pratty

Hong Kong. I am/was big into Hong Kong cinema so I've always had a fascination for the place. In addition to the culture I like how geographically diverse it is for such a small place.

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards. No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority. I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic. Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies? Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement? Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards. No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority. I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic. Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies? Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement? Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence? Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed? We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right. I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people? Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk. Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with. If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults. Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay. To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence? Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed? We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right. I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people? Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk. Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with. If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults. Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay. To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it. Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM? We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it. Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM? We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.

Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.

Panorama interviews leaves voters in the Midlands.

Panorama interviews leaves voters in the Midlands.

^ I never knew that. I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

^ I never knew that. I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting. It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist? Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know. I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though. Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting. It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist? Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know. I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though. Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could. There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students. It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not. Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue. If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive. And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture? The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads. I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt. Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying. Yes you can challenge them back, but are you saying that being accosted over your cultural appropriation isn't a problem because it's not being done by the state? It's still bullying. What about the feelings of the white person with dreadlocks? We don't say racist accosting/bullying is less of a problem because it's not the state doing it. And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could. There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students. It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not. Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue. If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive. And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture? The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads. I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt. Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying. Yes you can challenge them back, but are you saying that being accosted over your cultural appropriation isn't a problem because it's not being done by the state? It's still bullying. What about the feelings of the white person with dreadlocks? We don't say racist accosting/bullying is less of a problem because it's not the state doing it. And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

I actually have a lot of sympathy with this, the idea that we should be born free to roam the entire planet as any other creature. But I think if we were to put this into practice then we also have to be free of governments and laws, because like borders laws are also man-made, often arbitrary, and forced onto you by someone else from the moment you were born.

I actually have a lot of sympathy with this, the idea that we should be born free to roam the entire planet as any other creature. But I think if we were to put this into practice then we also have to be free of governments and laws, because like borders laws are also man-made, often arbitrary, and forced onto you by someone else from the moment you were born.

Well ok I don't know the numbers for a fact, but it is my belief that the percentage of racist people is low and if they were to violently rise up as one against ethnic minorities they would be crushed by the sheer numbers of non racist people. We'll have to disagree then. No I've not worn dreads in the presence of a black person or dressed as a samurai in the presence of a Japanese person, but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it. I do understand the argument of cultural appropriation, I just disagree, we're talking about people's hair and clothing making people upset and angry for goodness sake, like I said at some point some people need to toughen up and show some tolerance of something they don't like themselves, you can't police people's hair. I agree about being respectful, there is a respectful way to dress as a samurai and a disrespectful way to dress as a samurai, so I believe there should be the wriggle room for this context, but even then as with offence being respectful or disrespectful is subjective to a large degree. I honestly thought liberals who have traditionally generally been against absolute right and wrongs (the traditional hallmark of the conservative) would appreciate this. If we say that it is offensive then were does this end? As I said offence is subjective and so people can claim to be offended by anything, does that mean we have to ask permission or check it's cool with literally everybody before we make a decision as mundane as how we wear our hair? And can we really expect multiculturalism and integration without some appropriation? Some cultures actually want you appropriate their culture, many want to sell it to you, or in the case of a religion they want people to convert. And how can people say that all races are the same and that race is irrelevant to identity but at the same time insist a specific culture such as wearing dreads belongs only to a specific race? If we're all the same why can't we all be samurais? Why would someone want to wear dreads or dress like a samurai? Who cares? There reasons are their own. I'm willing to bet a white person with dreads or braids didn't do it to offend black people, they did it because they though it looked good and that's all the reason they need as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like it, disapprove by all means and move on, don't lump them in with the actual racists that actually hate people. Call me right wing if you like, that's not how I would identify but I will at least be glad I'm not associated with the creeping 'liberal' fascism of the left. It happens all the time, the words you've just mentioned are some that can carry severe social consequences. If you're in a job and you use some of those words you can expect to lose it, so those words are in effect banned, and rightly so in many cases. The inconsistency of this stance against offensive language doesn't help the cause. The other day in the Brexit thread Dr. Bob called Gove, a politician he and the majority of the remain voting thread contributors didn't like, a "knobjockey", which as we should all know is an offensive derogatory term for a homosexual. Yet there was not one word about this from anyone. So what do we conclude? Is the language of someone with an opinion that we like judged to a different standard than a person with an opinion that we don't? When instances like this double standard happen it does appear that perhaps the word isn't so offensive after all, at least not to he extent that it warrants comment, and that the voiced objection to it as political correctness is selectively applied to only certain people, making it look like political correctness is as much about punishing and silencing certain people we object to or disagree with, such as those who politically lean to the right.

Well ok I don't know the numbers for a fact, but it is my belief that the percentage of racist people is low and if they were to violently rise up as one against ethnic minorities they would be crushed by the sheer numbers of non racist people. We'll have to disagree then. No I've not worn dreads in the presence of a black person or dressed as a samurai in the presence of a Japanese person, but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it. I do understand the argument of cultural appropriation, I just disagree, we're talking about people's hair and clothing making people upset and angry for goodness sake, like I said at some point some people need to toughen up and show some tolerance of something they don't like themselves, you can't police people's hair. I agree about being respectful, there is a respectful way to dress as a samurai and a disrespectful way to dress as a samurai, so I believe there should be the wriggle room for this context, but even then as with offence being respectful or disrespectful is subjective to a large degree. I honestly thought liberals who have traditionally generally been against absolute right and wrongs (the traditional hallmark of the conservative) would appreciate this. If we say that it is offensive then were does this end? As I said offence is subjective and so people can claim to be offended by anything, does that mean we have to ask permission or check it's cool with literally everybody before we make a decision as mundane as how we wear our hair? And can we really expect multiculturalism and integration without some appropriation? Some cultures actually want you appropriate their culture, many want to sell it to you, or in the case of a religion they want people to convert. And how can people say that all races are the same and that race is irrelevant to identity but at the same time insist a specific culture such as wearing dreads belongs only to a specific race? If we're all the same why can't we all be samurais? Why would someone want to wear dreads or dress like a samurai? Who cares? There reasons are their own. I'm willing to bet a white person with dreads or braids didn't do it to offend black people, they did it because they though it looked good and that's all the reason they need as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like it, disapprove by all means and move on, don't lump them in with the actual racists that actually hate people. Call me right wing if you like, that's not how I would identify but I will at least be glad I'm not associated with the creeping 'liberal' fascism of the left. It happens all the time, the words you've just mentioned are some that can carry severe social consequences. If you're in a job and you use some of those words you can expect to lose it, so those words are in effect banned, and rightly so in many cases. The inconsistency of this stance against offensive language doesn't help the cause. The other day in the Brexit thread Dr. Bob called Gove, a politician he and the majority of the remain voting thread contributors didn't like, a "knobjockey", which as we should all know is an offensive derogatory term for a homosexual. Yet there was not one word about this from anyone. So what do we conclude? Is the language of someone with an opinion that we like judged to a different standard than a person with an opinion that we don't? When instances like this double standard happen it does appear that perhaps the word isn't so offensive after all, at least not to he extent that it warrants comment, and that the voiced objection to it as political correctness is selectively applied to only certain people, making it look like political correctness is as much about punishing and silencing certain people we object to or disagree with, such as those who politically lean to the right.

you know i've never thought of myself as a European citizen, only a British one, though I feel somewhat European as it's the closest continent and and i suppose we're no less a part of it than any other European island. I think this shows to me my how I see the EU, I'm all for cooperation and whatnot with our european neighbours (not just those in the EU), I just don't think a larger Euope wide political Union is a good idea. The ideal size of a nation itself is abitrary but i think with it's naturally defined watery borders the British Isles are a good size. Yeah it is a lottery, I think the realiy of it is life and the world isn't as equal as we'd like it to be. Although the concepts of 'fair' and 'equal' is a double edged discussion for another time. Whatever decision you make as to whether to stay or leave I hope it's the right one for you.

you know i've never thought of myself as a European citizen, only a British one, though I feel somewhat European as it's the closest continent and and i suppose we're no less a part of it than any other European island. I think this shows to me my how I see the EU, I'm all for cooperation and whatnot with our european neighbours (not just those in the EU), I just don't think a larger Euope wide political Union is a good idea. The ideal size of a nation itself is abitrary but i think with it's naturally defined watery borders the British Isles are a good size. Yeah it is a lottery, I think the realiy of it is life and the world isn't as equal as we'd like it to be. Although the concepts of 'fair' and 'equal' is a double edged discussion for another time. Whatever decision you make as to whether to stay or leave I hope it's the right one for you.

This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races.

This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races.