The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Attack on Safe Schools is an attack on all diversity > Comments

Attack on Safe Schools is an attack on all diversity : Comments

By Tony Clark, published 22/3/2016

Advocating for tolerance and inclusion is one of the fundamental requirements of an elected member.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
think I've worked out where the gender theory misrepresentation comes from (and hence the red-herring, strawman fallacies around that misrepresentation -

Some people are proposing that

(i) because gender is fluid for a small proportion of the population - those that have gender dysphoria and want to be change their gender;
(ii) because some people are homosexual (gay or lesbian);
(iii)because some people are bisexual;
(iv) some people are intersex and decision have to be made about how they may want to represented (traditionally a decision parents made, but now a decision that many are advocating involves the intersex child), and
(v) there is a desire to educate the rest of the population about these scenarios ...

there is a false assertion that there is a 'radical agenda' to make all or more people gender fluid or sexually fluid.

That false assertion is nonsense. It ignores that fact that people have greater autonomy in making personal decisions with information and awareness and as we move away from the institutions of the past.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 7:39:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Safe Scools' has nothing to do with safety or bullying. It is by perverts, for perverts. It is anti-family. It is anti-social. It is the product of the disgusting mindset of a few very disgusting people, aided by disgusting politicians.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 9:25:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is an extreme justification of a program that has to be modified for obvious reasons. As has now been widely discussed, but somehow the would-be member for Deakin managed not to get the memo, the safe schools program went far beyond any anti-bullying or pro-sexual choice mandate. The original program had sexually explicit content which it thrust in the face of all students, without parent consultation, and demanded the whole curriculum - already crowded with socially correct subjects - be subverted to its needs.

Almost anyone but activist-extremists can see the problem, and they have - the real surprise has been the depth of vitriol from those who support the program, in the face of evident, widespread community disquiet over it. The would-be member of Deakin should go back and consult more with his community.

I see that he has a chance at election. If he does get in, I hope his parliamentary performance is better than this.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 9:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Advocating for tolerance and inclusion is one of the fundamental requirements of an elected member. '

Tolerance for the left includes every perversion known to man and the devil. The only thing they don't tolerate is anything Christian. Why not have a program to teach kids its fine to have sex with dogs? The so called safe sex program is nothing more than bringing confusion to young minds. Leave them alone.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 10:00:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you are gay,it's not something that can be taught or acquired after birth! Or bullied or bashed out or in! And given the worst offenders can be abysmally ignorant parents, shouldn't be left up to them?

And given this program was initiated and funded in its entirety during the Abbott reign, without all the current (diabolically disingenuous)furore, what has changed?

I know, the once deposed coalition Leader Malcolm (return bill) Turnbull has been returned to his former position! And the worst possible reason for politicising a program already rolled out and funded!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 10:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When are these people going to stop playing the suicide card and the self harm card?

It seems that if you want to dramatise your situation this is the way to go now days. Kids get bullied. Kids have always been bullied. Almost every kid has been bullied at some time in their lives.

What is it about kids with sexual issues that makes them want to harm themselves and kill themselves?

Anyone who thinks that killing yourself is a reasonable response to being bullied has some very serious problems of perspective. Suicide can never be a reasonable response to bullying – all it shows is that these kids are totally out of touch with reality. It shows what a poor system of values they have and this reflects on their parents and teachers who want to push this agenda.

When it is brought up as an argument against bullying all it does is expose the real issues these kids have with trying to determine what is important. Bullying is not pleasant but no one ever died from it so how could anyone think that being dead is better than being bullied? Where are their instincts to survive? How can bullying make life so miserable that there is absolutely nothing worth living for? Where is their sense of wonder, delight and joy? Their whole life is about not being bullied but no one’s life is that bad.

