It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PC Madness Strikes Again.

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You are also bending over backwards to not have to reverse yourself.

The point is that a tradition is not a tradition because it mocks another group, and you should not have to be disbarred because something about a tradition makes others feel bad for completely unrelated reasons.

For crying out loud, banning these dancers because some black people don't like black face (which this is not and they are ignorant) is about like banning white people from wearing black t-shirts because blacks feel like whites are trying to mock them.

No, we're just wearing black t-shirts.

Last I checked, white people do not get to arbitrate when and how the color white gets used anymore than blacks should get to arbitrate when and how black gets used. Not every person with black paint on their face is attempting black face just like not every person wearing white paint in attempting to mock whites.




posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   


Bloody Hipsters



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Someone (or a group of someones) spoke their feelings to the festival owners and the festival owners made their own decision. Nobody forced anyone to do anything. Are you saying that the someone(s) didn't have a right to speak their feelings? Are you saying that the festival owners didn't have a right to make their own decisions? Are you saying that the dance troupe doesn't have the right to change the color that they put on their faces?



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Nope. Not the Clintons. Been debunked.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well, seems like everyone's allowed a culture except white Anglo Saxons.

I guess it's just another one of the downsides of worshipping the great god of diversity.

Morris dancers don't hurt anyone, try and make others feel inferior or anything. Just leave them the hell alone to dance and drink their real ale.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Someone (or a group of someones) spoke their feelings to the festival owners and the festival owners made their own decision. Nobody forced anyone to do anything. Are you saying that the someone(s) didn't have a right to speak their feelings? Are you saying that the festival owners didn't have a right to make their own decisions? Are you saying that the dance troupe doesn't have the right to change the color that they put on their faces?


Perhaps the question should be why the person was offended and why the festival owner felt pressured enough to take action.
In a healthy society the offence would be unlikely to have been taken and if it was the festival owner would have told the offended to eff off and to stop being so stupid.

Unfortunately society is sick. Sick with political correctness. Hopefully a cure will be found.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Frankly, I think we have a lot bigger problems than whether some dancers get to dance at a festival or not.

I just saw a thread posted on a bunch of people getting stabbed and injured at a festival. Now THAT'S a problem that needs to be dealt with.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Frankly, I think we have a lot bigger problems than whether some dancers get to dance at a festival or not.

I just saw a thread posted on a bunch of people getting stabbed and injured at a festival. Now THAT'S a problem that needs to be dealt with.


No argument there.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Someone (or a group of someones) spoke their feelings to the festival owners and the festival owners made their own decision. Nobody forced anyone to do anything. Are you saying that the someone(s) didn't have a right to speak their feelings? Are you saying that the festival owners didn't have a right to make their own decisions? Are you saying that the dance troupe doesn't have the right to change the color that they put on their faces?


I see ... so if I decide to play the angry feminist card and complain with a group of womyn to the local Scottish Highlands festival that I an offended by the caber toss because it is a very phallic competition that demeans women and clearly is dog whistle for rape.



They should ban it despite the fact that pretty much all Scottish Highlands games originated as an athletic event similar to the Olympics of Greece not as a way to spite women.

*EDIT*

My understanding is that it was just any group of someones; it was BLM. They do exist in England.
edit on 28-8-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think you have been reading my posts on this thread carefully enough. I never said anything or anyone should be banned. I don't think any group should be banned from speaking their mind, or from deciding not to book an act based on how that act does things, or from deciding to change how they do things - do you?



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam


Bloody Hipsters


That's gotta be Bill, but not sure if that's Hill.

Would be interesting to see that one debated thoroughly....

I'd expect her to be much skinnier at that age.
edit on 28-8-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is at least one thread where this was properly debunked. I'm too tired right now to find it.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is at least one thread where this was properly debunked. I'm too tired right now to find it.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There is at least one thread where this was properly debunked. I'm too tired right now to find it.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I'm too tired right now to find it.


originally posted by: kaylaluv
I'm too tired right now to find it.


originally posted by: kaylaluv
I'm too tired right now to find it.


Could'a fooled me.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think you have been reading my posts on this thread carefully enough. I never said anything or anyone should be banned. I don't think any group should be banned from speaking their mind, or from deciding not to book an act based on how that act does things, or from deciding to change how they do things - do you?


I didn't say you were saying that, but I think you are missing the point we are trying to make:

1.) These are all traditions that pre-date the offenses people are potentially getting upset about.

2.) People who are perhaps ignorant of the traditions in question get offended based on modern sensibility without taking the time to learn why a group is actually doing a thing like painting their face a certain color or tossing a giant, phallic-looking beam of wood complain that a thing should not be allowed because they assume those people are working off the modern sensibility and not honoring the much older tradition.

3.) They get a big enough group together to complain and make a stink about it that the festival organizers bow under perceived public pressure, not because they should but because they want to avoid conflict.

There is NO reason at all to ban anything because there is no offense being made. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

There is NO reasons for anyone to be offended because no one is making a mockery or offensive gesture toward anyone.

But people complain and ruin everyone else's time anyhow. Now no one can have any kind of good time.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Stop calling them the PC brigade and call them for what they are "democrats"

They are a product of decades of race baiting and pandering by democrats, and they are democrats.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong


This tradition is more than 500 years old but it seems to be now offensive to the PC Brigade. Utter madness.




Seeing as the concept of a commercial decision confuses you, prhaps you'd like the state to intervene and dictate to the business running the festival?



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Those making such decisions are brainwashed or lack courage
Political Correctness does not cure racism it focuses on the problem and is itself part of the problem
When in reality there is no problem unless you think skin colour is of importance when considering the woth of a person or persons

People are so paranoid of offending others and appearing to be a the "Bad Guy"
That they become mealy mouthed and fickle
Better to allow a person to speak their mind and those in disagreement to have the capacity to point out where they err
edit on 29-8-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think you have been reading my posts on this thread carefully enough. I never said anything or anyone should be banned. I don't think any group should be banned from speaking their mind, or from deciding not to book an act based on how that act does things, or from deciding to change how they do things - do you?


Yes of course. No one should be allowed to ban something if it is against the law to ban it or to speak their mind if it is against the law to speak it. There is no such thing as free speech or doing whatever you want to do. That seems to be a misconception usually found in liberals (but not always). Clearly in this case, no laws have been broken by banning the act, but your question was more general.
There is then the more complicated argument relating to allowed speech and activity. These Morris dancers were not breaking any laws and had their allowed expression under the law curtailed based on someone else's feelings.




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join