Congratulations Stu Peters

[Zarley]

27 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Personally I think his performance in the HoK should overshadow all the faux outrage generated from pretty much nothing but clearly some folks lack a sense of proportion...

 

21 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I refer you to his own manifesto;

"We need to wake up, and woke down! We must be able to discuss and debate difficult topics freely, reasonably and compassionately, without the constant fear of a creeping political correctness or the ‘woke army’ trying to shut us up. We are getting too close to Orwell’s dystopian future where expressing an opinion can have you arrested."

Make of that what you will. 

Sounds to me like SP engages in a fair amount of faux outrage himself, and is lacking a sense of proportion.

[P.K.]

9 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I refer you to his own manifesto;

"We need to wake up, and woke down! We must be able to discuss and debate difficult topics freely, reasonably and compassionately, without the constant fear of a creeping political correctness or the ‘woke army’ trying to shut us up. We are getting too close to Orwell’s dystopian future where expressing an opinion can have you arrested."

Make of that what you will. 

I like it.

An extract from a recent interview with famous author Hilary Mantel:

Mantel was also asked about the controversy surrounding Rowling’s beliefs on transgender rights which have divided the literary world.

The Harry Potter author wrote a personal essay last year which included examples of where she believes demands by transgender activists were dangerous to women, which were described by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic.

Later Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood and others wrote an open letter warning that the spread of “censoriousness” was leading to “an intolerance of opposing views” and “a vogue for public shaming and ostracism”.

Mantel said the online attacks on Rowling after her essay were “unjustified and shameful”.

She added: “It is barbaric that a tiny minority should take command of public discourse and terrify those who disagree with them.”

Amen to that....

[Barlow]

43 minutes ago, Declan said:

I read it women entering toxic male workplaces bring civilizing touches and improve the environment.

As you pointed out, it can be seen as an 'art'.

I saw it and thought "that's a bit crap" and thought nothing more. But with all the reaction it is suddenly quite good in that it has caused a good deal of topical debate.

So, one of Phil Woodford's better cartoons it is then

[Declan]

4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Can't be having windmills... they don't don't have V12 engines! 

That'll be why he's tilting at them. 

[P.K.]

6 minutes ago, Declan said:

That'll be why he's tilting at them. 

Bit insulting. Making out someone has dementia.

[Stu Peters]

51 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I agree with you that the cartoonist was almost certainly not thinking of SP at all when he put together that "cartoon" (Is a cartoon a cartoon if its some sketches over a photograph??).  What the cartoonist almost certainly had in his mind was the idea that the newly elected female MHK's would bring some niceties to the HoK.  Perhaps even make it like the Womens Institute.

That is where the sexism comes in.  It is the cartoonist who introduced the idea that the reforms that female MHK's would bring is "tea, biscuits and flowers".

I cannot imagine what SP was thinking as he posted his comment under that cartoon.  I don't think he was overtly sexist but it was certainly ill advised to wade into the comments knowing, as he surely must, that there are people on MF, on Facebook and in the general public who are just waiting for him to slip up.  Why give them stones to throw within a few days of being elected?

If SP wanted to make an "anti-woke" stance he would have been better doing so on something that was not so blatantly sexist although not really offensive. 

I would also have thought he may have wanted to consider what impact his comments on that cartoon will have on his ability to build positive working relationships with his new female colleagues.  

 

I'm entitled to a point of view - simple as that.

I couldn't believe a cartoon was being used as an example of what's wrong in the world - to me it was just a whimsical cartoon (and not a particularly good or funny one). That's all I was thinking when I posted, and to suggest I shouldn't continue to exercise my right to express an honest opinion is contrary to everything I believe in. Nor do I attempt to court controversy (although Richard Butt billed me as 'Mr Controversial' when I wrote a column for him for 2 years). Anything I say or do is honest and not just DJ Gammon shtik. It may not sit well with some people, but as I said to a number of voters whilst canvassing "this will probably lose me your vote, but..."

You know who voted for me? The vast majority were people who appreciate that someone is prepared to say simple things that they daren't for fear of inciting a FB mob. That's not to say I go out of my way to be contrary, but I AM of a generation when good manners, respect, fun and laughter made our lives infinitely more tolerable than the current generation who seem to suck the life out of everything in a constant quest to be offended. Thing is, I haven't decided to roll over for an easy life or 'educate myself' into a completely alien set of values. Just like I'm not looking to cause offence, I'm not prepared to compromise my comments in case people take it.

[Declan]

11 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Bit insulting. Making out someone has dementia.

Oh you're so easily offended. 

I am saying he's fighting imaginary demons i.e. the woke agenda

[manxman1980]

24 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I like it.