Their problem is not that they are bullied but that they cannot get things to make sense. When people tell them that their sexuality is ‘who they are’ then they are helping to confuse them. Sexuality is not who anyone is. It is just a part of life and so is bullying. When these ‘educators’ overemphasise sexuality they are trying to convince themselves rather than their students of its importance.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 10:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rhosty,

What minuscule proportion of students are we talking about ? Four per cent ? So a one-size-fits-all program is to be enforced on the other 96 % ? Or what has it got to do with bullying ?

I am relieved that eight- and nine-year olds won't (have I got this right ?) be subjected to contemplating being subjected to anal intercourse, or imagining that they have the genitals of the other sex. Or none at all. "How do I pee ?" Nothing like a bit of challenging anxiety to focus the mind :)

But thanks for the heads-up:

"And given the worst offenders can be abysmally ignorant parents, shouldn't be left up to them?"

On what evidence ? Is this - perhaps inadvertently, Rhosty - the next phase in the program to destroy society as we know it is removing children from parental care ? It's a long time since I read it, but wasn't that one part of the Plan in Orwell's 1984 ? Also in Soviet Russia and China and Pol Pot's Kampuchea. The Nazis had similar programs, for their fair-haired, blue-eyed elite of kids, right until the end of the War. Also on the kibbutzim in Israel in the earlier days.

How to prise the children out of the control of parents ...... hmmmmmm ......

So what's next ? What other debates can the new reactionary fruit-cakes initiate ? Euthanasia ? Solent Green for us old farts ? 'Removal' of the disabled ? The Nazis had highly-developed policies on those 'removals', is that where they are going ?

Hey, how come there's nothing much in this Unsafe Schools stuff about the bullying of the disabled, only about the weirdly-sexualised ? Or am I wrong ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 10:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This was not an anti bullying program. It was a gender studies program. For 11/12 year olds!
If it was about inclusion it would have had lessons on race, disability, appearance etc. where were the lessons asking kids to roll around the floor jerking so they could empathise with an epileptic child? Where was the role play where instead of losing your genitals you lost your ability to empathise, like autistic kids?
As for the continued emphasis on the necessity of this program to stop suicide in young people, well, studies show that children who are sexually abused are three times more likely than gay kids to commit suicide.
So, if we are serious about suicide prevention in young people, we should be putting all our focus on educating kids how to get help if they are or have been abused.
After all, they are the highest risk group
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 11:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And not before time that we started knocking some of this stupid diversity on the head, in all walks of life.

Talk about the mobs of Rome!
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 11:06:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If it was about suicide you certainly would not confuse kids and lead them to a lifestyle where death/suicide is so prevalent. How dumbed down can a society get. And to think so many voted for Daniel Anrews. What a sick perverse society. No wonder Isis is so attractive to so many.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 11:46:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get very tired of people claiming that because you disagree with this program you must be motivated by hatred of homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals at all, yet I have serious concerns about this program.
Many or even most children do not have a clear perception of their sexuality as it has not fully developed yet. Same sex attraction is very common in adolescents, yet the vast majority end up being perfectly ordinary heterosexuals. As such, the active normalising of these things is more likely to make a child think "I must be a homosexual/transsexual/anything else" when in fact they have simply not fully developed in their sexuality.
There was a huge article in the Sunday Times in WA a few weeks ago about a 12 year old girl who, after having been subjected to the "safe schools program" was "able to come out" as a transsexual and was now beginning hormone treatment to prevent her from going through puberty, as well as dressing and identifying as a boy. This girl also described herself as "bi-sexual, homosexual and transsexual? My concern is that this girl may simply be a tomboy who may have grown up to be a perfectly normal either heterosexual or lesbian. Instead she is undergoing treatment that will prevent her turning into an adult and will affect her for the rest of her life. I don't believe that describing a 12 year old as "bisexual" makes any more sense than describing them as heterosexual. they are not (or at least should not be ) having sex at all.
leave kids alone when it comes to sexual matters. they can make up their own mind when they are older.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 1:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a proud scout master of many years, Tony, I should not need to remind you of the words of the founder of the scout movement, Baden Powell, on this matter: http://www.gomelscouts.com/continence.html

Anything that is made a big deal of, attracts a big deal of bullying - and the "safe school" program brings sexuality to the fore, teaching children that it is a big deal.

Education should turn the child's attention away from sexual distractions of any kind and if the issue comes up, parents and teachers should put it to rest by reassuring children that they have no expectations of them to "perform" in this area.

Scouts are taught not to bully as that would contravene the scout law (http://www.scout.org/promiseandlaw). Scouting channels the child's energy constructively and is one of the best anti-bullying programs!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 1:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No forms of bullying are acceptable, the majority of kids that are bullied not because of their gender issues.

I fully support teaching tolerance of others for all reasons, however, getting the 97% of straight kids to role play gay or transgender relationships for the benefit of the 3% that are not is neither necessary to teach tolerance nor appropriate for the target age group.

If this was seriously necessary for anti bullying, the program would get kids to role play being small and weak, being intellectually challenged, ginger haired etc.

That this angered the majority of coalition MPs and many parents is proof that they just went too far.

The pared down program teaches tolerance without the gender politics.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 2:22:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

I agree, the government’s changes seem to me to strike the right balance between supporting kids who are (or may be) GLBTI, and addressing bullying and intolerance, while removing the more controversial and age-inappropriate material.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 3:03:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before I start let me say that I use the word "queer" in the same context as the boy who asked a very pertinent question on QANDA last night and referred to himself as a queer.

When I was a child, because of circumstances in 1939, I started school at about four and a half. Some of the older kids bullied me, but being a pretty resilient child, it didn't bother me that much. We had a saying, "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you." Later in year seven, I was bullied a bit, but I went to a gymnasium and learned to box and fought back. The other kids respected that and the bullying stopped.

In secondary school, we had a couple of kids who were a bit queer, but it was no big deal as it seems to be today. I don't think all this in your face Gay Pride BS is helping the kids who are that way either. I have friends who I suspect are queer, but they are not in my face about it, so I don't worry. People can't help what they are.

As for the hooray about the Safe Schools program, I get the impression that there is too much emphasis in it on sex and what might be described by some as sexual perversions. Homosexuality is basically not about how people perform sex, it is about which gender they are attracted to or more importantly what gender they would ascribe to themselves. Daniel Andrews on QANDA last night declared unambiguously that the program is working and would not countenance any changes to it, but there seems to be some aspects to it that need tidying up. This is all that the Turnbull government wants to do and I think Andrews needs to be a bit more conciliatory. The neanderthals in the Liberal party need to pull their heads in and get off their religious high horses. No one is trying to convert the children of today into a bunch of queers.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 3:11:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Greens MP Adam] Bandt told Guardian Australia [22 March] young people coming to terms with their sexuality and identity were “hearing hate and slander” from conservative opponents of the Safe Schools program.

Give one example, Mr Bandt, to prove you're not just posturing.

Oh, and you're not talking about the 97 per cent of heterosexual kids, are you, Mr Bandt? No, you certainly don't speak for them.

What a mediocrity.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 3:52:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'No one is trying to convert the children of today into a bunch of queers.

ok David, well what is the point of the program? It certainly ain't about bullying. The supporters have been show to be the biggest bully's and bigots by their actions. Why would anyone want to teach 11 year old girls about anal sex except that it is dangerous and disease prone. These sickos know exactly what they are doing.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 4:16:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This program was rolled out and fully funded by the Abbot lead government!

Without so much of a whimper from those folks now up in arms about it!

So, what has changed? Surely all the fuss can't be just to embarrass, Self confessed champion of social justice, Malcolm Turnbull? The only real change?

Or could it be that some ignoramuses didn't want to be shown up as ignorant homophobes in front of their own kids, before the homegrown homophobic brainwashing kicked in?

As always, and before all the staged managed indignation, decent teachers, (mostly straights) were the standards of decency filter for all the material, and so some of it, just never saw the light of day!

For mine, most of the posts and patently manufactured better late than never, outrage manifesting here, is much ado about nuaght!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 5:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'So, what has changed? Surely all the fuss can't be just to embarrass, Self confessed champion of social justice, Malcolm Turnbull? The only real change? '

sorry Rhrosty Malcolm has done enough sleaze, backflipping, compromising and knife stabbing without needing some perverted program teaching 11 year old girls about how great anal sex can be to embarass him
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 5:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Advocating for tolerance and inclusion is one of the fundamental requirements of an elected member. It was therefore distressing to see Mr Sukkar taking pen to paper and publishing an attack on the voluntary Safe School Coalition, a program which is designed to address bullying. “

Sadly the author – like many others -- has been conned into thinking that the Safe Schools Coalition program is designed to address bullying.

The architects of the program admitted that it is not about anti-bullying.

As a Safe Schools “National Symposium” in Melbourne was told in 2014: “Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying.”

Anti-bullying is the Trojan horse that allowed this devious program into schools.

“As a parent and every parent would be aware, bullying is a multi-faceted issue and children being children will hone in on anything different. “

Agreed. Any child who is different from the norm is at risk of being bullied: whether they are gay or have red hair, or are fat, skinny, tall, short, smart, stupid, clumsy, gawky, socially awkward or just eccentric.

If it was a genuine anti-bullying program it would focus not just on one type of difference.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 5:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now the expected backlash against the sickening march towards acceptance of the unacceptable has begun, it is also time to rescue a couple of captured words, and for posterity, return them to their traditional camp(sic), gay and rainbow.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 9:05:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tolerance for the left includes every perversion known to man and the devil. The only thing they don't tolerate is anything Christian. Why not have a program to teach kids its fine to have sex with dogs? The so called safe sex program is nothing more than bringing confusion to young minds. Leave them alone.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 10:00:48 AM

That's pretty sick, runner
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 1:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No whats pretty sick McReal is the padeophiloe state Victoria who made so much noise about Pell and yet ignores the history of those who introduced this sick repulsive program for kids.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 5:02:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trust runner to bring up dogsex. Your god must be so proud of you.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 10:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lol runner. The paedophile State is the Vatican.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:53:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dawson MP George Christensen stated in Federal Parliament on 16 March 2016:

The genesis, research, advocacy and ongoing support for the Safe Schools program is run by La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. In fact, the Safe Schools Coalition is run out of that La Trobe centre.

Research by the Australian Family Association raised concerns about the centre’s deputy director, Gary Dowsett, a long-time advocate of “intergenerational sex”, otherwise known as paedophilia. I refer to Dowsett’s article, “Boiled lollies and Band-aids” from the journal Gay Information, where he says: “How different, then, is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his or her lover? That kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship.” He argued in that journal article that paedophilia should be part of the gay movement and that it must be legally recognised, and he depicted it as a part of a wider sexual liberation.

From 2000 to 2002, Dowsett was on the Victorian government’s ministerial advisory committee on gay and lesbian health, putting him in a powerful position to advocate for the Victorian precursor program to Safe Schools. During the lead-up to Safe Schools receiving $8 million in taxpayer funds from Labor, Dowsett was the acting director of the La Trobe centre. I think it would shock many parents to know that a paedophilia advocate was overseeing the organisation that came up with the Safe Schools program.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 24 March 2016 1:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,

Until now ? Since pedophilia was so wrong in the Catholic system (and it certainly was), what makes it right in the Unsafe Schools system ?

Oops sorry - I get it: when 'they' do it, it's wrong, but when our side does it, it's right. Have I got that correct ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 24 March 2016 1:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,
that alleged article is supposed to have been written over 30 yrs ago in the 1980s; many attitudes have changed in that time - mostly for the better in terms of clarifying ethics and morals around relationships, especially relationships that involve imbalance of power (among other things). How about considering that the author of that article may have changed their attitude?
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 24 March 2016 5:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
There is, of course, no advocacy for paedophilia in any school system.

As far as the Catholic church goes, why is there is such an enormous discrepancy between the numbers of clergy who have been paedophiles or child abusers and the numbers of clergy who have been defrocked, unfrocked, or laicized for such behaviour.

Why has there been (i) virtually no disciplinary proceedings within the church? or (ii) no church initiated police or legal proceedings?

The organisational ethical and moral failings of the Catholic church, on all levels - Diocean, nationally, & internationally, through the Vatican, are profound.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 24 March 2016 5:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

I just wanted to let you know that I am out of messages on "Homophobia claims by same-sex marriage advocates are bullying". I expect to respond to your last post tomorrow night.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 25 March 2016 6:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,

I hope that you are right. Surely, after all the abuse by church personnel, there should be safeguards in place wherever children are under the care of schools or hospitals or institutions, etc., to ensure that no pedophile can abuse his (or her) position.

I hope that nothing like this arises through the Unsafe Schools propaganda campaign, but there do seem to be many hole in it, many possibilities for all manner of perverts to exploit children.

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 25 March 2016 6:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These are the type of kids who benefit from safe schools program.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/i-thought-i-was-a-virgin-i-wasnt-this-is-why-we-need-safe-schools-20160331-gnusnq.html
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AC,

Your example of a kid that would benefit from safeschools is extremely lame. The subject of the article has had the benefit of almost complete acceptance for her lifestyle, but is distraught over the sex education that is aimed at the 95% of students that are at risk of falling pregnant not only incl those that are straight, but those that are bi or gay that experiment.

This is the worst form of "victimhood" where the victim has suffered no discrimination, but is traumatised by the thought that she might not be normal.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 9 April 2016 6:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, it wasn't my example.
I didn't write the article I just added the link to it.
If you want to provide some other examples of 'normal' kids (or whatever its politically correct to call 'normal' kids these days) needing safe schools then please do.

Here's what I got from that article.

That girl (as a product of her environment) is the screwed up kid of two lesbian mothers who are screwed up themselves always defending and advocating the gay agenda like some kind of religion.
The constant weird sexual agenda her mothers have created within this environment has screwed that girl up immensely.
She probably gains acceptance from her mothers and their social group by following in their footsteps and advocating the gay agenda as well as its all she's ever known.
She admits being a housemate with the person who created the safe schools policy which is basically admitting bias.

But what gets me the most is the fact she acknowledges that she is still a 20year old virgin, which is her choice, but its downright shameful when people like herself advocate to sexualize other peoples grade 3 kids with lessons on anal sex when she's never even had proper sex yet.

It proves this is a program for messed up individuals by messed up individuals.
The same messed up individuals that were a result of their messed up gay parents raising messed up kids in today's pc world..

Ultimately I wont advocate for the sexualization of kids with a gay pedophilia agenda, because a messed up minority with gender identity issues scream discrimination because they themselves are different.
Who owns the problem?

And that's not 'victimhood' btw, its 'psychosis'.

Political Correctness is the manifestation of the world having a lack of self esteem.
Basically its everyone becoming a bunch of cry baby whiney pansies who need to talk about their feelings and blame everyone else for their petty problems while sitting on their backsides and expecting everything to be done for them.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 4:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm getting to think that identity politics, rather than promoting inclusion, promotes extreme individualisation, uniqueness, specialness, and division of society into an infinity of self-indulgent whingers.

Of course, each one of us is indeed unique, but none of us are so 'special' that we necessarily need some new categorising which highlights 'me'. Each of us, after all, is also a part of a society, of humankind, with seven billion brothers and sisters, who have the same rights to attention as we think we deserve.

I look forward to an 'Inclusive Schools' program one day which plays down minor or irrelevant differences and actively promotes our living and working together for a better, common, society, focussing on equal opportunity through effort, and the rule of law.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 8:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 6:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy