|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 30, 2024 23:37:53 GMT
But you are fixated on the problem being the women you clearly hate for having the balls to sever the chains to the kitchen sink, whereas I know from observation of the real world the problem is fear of being cancelled by the twatterati I don't think you are analysing the problem. I see this a lot. Each thing is thought to have a simple answer to it. Now you are telling me it is the twatterati as well as deflecting the conversation onto my personal psychology, which of course is such a lazy troll trick that I will not bother to entertain it. My motive is simply to understand why things have gone so crazy in the last 50 years. It's getting obvious there is a serious mental problem in this country. It's not one or two departments, but system wide psychological failure. A little stat to consider: I heard 8.7 million Brits are being prescribed antidepressants. Yet you opened this thread by demanding we accept the problem is feminism. I have at several points given you specific responses explaining why this is not the case, that the reason companies, and far more particularly government and public organisations, are making stupid, woke d visions is nothing whatsoever to do with women obtaining power but entirely due to the insane headlong plunge towards diversity and inclusivity as THE reason to give power to someone. Fifty years ago it was the case that a woman HAD to be better at the job than a man because there wasn't a level playing field. Today the first thing you hear is not that someone has got the job because they are GOOD at it but because they're the first woman, first gay, first black You only have to look at the Welsh Assembly. The corrupt piece of shit now at its head was made healthy minister and admitted the job was beyond him but I stead of being rightly kicked off the post as he would have been in private enterprise, he was given a woman to DO the job so he could pontificate and pince around podia, then come the reshuffle he got the business ministers job that he used to sort out the bribe that got him the top job and all the way his first response to criticism he was a corrupt incompetent twat was that his critic was a racist. Today the bank I work for has been forced to appoint a diversity tsar because we won't be allowed to keep our place on various leaders boards that measure how nice a place it is to work by how network zero accomodating, non British religion accomodating and openly gay friendly we are. And that's right across the bloody FTSE 100. It's an insidious mission creep of utter wokery and that is ALL it is. Sorry but you can't dress it up as a thing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 8:15:11 GMT
It's corruption plain and simple
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 1, 2024 8:32:49 GMT
I take it you mean moral corruption rather than pecuniary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 8:40:13 GMT
I take it you mean moral corruption rather than pecuniary. Twins that work together or two sides of the same coin. One significant moral failing was cowardice - a lack of the spine required to tell these people where to get off and to make sure it stuck The intellectual failing was not understanding that allowing a bit of it is allowing all of it and that it is about survival - it's you, your family and their interests against these creeping toads |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 8:42:18 GMT
I don't think you are analysing the problem. I see this a lot. Each thing is thought to have a simple answer to it. Now you are telling me it is the twatterati as well as deflecting the conversation onto my personal psychology, which of course is such a lazy troll trick that I will not bother to entertain it. My motive is simply to understand why things have gone so crazy in the last 50 years. It's getting obvious there is a serious mental problem in this country. It's not one or two departments, but system wide psychological failure. A little stat to consider: I heard 8.7 million Brits are being prescribed antidepressants. Yet you opened this thread by demanding we accept the problem is feminism. I have at several points given you specific responses explaining why this is not the case, that the reason companies, and far more particularly government and public organisations, are making stupid, woke d visions is nothing whatsoever to do with women obtaining power but entirely due to the insane headlong plunge towards diversity and inclusivity as THE reason to give power to someone. Fifty years ago it was the case that a woman HAD to be better at the job than a man because there wasn't a level playing field. Today the first thing you hear is not that someone has got the job because they are GOOD at it but because they're the first woman, first gay, first black You only have to look at the Welsh Assembly. The corrupt piece of shit now at its head was made healthy minister and admitted the job was beyond him but I stead of being rightly kicked off the post as he would have been in private enterprise, he was given a woman to DO the job so he could pontificate and pince around podia, then come the reshuffle he got the business ministers job that he used to sort out the bribe that got him the top job and all the way his first response to criticism he was a corrupt incompetent twat was that his critic was a racist. Today the bank I work for has been forced to appoint a diversity tsar because we won't be allowed to keep our place on various leaders boards that measure how nice a place it is to work by how network zero accomodating, non British religion accomodating and openly gay friendly we are. And that's right across the bloody FTSE 100. It's an insidious mission creep of utter wokery and that is ALL it is. Sorry but you can't dress it up as a thing else. I understand the what pretty well and you mention no surprises in my understanding of the FT100. It's the why which no one mentions. Where is the rationale and why do these supposedly intelligent people do such stupid stuff. Who is forcing them and what do they hope to achieve. I've tried heavy duty interrogation on some of these people and find there is nothing there. They seem to do it without any thought. You want to trace this bug back to the source. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 1, 2024 8:44:52 GMT
