other is too.

Finally, homosexuals are a minority, there is less than a per cent of them in our population, so this characteristic clearly sets them apart just like the quality of having red hair (a ginger) or being wealthy (a millionaire).
It really is just a matter of respect. A number of people on here now have told you that they find the way you use that word offensive. It is not up to you to decide what other people from an oppressed minority should or shouldn't take offence to. By continuing to call them something they obviously don't appreciate, your just further strengthening the idea that your opinion counts for more than their's, which is plainly wrong. Gay people have had to deal with centuries of at best bullying and harassment, and at worst outright persecution on the basis of their sexuality - is it really so much to ask that they are now shown a bit of respect and treated as human beings?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (151)
18.04%
No (510)
60.93%
Not really bothered about them (176)
21.03%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise