Re: "Good morning ladies and gentlemen"

[Mauser]

We are now in a strange world where you can't start a speech with the phrase "Good morning ladies and gentlemen"
~

Can someone explain to me exactly how this is taboo? It sounds very illogical to me.

(Did not want to derail main topic)

Maybe I am too old for this, but this doesn't seem like a taboo too me. For the last few hundred years this was a common way to start a speech. What should be wrong with it now? The only thing that comes to mind would be that we are offending all these "non binary" sexes which came to life recently. It doesn't matter that biology only has the male and female gender for the human race, if someone feels like something complete new than of course we need to respect it. This is so wrong in our society.

[1714814209]

1714814209

[1714814209]

1714814209

[1714814209]

1714814209

[Poker Player]

For the last few hundred years this was a common way to start a speech. What should be wrong with it now? The only thing that comes to mind would be that we are offending all these "non binary" sexes which came to life recently.

That is precisely what is supposedly wrong. It is taken as a symbol of the so-called heteropatriarchal society, macho, therefore. Add to that the fact that the road to equality is being taken more as a fight than a collaboration, and we see senseless consequences like this.

[Cnut237]

I understand that you don't support the violent demonstrations, but you do support the majority that were non-violent, is that right?

Yes, that's right. And I would suspect as with demonstrations on many different subjects, that any violence would be due in large part to people who just want any excuse to cause trouble and so will attach themselves to anything where there's a chance of conflict with the police.

By the way, I enjoy the debate although in this case it does not look like we are going to reach points of agreement. The only thing is that you give me a lot of work to answer you, and I am tempted to stop debating with you and start shitposting instead.

 

I understand completely. When moon? Where lambo?

[Poker Player]

-snip

Regarding what we have been talking about, I would like to ask your opinion about a curious phenomenon that I have been observing for years and that I have come to call the leftist paradox. On the one hand, we must be tolerant of other cultures. And on the other hand, we have to adopt measures to achieve 100% equality between women and men or between gays and straights, for example.

I don't know how this is compatible with the growing muslim population in the UK and other countries. I know that not all Muslims are as radical as others, but I would say that in general they don't exactly have an egalitarian view of the roles of men and women, not to mention homosexuals. The Muslim world has not overcome the conflict between reason and faith, which in the Western world began to be overcome with the condemnation of Galileo and I would say that had its highest peak during the Enlightenment.

When I see criticisms of patriarchy, I see that they are more directed at patriarchy of Judeo-Christian origin, but not so much at the Muslim worldview.

So, this is the paradox that I see: we are tolerant of other cultures, but in this case the Muslim culture has a vision that is not egalitarian of the roles between men and women or of homosexuals, something that conflicts with our principles, but in this case we either keep quiet or minimize it.

I don't know if you have any statistics in this regard. You do have some good reasoning for sure.

[Cnut237]

I would like to ask your opinion about a curious phenomenon that I have been observing for years and that I have come to call the leftist paradox. On the one hand, we must be tolerant of other cultures. And on the other hand, we have to adopt measures to achieve 100% equality between women and men or between gays and straights, for example.

I don't know how this is compatible with the growing muslim population in the UK and other countries. I know that not all Muslims are as radical as others, but I would say that in general they don't exactly have an egalitarian view of the roles of men and women, not to mention homosexuals.

That's an interesting point. Thanks for raising it.

I wouldn't say it's a paradox, but there are certainly areas of conflict between the two ideals of making sure that people are treated fairly, and making sure that different cultures are valued. I don't think it's possible to have a perfect solution for this. The hijab ban in France is perhaps one of the most prominent examples and illustrates the distinction between people and cultures. Presumably France do not want to ban the hijab in Muslim-governed countries, in that culture... but they do in their own country... for their own people (and, of course, their own culture). Which then provokes the question of whether a Muslim migrant to France from say Iraq is part of a Muslim culture, or a French culture, or an Iraqi culture (or a Muslim person, French person, Iraqi person). The answer of course being all three (or all six)... which is where a conflict can arise. Often in practice the thing that takes precedence is the culture of the country in which the person resides, in this case French culture supersedes Iraqi or Muslim culture. Which then provokes the question of whether a nation can truly be multi-cultural in the fullest sense of the word. I suppose a good answer to this question is how that nation resolves (or attempts to resolve) these conflicts.

The path to treating everyone equally and fairly is not always clear, but progress is certainly being made. We are moving slowly in the right direction.

I don't know if you have any statistics in this regard.

I've not looked into it, no. It might be an interesting investigation for the future.