I take it you mean moral corruption rather than pecuniary. In some cases both Dan. The organisations ‘supporting’ the ‘visibility’ of diversity and inclusivity are not doing it for charitable reasons although almost all get the tax relief from calling themselves charities. When i established by daughter’s then primary school PTA as a charity in order to obtain Gift Aid on all fundraising i was sent a document that stated categorically an organisation constructed to challenge government policy would be struck off Yet here we have countless ‘charitable’ bodies determined to do just that. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 1, 2024 8:51:58 GMT
There is an important point here, about who gets to be boss of anything, the male female thing is almost irrelevant. From a psychiatric point of view, if you were to assess politicians many exibit serious problems. There is far more to it though. If i apply my personality to my life story, i can see that who i am has dictated everything, that my starting point to now has been about doing my thing in that time slot, in that area of life.
I could go on but this is not the place.
Its random when it comes to politics or owt, that oppurtunity for a political career comes along, or is it? That the people who should be governing are about 0.8 to 3 percent of the population, they are the rarest personality type, that from birth they have been built to possess almost magical properties. I have never met one, but if you did you would not think they amount to anything.
Its only in the tasting so to speak that suddenly things become apparent. To focus on the male female thing, only 0.8 are male, and the male exibits as many female traits as male. If you cross one anything can happen, Hitler and osama bin laden were of this. On the positive side they are streets ahead in all ways, they posses intuition on a mega scale.
So selecting people for important office is a lottery, you cannot measure for type, or for psychiatric illness.
There is the observation that if you dont tell life who you are, life will tell you, these people are introverts and will be in the background, they wont compete unless they have reason too, like Martin Luther king etc.
For instance, Starmer is not a leader, or is Sunak, so there is a role for a more intelligent way of selecting bosses, those that dont speak up may well be the people we need, that those with a gob get the job, and the following disasters show that a gob is the most important trait in getting a job.
Regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 9:11:26 GMT
So selecting people for important office is a lottery, you cannot measure for type, or for psychiatric illness. There is the observation that if you dont tell life who you are, life will tell you, these people are introverts and will be in the background, they wont compete unless they have reason too, like Martin Luther king etc. For instance, Starmer is not a leader, or is Sunak, so there is a role for a more intelligent way of selecting bosses, those that dont speak up may well be the people we need, that those with a gob get the job, and the following disasters show that a gob is the most important trait in getting a job. In a healthy society leader selection extends throughout the whole of the social fabric in the form of status - most of the heavy lifting is done by social mores which heavily discourage tactics like dishonesty, pettiness and 'swinging the lead' We have had our status systems systematically mangled so they select corrupt, incompetent cheaters |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 1, 2024 9:17:45 GMT
Yet you opened this thread by demanding we accept the problem is feminism. I have at several points given you specific responses explaining why this is not the case, that the reason companies, and far more particularly government and public organisations, are making stupid, woke d visions is nothing whatsoever to do with women obtaining power but entirely due to the insane headlong plunge towards diversity and inclusivity as THE reason to give power to someone. Fifty years ago it was the case that a woman HAD to be better at the job than a man because there wasn't a level playing field. Today the first thing you hear is not that someone has got the job because they are GOOD at it but because they're the first woman, first gay, first black You only have to look at the Welsh Assembly. The corrupt piece of shit now at its head was made healthy minister and admitted the job was beyond him but I stead of being rightly kicked off the post as he would have been in private enterprise, he was given a woman to DO the job so he could pontificate and pince around podia, then come the reshuffle he got the business ministers job that he used to sort out the bribe that got him the top job and all the way his first response to criticism he was a corrupt incompetent twat was that his critic was a racist. Today the bank I work for has been forced to appoint a diversity tsar because we won't be allowed to keep our place on various leaders boards that measure how nice a place it is to work by how network zero accomodating, non British religion accomodating and openly gay friendly we are. And that's right across the bloody FTSE 100. It's an insidious mission creep of utter wokery and that is ALL it is. Sorry but you can't dress it up as a thing else. I understand the what pretty well and you mention no surprises in my understanding of the FT100. It's the why which no one mentions. Where is the rationale and why do these supposedly intelligent people do such stupid stuff. Who is forcing them and what do they hope to achieve. I've tried heavy duty interrogation on some of these people and find there is nothing there. They seem to do it without any thought. You want to trace this bug back to the source. You really can’t see past the blinkers can you It stuns me i have to be this blunt but the facts are stark For a thousand years women were the underdogs manynof your posts indicate you wish they still were. As i am also fond of saying, prior to 1832 only one person in twenty had a vote. Only one msn in ten met the financial threshold and no woman had it because men held that women were too stupid to have it It took the deaths of millions in two world wars to bring the reality that women are the equal of men to public recognition. Only after thousands worked in ammunition factories in world war one and the real cases of the real women behind the Rosie The Riveter pin ups and the countless cases of women not giving a stuff about their nails but just getting the bloody tractor started to put this right. My aunt told Cambridge to go fuck itself and did her degree in Bristol because as late as 1948 Cambridge was still denying women who had paid the money, studied the subject, taken the exam AND GOT A FUCKING FIRST the right to attend tbe graduation, collect the degree and thereby work as graduates. Sheila got a first in Pharmacy at Bristol. The suffragette movement fought for women to vote because men thought them too stupid to vote. Throughout my childhood the struggle for feminists to gain equal footing in the workplace was driven by men standing in their way on tbe grounds there were better places for them to be. Like flat on their back kegs apart, chained to the kitchen sink or doing embroidery It absolutely strikes at the heart of such bigots that two women, both ironically ‘Rosie’s’ although both would probably have kicked you in the nuts had you used that form of their name, discovered the keystone to the secret of life and designed the finest instrument of death ever to be given rotary wings. It pleases me beyond measure to have worked with one of them directly and worked with a woman who worked alongside the other. Coming as i do from a science which women are better at than men, i see the glass ceiling rather differently and i know the struggle is real for i have had to struggle to reach and exceed THEIR ability. The cause of feminism is the cause of giving women tbe same life chances men take for granted on the basis that their skills and intellectual powers merit being given them The cause of wokery is one that proclaims a man in a dress is entitled to live out his fantasy of raping a biological woman inside a cell in a women’s prison, and that the job of building a nuclear weapon is best given to an individual certified by a medical professional of suffering the medical condition of not being able to cope in this world in the body god, or if you prefer, Darwin’s theories, dictated they were born with. And it is through the financial power of such deviants that companies are forced on pain of cancellation to suffer the utterly preposterous demands that persons so far deviant from the centre of the distribution curve in all manner of behaviours should be hsnded positions of power NOT because they have any value or any insight of worth to provide, or any competence at the task, but simply because there are no deviants in the job already. I need not point out that Alan Turing got his chance to crack tbe enigma code not because he was a homosexual but because he was fucking brilliant. Admittedly almost so brilliant he was barking mad but nonetheless brilliant. Today i suspect whoever does the equivalent of the job he did does it because they are deviant from societal norms. one i worked with and the other my boss worked with, |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 1, 2024 9:19:04 GMT
Any ideas as to when this corruption first started to manifest itself, and who or what formed the principal corrupting influence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 9:23:15 GMT
