Soph0571
Soph0571's JournalDictionary definition of Shithole updated to cover all Trump Hotels
With Donald Trump using the word to describe locations where people have a skin colour he’s not particularly fond of, millions of people have sought clarification for the term.
A spokesperson for Oxford English Dictionaries told us, “Previously we had assumed it would be obvious when we explained it was a ‘deeply unpleasant location’, even going so far as to add i.e. Coventry for a little extra colour – but this was clearly not enough.
“With so many international users of our dictionaries – many of whom have never even heard of Coventry, the lucky sods – we felt compelled to update the definition to something people can see the world over. Like the Trump hotel.
“Think of a shithole as a hugely disappointing location, somewhere that promised much but delivers very little, and where paying money to be there makes you feel like you need to take a shower. But not in the shithole itself, at home.
[link:http://newsthump.com/2018/01/12/dictionary-definition-of-shithole-updated-to-cover-all-trump-hotels/|
hehe
Its fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies
-------------------------------
I discriminate against people who are rightwing and conservative. I’m entirely happy to say so. I don’t view it as hypocrisy to judge people by their personal qualities, rather than their background and appearance. If people are bigots and bullies, I will judge them for that. And for those who think it’s hypocrisy to refuse to tolerate intolerance, perhaps they should read the philosopher Karl Popper, who got there decades before me when he wrote of the paradox of tolerance: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
-------------------------------
It used to be conservatives who were more concerned with “character”. It is odd that the idea of decency and personal responsibility has now become the domain of progressives. But I believe in fairness, and if the right are going to co-opt the language of tolerance for their own ends, it’s only fair that we should get to pinch something of theirs in good faith. Character matters. How you treat other people matters. Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences include other people telling you you’re being a dick. And, yes, that’s hard.
[link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/11/discriminate-conservatives-james-damore-suing-google-intolerance|
Edgar Ray Killen, Mississippi Burning perpetrator, dies in prison
He was a farmer, preacher and sawmill operator in Mississippi during the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In 2005, he was convicted of manslaughter for the 1964 deaths of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman outside Philadelphia, Mississippi.
1090 and the largest in the land
Castle Acre Priory and Abbey in Norfolk - the largest ruins in the UK
Is there anyone left who is NOT going to hell?
I reckon there are a good ten sins in that sign that have me screwed!!
This was a sign a local Pride event in 2017
A flag for Donald Trumps base to rally around
[link:http://whatwouldjackdo.org/2018/01/08/a-flag-for-donald-trumps-base-to-rally-around/|
Heh. Indeed
Be you Christian, Muslim or Jew, the Big Boys Dictate the Terms
Be you Christian, Muslim or Jew the Abrahamic religions all have one thing in common. They are run by men who try and dictate the terms of faith for everyone else. Do things how they dictate or your after life will be at the very least somewhat unpleasant. It is a great wheeze actually. Getting the masses to do what you want in this life just in case they get into trouble in the next? The big boys have this down pat.
I was chatting with a member of staff on the way home from work the other day. She is very excited about her up and coming wedding. She then started to explain the process of marriage classes that she had to go to before she could get a certificate to say it was OK for her and her partner to marry. As a catholic she is expected to attend marriage classes every Thursday night for eight weeks to listen to a man, who has never entered into any kind of romantic or sexual relationship (well with another adult anyway?!?!), tell her what it takes to make a successful and sustained marriage. Seriously? What the hell does he know about it? Bugger all, that’s what. This article is not just about Catholics but I thought the anecdote was illustrative of the point I am trying to make about the power and control exerted over communities by religious (invariably male) leaders dictating terms.
The big boys dictate the terms.
The big boys use the fear of a horrible after life to dictate terms to the faithful in this life. They try and tell you who you can marry, whether you can divorce, when to procreate, when to not procreate, what to wear, how animals should be slaughtered and what you can eat and drink.
The big boys dictate the terms.
They try and tell you how to worship, how to pray, how to ask forgiveness of God. If you do not accept their terms and conditions for your relationship with the higher power you will suffer in the afterlife. It matters not to them how you suffer in this life. The big boys will tell you who to vote for, who not to vote for, they will tell you this to keep power and control, not as a way for an individual to improve their human condition through the democratic process.
The big boys dictate the terms.
They commit fraud and deceit, sexual assault and fornication; they lie to their flock, but expect blind obedience and money in the collection plate. They own our politicians. They bring hate and division into communities and still they expect more. More power, more control, demanding forgiveness for their actions, more suspension of our belief.
