PC ban -

[Confused52]

1 hour ago, P J said:

But which advert has been banned which had any effect on your life whatsoever?  Or are you just being offended for being offendeds sake?  That would make you a snowflake whinger, are you a snowflake whinger?  I suspect so.  How has this issue touched your life?  Do you own an ad company specializing in racist, homophobic, sexist, anti Islamic, anti Semitic or otherwise hurtful content and are now scared about revenue?  Or do you perhaps have some favourite adverts which because of their negative content may now be banned and you won’t have a clue which products to buy?  I suspect it’s neither and this is just another excuse you are using to promote your nasty agendas.  Tell me,  have you had any posts banned for homophobic or anti Islamic content recently?

I find your attempts at censorship rather confirms Observer's disquiet at the extension of PC philosophy which this ban, which has yet to affect any ad at all, represents. It is a clear and distressing reduction in our liberties in an area which is beyond what I believe should be the remit of the ASA, namely social engineering. Free speech is being eroded by policies such as this as well as commenters who divert any expression of an opinion by constructing personal attacks on those who express them; in Obs' case usually hoping to start a discussion. He doesn't want you to agree, he wants you to discuss - it is what this place is for.

[P J]

20 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

I find your attempts at censorship rather confirms Observer's disquiet at the extension of PC philosophy which this ban, which has yet to affect any ad at all, represents. It is a clear and distressing reduction in our liberties in an area which is beyond what I believe should be the remit of the ASA, namely social engineering. Free speech is being eroded by policies such as this as well as commenters who divert any expression of an opinion by constructing personal attacks on those who express them; in Obs' case usually hoping to start a discussion. He doesn't want you to agree, he wants you to discuss - it is what this place is for.

What utter crap.  But I’m sure observer is delighted to have you speak for him,  how bloody arrogant can one poster get?  You clearly overestimate my power on this forum,  I am totally unable to censor any post, sadly lol  tell me,  how has this action affected your life?  Let me guess, not one jot.  But who  you will,  mainly out of a crusade to have a go at me and nothing to do with the topic, ,  possibly due to previous ridiculing of you by myself.  Jog on Mr Whippy

[Confused52]

6 minutes ago, P J said:

You clearly overestimate my power on this forum,  I am totally unable to censor any post, sadly lol

Note I said attempts so I did not overestimate your effect as you suggest however you consistently try to stop people having opinions that you don't agree with. That is what PC is about: controlling the language in order to control the ideas that can be considered, you do it all of the time.

[P J]

10 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

Note I said attempts so I did not overestimate your effect as you suggest however you consistently try to stop people having opinions that you don't agree with. That is what PC is about: controlling the language in order to control the ideas that can be considered, you do it all of the time.

No I contest opinions which run contrary to mine, isn’t that what this place is about or are you wanting an echo chamber?  Over the years all who had views contrary to the common poster on here have been bullied and forced off.  I’m not easily bullied and am going nowhere.  Controlling the debate?????  Let’s see who posts all the topics.

[P J]

So Confused, are you for or against hurtful adverts?  Simple question requiring a one word answer, just like a referendum,  for or against?

[Confused52]

40 minutes ago, P J said:

So Confused, are you for or against hurtful adverts?  Simple question requiring a one word answer, just like a referendum,  for or against?

As usual a diversion tactic. I am against PC and over-regulation. You question is constructed to be offensive, I am not convinced that I agree that the examples in the ASA regulatory guidance are actually likely to cause harm. The policy is not about hurt - it is about harm, changing the word to hurt in your question is just part of the diversion tactic. What was your  view of the examples when you read it? You have read it to express such firm views I hope.

[P J]

10 hours ago, Confused52 said:

As usual a diversion tactic. I am against PC and over-regulation. You question is constructed to be offensive, I am not convinced that I agree that the examples in the ASA regulatory guidance are actually likely to cause harm. The policy is not about hurt - it is about harm, changing the word to hurt in your question is just part of the diversion tactic. What was your  view of the examples when you read it? You have read it to express such firm views I hope.

it was your buddy Observer who changed it to hurtful in the opening post of the topic,  well he actually spelled it hurtfull at least twice but there we go.  You did read the opening post before expressing such firm views didn't you?

[Evil Sid]

On 6/21/2019 at 1:44 AM, Observer II said:

A Scottish schoolboy has been dismissed from class, after an argument with his teacher, where he stated a fact - their are only two genders - male and female ! 

Well i am sorry to say that the schoolboy was wrong.

I was always taught, in English language class, that there are three recognised genders, Male, Female and Neuter.

However biology class stated there are two more. Hermaphrodite and asexual, although asexual could be classed as neuter and although they can be applied to humans the meaning of asexual changes although the meaning of hermaphrodite does not as far as i am aware.

Stereotyping or removal thereof can lead to some interesting results if carried to extremes.

aliens would not be able to attack the earth any more for a start (well actually they would not be able to attack the USA as they seem to do on a regular basis)

villains henchmen would disappear overnight to be replaced with hench people who would be unrecognisable as such because they would look just like normal people in stead of menacing hulks  with shaved heads and a mean line in knuckle cracking.

British upper classes would not be portrayed as fox chasing chinless wonders who say "HAW HAW" all the time whilst drinking from hip flasks.

the list would be endless.🤔🤪

[Evil Sid]

double posted for some odd reason.

 

[P J]

10 hours ago, Confused52 said:

As usual a diversion tactic. I am against PC and over-regulation. You question is constructed to be offensive, I am not convinced that I agree that the examples in the ASA regulatory guidance are actually likely to cause harm. The policy is not about hurt - it is about harm, changing the word to hurt in your question is just part of the diversion tactic. What was your  view of the examples when you read it? You have read it to express such firm views I hope.

[Advertisements] must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.

Now who can get themselves in a lather about this?  Are any of the adverts which are mentioned as examles something anyone will miss (yes I did read the ASA ruling).  Nothing in the ASA ruling either affects or offends or bothers me.  Why should it? and why should anyone be bothered at all by it?  Which of the given examples of unsuitable adverts will you miss the most?

Oh! and for the record , hardly a diversion at all, in fact it is barely a meander.

harm

verb [ T ]

 UK  /hɑːm/ US  /hɑːrm/

B2 to hurt someone or damage something:

[P J]

20 minutes ago, Evil Sid said:

double posted for some odd reason.

 

The schoolboy was apparently removed from the lesson for being disruptive.  Seems he had pre-planned it and had it videoed. Still, it gave the swivel eyed loons some red meat to chew on. Oh! and it still has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

[Confused52]

4 hours ago, P J said:

[Advertisements] must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.

Now who can get themselves in a lather about this?  Are any of the adverts which are mentioned as examles something anyone will miss (yes I did read the ASA ruling).  Nothing in the ASA ruling either affects or offends or bothers me.  Why should it? and why should anyone be bothered at all by it?  Which of the given examples of unsuitable adverts will you miss the most?

Oh! and for the record , hardly a diversion at all, in fact it is barely a meander.

harm

verb [ T ]

 UK  /hɑːm/ US  /hɑːrm/

B2 to hurt someone or damage something:

Once again you twist and turn, the question from you was:

 

15 hours ago, P J said:

are you for or against hurtful adverts?

hurtful  

adjective

• Causing distress to someone's feelings.

  ‘his hurtful remarks’

   

   

  So once again you subtly changed the meaning to make it seem that you were correct. You were being deliberately offensive with the question and your attempt at refutation was flawed. Your question was about feelings whilst the policy is about actual harm, although of a social kind.

   

  You have clearly at last read the actual guidance in an attempt to respond to my point. In response to your proper question, no I wouldn't miss any of those things in the guidance but I have heard many discussions on the radio about old adverts claiming they would have fallen foul of this policy. On the Media show a person from the ASA in fact said that they would be a problem. One of them was the Karl Howman Flash advert. It was interesting that the young commentators interpreted the adverts completely differently from our family, we had seen them in passing at the time. Their interpretation was distorted to fit their own point of view. So while I don't think I would miss those paradigms in the guidance nor do I see a justification to ban them. In essence there is not sufficient evidence of harm to justify the reduction in the means of expression available to the producers of adverts. That is why I see this as an unnecessary reduction in free speech. In controlling the breadth of images and words available to express the ideas of ads this is an instance of the philosophy behind PC. Hence it is, in effect, a PC ban.

   

  You will realise, I hope, that I am not agreeing with Obs deliberately or disagreeing with you deliberately - I am just adding my opinion to a discussion. The continuing use of insults detracts from the discussion and very often derails it completely.

   

  The parting question for you to answer is do you agree with freedom of speech, within the law, on this and other social media?

[P J]

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

Once again you twist and turn, the question from you was:

 

hurtful  

adjective

• Causing distress to someone's feelings.

  ‘his hurtful remarks’

   

   

  So once again you subtly changed the meaning to make it seem that you were correct. You were being deliberately offensive with the question and your attempt at refutation was flawed. Your question was about feelings whilst the policy is about actual harm, although of a social kind.

   

  You have clearly at last read the actual guidance in an attempt to respond to my point. In response to your proper question, no I wouldn't miss any of those things in the guidance but I have heard many discussions on the radio about old adverts claiming they would have fallen foul of this policy. On the Media show a person from the ASA in fact said that they would be a problem. One of them was the Karl Howman Flash advert. It was interesting that the young commentators interpreted the adverts completely differently from our family, we had seen them in passing at the time. Their interpretation was distorted to fit their own point of view. So while I don't thing I would miss those paradigms in the guidance nor do I see a justification to ban them. In essence there is not sufficient evidence of harm to justify the reduction in the means of expression available to the producers of adverts. That is why I see this as an unnecessary reduction in free speech. In controlling the breath of images and word available to express the ideas of ads this is an instance of the philosophy behind PC. Hence it is, in effect, a PC ban.

   

  You will realise, I hope, that I am not agreeing with Obs deliberately or disagreeing with you deliberately - I am just adding my opinion to a discussion. The continuing use of insults detracts from the discussion and very often derails it completely.

   

  The parting question for you to answer is do you agree with freedom of speech, within the law, on this and other social media?

Yawn,  now there is an exercise in boring pedantry ad nauseam if ever there was one,  what a dry and crusty read.

as this ruling is not able to travel back in time the point of old adverts falling foul of it is completely irrelevant and frankly stupid.

this is not an attack on free speech , rather a kick in the pants for lazy ad agencies.

as you say it has no effect on your life and I doubt it will alter the quality of life of anyone in a negative way so just more hot air from the usual suspects.

 

[Observer II]

Sid, it's a binary system, and as we know from Brexit, some folk have difficulty with binary choices.     😑