There is an important point here, about who gets to be boss of anything, the male female thing is almost irrelevant. From a psychiatric point of view, if you were to assess politicians many exibit serious problems. There is far more to it though. If i apply my personality to my life story, i can see that who i am has dictated everything, that my starting point to now has been about doing my thing in that time slot, in that area of life. I could go on but this is not the place. Its random when it comes to politics or owt, that oppurtunity for a political career comes along, or is it? That the people who should be governing are about 0.8 to 3 percent of the population, they are the rarest personality type, that from birth they have been built to possess almost magical properties. I have never met one, but if you did you would not think they amount to anything. Its only in the tasting so to speak that suddenly things become apparent. To focus on the male female thing, only 0.8 are male, and the male exibits as many female traits as male. If you cross one anything can happen, Hitler and osama bin laden were of this. On the positive side they are streets ahead in all ways, they posses intuition on a mega scale. So selecting people for important office is a lottery, you cannot measure for type, or for psychiatric illness. There is the observation that if you dont tell life who you are, life will tell you, these people are introverts and will be in the background, they wont compete unless they have reason too, like Martin Luther king etc. For instance, Starmer is not a leader, or is Sunak, so there is a role for a more intelligent way of selecting bosses, those that dont speak up may well be the people we need, that those with a gob get the job, and the following disasters show that a gob is the most important trait in getting a job. Regardless. Men have always been the leaders from the beginning of time. The woman's job is childcare and foraging, hence why they love shopping so much as it is a modern form of foraging. Men's brains are different to women's brains as well. The two sexes have specialised functions in evolution in order to maximise survival chances. In the modern age, in order to maximise wellbeing we must take these differences into account and employ them in role suitable for their evolved psychologies.
Evolution changes very slowly, but what has happened is these idiots think you can change someone by brainwashing them, but brainwashing is like mental destruction. This is most likely why 8.7 million are on antidepressants, which of course then have their own knock-on effects and you upset the whole delicate balance of nature which for all you know might be a house of cards only needing one card removed to cause eventual extinction of the species. Mass madness is a real possibility today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 9:26:35 GMT
The argument about females and their abilities is a bit of red herring.
What feminism did was destroy a functioning equilibrium between the sexes. What we have now is a full cave in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 9:35:31 GMT
The argument about females and their abilities is a bit of red herring. What feminism did was destroy a functioning equilibrium between the sexes. What we have now is a full cave in. I don't think it is, but what I do feel is people are uncomfortable considering other fields of study like psychology and anthropology. They would rather ague what they are well practised in. I think a cross-disciplinary approach can show new understanding, since why go over old ground repeatedly. Say something you have not said before. The clues can come from anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 10:07:05 GMT
The argument about females and their abilities is a bit of red herring. What feminism did was destroy a functioning equilibrium between the sexes. What we have now is a full cave in. I don't think it is, but what I do feel is people are uncomfortable considering other fields of study like psychology and anthropology. They would rather ague what they are well practised in. I think a cross-disciplinary approach can show new understanding, since why go over old ground repeatedly. Say something you have not said before. The clues can come from anywhere. The biological facts about men and women suggest a functional split between security and nurturing. If you look at the physiology of men and women it is clear this split has been going on a very long time and the sexes themselves have evolved into that spontaneous symmetry. People who deny this are flat out idiots. The next bit is a bit more subtle - there is no such thing as a nurturing status system or a nurturing security arrangement. Women intuitively respond to status systems (it's part of their biological role), but those systems are constructed by men. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 10:52:15 GMT
I don't think it is, but what I do feel is people are uncomfortable considering other fields of study like psychology and anthropology. They would rather ague what they are well practised in. I think a cross-disciplinary approach can show new understanding, since why go over old ground repeatedly. Say something you have not said before. The clues can come from anywhere. The biological facts about men and women suggest a functional split between security and nurturing. If you look at the physiology of men and women it is clear this split has been going on a very long time and the sexes themselves have evolved into that spontaneous symmetry. People who deny this are flat out idiots. The next bit is a bit more subtle - there is no such thing as a nurturing status system or a nurturing security arrangement. Women intuitively respond to status systems (it's part of their biological role), but those systems are constructed by men. The first bit I totally agree with, but what you are saying in the second I think, is men manipulate women by creating a status system that uses their natural trait of being attracted to men of status, but doing it in an artificial way. For example a man might be minded to become head of the football team to impress women, but in reality kicking a ball around is not going to help the woman at all, hence the status is somewhat illusionary. Is this what you are saying here? |
|
