Male and Female (with a small number of anomolies) are biological states, LBGTQ+ are choices of how someone sees themselves and how they choose to behave. I don't have a problem with any of this but I don't want it rammed down my throat at every oportunity. So there is a same sex couple dancing together on the TV, no big deal, so why make it one. But how can having 2 mums (or 2 dads) be normal? having a child is a privilege and not a right.
Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
No I don't think it is a common or mainstream form of lifestyle at present.Originally Posted by Hank
Whether I think it should or shouldn't be is neither here nor there and in the future it probably will be accepted as the norm.
As for LGBTQ+ being mainstream. I don't think so, however hard the the BBC are pushing it.
My views are well known on these matters now and Forumites, no doubt, have theirs so before this thread degenerates as others have done I am going to bow out.
And no, I don't watch Strictly but incidentally one of my favourite easy watch/feelgood films was the original Australian made, Strictly Ballroom
Visibility good except in Hill Fog
Just picking up on your ...ic or ...ist point (without inferring you're either by the way), at what point does calling somebody racist or sexist or homophobic get to be considered by you as not bullying?
So, for instance, its plain for the world to see that Donald Trump is both racist and sexist (and a bully too but forget that for the minute) and there's no end of real evidence freely and easily available of him saying and doing racist and sexist things. In fact he continues to spew them out almost daily. Presumably I'm on safe ground calling him racist and sexist? Or am I being a Donald Trump bully?
I really do think the BBC missed an important identity-politics opportunity there. They should have arranged for Nicola to dance with a man who self-identified as a woman and therefore, in the eyes of some, would be a woman, but others would see as a man. Same-Sex-Mixed-Sex. Win-Win surely! And who could complain, as that would satisfy the whole audience?
Am Yisrael Chai
If you bracket them all together it then gives the sense of a mass, a significant number of people.
But when you break them down in to the subcategories you find that there aren't that many in each group. More in some than others of course.
They also often have little in common, with a host of battles going on between women, gay, lesbian and trans at the moment.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Well I guess that depends on what your definitions of racism/racists are. Where you draw the boundaries.
"Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others". I agree with this cut/paste dictionary definition.
Personally, I think Trump is repulsive. But is he a racist? I haven't seen any direct evidence for the above definition, but if you have some then I'd unequivocally agree with you - he's a racist.
Regarding Trump, I understand that having the support of many people of ethic minorities doesn't mean you're not a racist, but then again?
The problem here is that the word racist is being thrown around as an insult so widely now that it's losing it's effective currency.
So who are racists? Nazis? Yes. White supremacists? Yes. Black/Green/Yellow with pink spots supremacists? Yes.
Perhaps you can share your definition of what makes a person a racist? Also, is there a difference between racist behaviuor and actually being a through-and-through racist?
Am Yisrael Chai
Changing things slightly, i do think that Twitter is given far too much prevalence when it comes to mainstream news...
And not just talking about the current subject... all kinds of stuff that make the news (an example being inflammatory/offensive comments by football fans) seems to come from Twitter.... how often is a BBC (other channels are available) article backed up by comments which come from Twitter.
This stat may be wrong, but i believe only 5% of the population actually use Twitter, it's a tiny minority, yet it seems to be that if it's come from Twitter then it's newsworthy.
Having a close family member as a journalist, i don't like to slag the profession off, but journalism/media seem to think that passing off a few Twitter/facebook comments as "research" is acceptable.
30 seconds on google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raci...f_Donald_Trump
Something about this on R4's Media Show the other day. Don't recall the detail, but pretty much what you're saying here: Twitter has a massively disproportional influence in the media.
Geoff Clarke
The reason twitter is often news worthy is because a) an awful lot of news journalists release news on it and b) an awful lot of newsworthy people (eg Donald Trump) post on it. You get stuff straight from the horses mouth.
Facebook is in my opinion far worse with it sharing much more in the form of propaganda than perhaps twitter. Both though are limited by who you follow or who you’re friends with and if you want to find people that share just your own views it’s easy
Posting Permissions
