Topic: Last Person to Speak Wins! 最后发言者获胜

[smokester]

FYI: There's 10 US pints in a UK gallon.

Which is 16 fluid ounces so now it's even more confusing.

I hear you mutter "job well done" ...

[smokester]

Floz's are the same both sides of t'pond: the US pint has 16, the UK pint 20. Ten US pints = 8 UK pints = 160 floz = a proper gallon.

How many noughts in a billion.

[smokester]

Twelve. Or nine.

Sometimes I like to go to the recycle bin and read christ's deleted posts. Or, as I like to call them (due to the size of the read), the bible.

[6pairsofshoes]

128 oz to US gallon.  4 quarts at 32 oz each, 2 pints per quart at 16 oz each, 8 oz to a cup and 2 cups to a pint.

Imperial gallon has two more pints, so an additional 32 oz, making an imperial gallon 160 oz.

When we were last in London we were looking at rent prices at Estate Agents and they seemed sort of inexpensive until we were told that the price was per week.  Gak.  I expect they'd have to call in the paramedics if they gave you guys the price of gas per gallon.

[dweez]

Hard to be sure something is "truly gone" when it comes to the internet.

[smokester]

On Demonoid I used to empty the recycle bin to stop that sort of thing.

Don't know why you bothered. As dweez alluded to: there were enough people archiving the forum there for a multitude of reasons. I think I still have the infamous exchange with that "horror32" guy - or some name like that.

[smokester]

Yup. But casual browsers are relatively easy to stop, and I don't care if the FBI want to know what I wrote about some random topic 20 years ago. As y'all will have noticed, I make it a rule to never write anything controversial.

The deletion started because I couldn't be bothered to argue about stuff wot I rote: I tend to wander a little (not that anyone would notice), and so cover several topics in one post: this means that arguments can get facile quickly: while arguing over point one, loser says "ah but point 2". This whole method of conversation is slowed considerably if the original post is gone, let alone all of my posts in a thread. It was easier that way than having said loser grumping that "the moderator deleted the thread because he was losing".

To be frank, the way I remember it you began to take things personally. Most there would "get you" but some attempted to draw you in by citing you incorrectly and out of context. Better then to delete and ignore.

I prefer a more direct approach using poisoned darts.

[smokester]

I always take everything personally. I was a snowflake before it became fashionable.

That term always gives me the uncomfortable memory of "Love Thy Neighbour".

[smokester]

I'm from the generation that doesn't find that uncomfortable: I still see it as "humour", and I see the white guy as the racist butt of the joke.

"I'll have half"

[smokester]

Same principle. Back then racism was socially acceptable, as was homophobia and all the other -isms that Alf Garnett exhibited; but the point was that his position was always untenable, this point being made largely with humour.

Today we have arrived at the position where if I say "it is unacceptable to use the word ------", I can't actually use the word in that sentence, because it is unacceptable. Madness is not coming, it has arrived.

... and don't get me started on the transgender "issue".

The transgender thing is very difficult for me at the moment as my daughter's best friend has cam out as trans. Now I insult they if I call they her or she, you must use the non-binary pronoun "they". Yes, I meant to write they 3 times - 4 actually.

The point about the racism in those shows is that they perpetuate the notion of colour prejudism and reinforce some idea of "difference". Sort of the "don't mention the war" concept. The idea of "not seeing colour" isn't that you're blind, it simply means that if, for instance, you were interviewing someone for a job, all that would matter is their qualifications and the fact that they might be black would bear no significance whatsoever. If you caught that show last night about black officers in the Yorkshire police, you could see my point.

[smokester]

My problem with all of these "-ism"s is (like everything) that they aren't homogenous. There are different "required approaches" for each of the flavours of -ism.