On the other hand, faithfulness or morality, if you will, has no terms to dictate. It is individual and personal. Be it faith in a higher power or faith in the world around us, if done well faith helps heal communities. Feeding the poor, clothing the needy, accepting with love the foibles of those around us. Caring about the here and now, not just the unknown of the afterlife. Real faith recognises that who you marry and who you divorce are not the most important things in the world to obsess over. People of true faith or no faith don’t wish to dictate the rules. They do not want to limit the scope of human possibilities of those around them. Faith is not interested in power. They don’t care for control. They recognise their own weaknesses, that they are human.
Faithfulness rocks. With faithfulness the big boys do not get to dictate the terms.
Would democracy work better if voting was compulsory?
Politicians are not so stupid that they are unaware that some of us are far more likely to vote than others and therefore ensure that they target policy accordingly. The cynic might say that the vast majority of policy does not appeal to the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, and if that is the case, it is very easy to see how certain sections of the wider community have come to the conclusion that is it not worth voting as politicians do not speak for them.
The argument, from certain sections of the community who do not currently vote in large numbers, is ‘there is no-one to vote for, so that is why I do not vote’. Of course, this inevitably leads to a chicken and egg situation. You have no one to vote for so you do not vote, how then will you ever be able to get politicians to become the kind of policy makers you would vote for? Surely, if we forced under-represented groups to vote, even if they did not want to engage with the system, it would make politicians listen to the needs and concerns of those groups? Would it not make politicians listen and answer to the whole of society rather than middle class, older, white people, which tends to be where current policy is directed?
BUT, and it is a big BUT: Can democracy ever be mandated? Can you force democracy? Surely the concept of a forced democracy is in direct conflict with the very definition of democracy? If we tried to force people into the voting booth would we not critically undermine the fundamental principle of democracy which is choice? Choosing not to vote could be reasonably considered a valid act of civil disobedience, and on a baser level should people not be allowed to choose to be lazy and not turn out to vote?
Compulsory voting is a terrible idea, is it not? But is it the least terrible idea, of all ideas to engage potential voters, if we want our leaders to represent us properly? After all will it not force the politicians to care about the disenfranchised and the disengaged when considering policy? How about voting with an option of none-of-the-above on the ballot paper, which would enable people to send a message that they do not care for their current choices rather than them choosing not to vote at all? Would that, potentially, send a clearer message to our leaders than forcing people to vote?
Thoughts?
Very old tree in a very old wall
A wall in Waverley Abbey - a ruined Abbey in Surrey. The Abbey was sacked by Henry the Eighth.
What do we do when they come back?
We have a problem. Misfits, the mentally ill, the vulnerable and the friendless were targeted by an extremist death cult, and some fell for the murderous hype. Current estimates suggest that around 600 British citizens travelled to Syria and Iraq to take part in the rather grandiosely named Islamic State. It was never Islamic, and it was never a State and I am very sure that these addled brained (generally very young) people got the shock of their lives when having finally found somewhere they think they belonged ended up in the middle of the harsh reality of an extreme and very nasty war.
Some of our pampered boys and girls started to come home before rather dramatic fall of ISIS’s ‘capital’. Of the 600 who are known to have travelled to Syria, at least 300 have returned. No doubt some have reappeared as a sort of extremist death cult missionary, to try and convince further young people to take a flight to almost certain death. Others, having looked left, looked right and realised they had made a HUGE mistake in believing the murderous hype they had been fed, are phoning Mummy and Daddy and begging for a plan that would enable them to escape the horrors they have landed themselves in and they desperately wish to return to the comfort and security of their homes. At this point many have nowhere else to go, other than home, as they risk capture and almost certain execution if they continue to hang out in either Iraq or Syria, heading back to blighty is almost certainly a much better option that that.
A couple of weeks ago the UK Defence Secretary said these boys and girls are legitimate targets who (and I am paraphrasing here) could not claim the protections of the state, that we should take them out on foreign soil to stop any risk to society if they return. So very right wing and hang the rule of law. State justified murdered cloaked in a respectable layer of national security is never a good plan in maintaining a civil society. These young people, may or may not be a security risk on return. But how will we know? We cannot jail all of them. We cannot follow all of them. Scarily, 300 of the young people who ran off to Syria in the couple of years where unknown to the Security Services before they left. Of course, they will now be known to Security Services when/if they return. What do we do with them when they inevitably come running home?
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: UK
Home country: UK
Current location: UK
Member since: Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:59 PM
Number of posts: 9,685