For racism (but there are exact equivalents for every "-ism"), there are some folk - even in the "disadvantaged" "minority") that actually just want colour blindness, but there are also some that require affirmative action to (e.g.) "make up for history". There are those that want everyone to live together, and those that want each culture to be preserved discretely. Black people must be able to play white roles, but white people are never allowed to play black roles. People of colour (there are even sections that demand different words be used, and these different groups never agree, so one group or other can always be offended, whichever language is used) are allowed - nay required - to be allowed access to all cultures, but white people aren't allowed to "culturally appropriate", or "blackfish", or whatever the in-vogue issue is. It gets worse when there is in-fighting - any black person that succeeds is an Oreo: this appears to be unavoidable, as most "-isms" are simply an excuse for some people be offended, and anything that removes that offence has to be outlawed to preserve the indignity.

I don't, and can't, pretend to understand the whole transgender thing. At the heart is the dichotomy: "there should be no restriction on gender, but I want to be this particular one". "Women" don't exist, as they are "persons with vulvas", but the boy that wants to be a girl doesn't want to be a "person with a vulva". he wants to be a girl.

People that want to be neither  - or both? - are beyond my comprehension.

This really does seem to me to be like me wanting to be an olympic swimmer, or a premiership footballer, or a mermaid: unfortunately that wasn't what I was made to be, so I have to suck it up and make the best of what I am.

I think there is a huge difference between "being free to do what one wants" and "being what one wants". One is what one is, and even though this may be unfortunately not what one would have wanted, one is (or at least should be) free to act as one wants.

Incidentally I find it odd that we (or they, or someone including Stonewall) seems to want to pile transgender people into the same pot as cross-dressers, and put them both in the homosexual pile. I can't see the correspondence - or even the overlap, to be honest.

Let's face it: in comparison to many EU countries we have much to be proud of in addressing racism. Perhaps that means by fading out shows like Love Thy Neighbour and Till death Do Us Part, we've made more progress than we may have if we'd kept them running? However, I do think it's a weighted argument to say "vive la difference" on the one hand, and you must not mention colour (or the war) on the other.

I am very slowly becoming (at least partially) policically correct in regards to transgender so I shan't comment until I'm better versed. All I can say is that I maintain that one's choices should ultimately be internalised rather than externalised. If you start demanding that people say this or that, they are far more likely to tell you to golly off, regardless of the topic. If no one is intending to insult, then they should feel safe in getting the rules wrong occasionally.

[8ullfrog]

They want to get rid of Dave Chappelle now.

I don't agree with that.

Dave actually illustrated how he can be funny AND offensive last time he was on SNL with the monologue. I watched my mom laughing her head off until he switched to jokes about women, it was like a switch flipped. And then he grinned and explained what he did.

There are always going to be jokes people "don't like". That means they're not the audience for that joke.

[goldshirt*9]

I don't, and can't, pretend to understand the whole transgender thing. At the heart is the dichotomy: "there should be no restriction on gender, but I want to be this particular one". "Women" don't exist, as they are "persons with vulvas", but the boy that wants to be a girl doesn't want to be a "person with a vulva". he wants to be a girl.

People that want to be neither  - or both? - are beyond my comprehension.

This really does seem to me to be like me wanting to be an olympic swimmer, or a premiership footballer, or a mermaid: unfortunately that wasn't what I was made to be, so I have to suck it up and make the best of what I am.

I think there is a huge difference between "being free to do what one wants" and "being what one wants". One is what one is, and even though this may be unfortunately not what one would have wanted, one is (or at least should be) free to act as one wants.

Incidentally I find it odd that we (or they, or someone including Stonewall) seems to want to pile transgender people into the same pot as cross-dressers, and put them both in the homosexual pile. I can't see the correspondence - or even the overlap, to be honest.

Jordan Peterson springs to mind  criticising
"Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16), passed by the Parliament of Canada to introduce "gender identity and expression" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Comedians with "cancel culture killing comedy" now thats a long debate. Plenty of vids on this one.

[smokester]

Boy. Something must have tweaked my tail feathers yesterday.

It's theraputic to vent occasionally. And does wonders for cobwebs.

[smokester]

So does 40 days and 40 nights of rain, but posting on a forum is slightly less dramatic than floods and plagues of frogs and stuff, I guess.

Tell that to Trump.