Which is entirely your choice.  It doesn't appeal to me as I think "woke" is simply the new word "politically correct".  Politically correct fell out of use when people realised that this was a term used by the Daily Mail when discussing topics that they disagreed with because it threatens their view of the world.

You are very brave bring up transgender issues on this thread.  I would say that this is an area where further debate is needed and I am not an expert on the topic.  I think Rowling et al though portrayed every transgender person as a threat to women when this is not the case.  They are the opposite side of the ones shouting them down.  They are both at extremes.

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I read it women entering toxic male workplaces bring civilizing touches and improve the environment.

Maybe yes, however the word "toxic" and "male" seem to be lumped together without even thinking what the meaning is. Until we are all assexual there will always be maleness amongst males and femaleness amongst women. 

It never seems to be mentioned that males could be working in a toxic female environment, believe me these exist in much the same way, in fact females can be much more vicious and toxic than many males when they are in a position of power.  

[manxman1980]

31 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I'm entitled to a point of view - simple as that.

I couldn't believe a cartoon was being used as an example of what's wrong in the world - to me it was just a whimsical cartoon (and not a particularly good or funny one). That's all I was thinking when I posted, and to suggest I shouldn't continue to exercise my right to express an honest opinion is contrary to everything I believe in. Nor do I attempt to court controversy (although Richard Butt billed me as 'Mr Controversial' when I wrote a column for him for 2 years). Anything I say or do is honest and not just DJ Gammon shtik. It may not sit well with some people, but as I said to a number of voters whilst canvassing "this will probably lose me your vote, but..."

You know who voted for me? The vast majority were people who appreciate that someone is prepared to say simple things that they daren't for fear of inciting a FB mob. That's not to say I go out of my way to be contrary, but I AM of a generation when good manners, respect, fun and laughter made our lives infinitely more tolerable than the current generation who seem to suck the life out of everything in a constant quest to be offended. Thing is, I haven't decided to roll over for an easy life or 'educate myself' into a completely alien set of values. Just like I'm not looking to cause offence, I'm not prepared to compromise my comments in case people take it.

Did I say you weren't entitled to your point of view?  

I was deliberately trying to avoid putting words into your mouth and simply stating that you could easily have skipped over the cartoon especially given that it is "not a particularly good or funny one".  It was a stance that you did not need to take and I believe you would have known that your comments were likely to be picked up.

I would remind you that your generation had a large hand in creating the world in which we currently live.  So don't blame the younger generations for the state of the world today.  The younger generations are simply trying to forge their own world and part of that will mean rebelling against the older generations.

I am not going to tell you to go "educate yourself".  I am merely suggesting that as you are now a leading member of the Manx community that you may wish to consider where and when to make your stand.  You could easily have rolled your eyes at that cartoon and the comments below like a great many other people did and then you would not have been sucked into this circular debate. 

[Ramseyboi]

26 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

You know who voted for me? The vast majority were people who appreciate that someone is prepared to say simple things that they daren't for fear of inciting a FB mob.

Question.

Do you think you would have been elected if it were not for the radio “personality” and relatively high profile?

I don’t, and that is my issue with the way the electorate are so short sighted when it comes to casting a vote.  Most just vote for someone they know rather than the best candidate.

[HeliX]

24 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Maybe yes, however the word "toxic" and "male" seem to be lumped together without even thinking what the meaning is. Until we are all assexual there will always be maleness amongst males and femaleness amongst women. 

It never seems to be mentioned that males could be working in a toxic female environment, believe me these exist in much the same way, in fact females can be much more vicious and toxic than many males when they are in a position of power.  

"assexual"

🤔

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

I refer you to his own manifesto;

"We need to wake up, and woke down! We must be able to discuss and debate difficult topics freely, reasonably and compassionately, without the constant fear of a creeping political correctness or the ‘woke army’ trying to shut us up. We are getting too close to Orwell’s dystopian future where expressing an opinion can have you arrested."

Make of that what you will. 

Well keir starmar was having a go at one of his own party members who dared to say that only women have a cervix so maybe it's that type of thing stu Peters is talking about. 

 

He also has a point that discussions need to be had without fear of being called a bigot, racist etc just because someone disagrees with what you say.

[Max Power]

6 minutes ago, HeliX said:

"assexual"

🤔

Oops, is that even a word? Asexual I meant!

[HeliX]

4 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Well keir starmar was having a go at one of his own party members who dared to say that only women have a cervix so maybe it's that type of thing stu Peters is talking about. 

 

He also has a point that discussions need to be had without fear of being called a bigot, racist etc just because someone disagrees with what you say.

"In August, Ms Duffield liked a tweet by broadcaster Piers Morgan, who criticised a news story from CNN about cancer screening for "individuals with a cervix", responding: "Do you mean women?"

When the MP was called transphobic for appearing to endorse the tweet, she replied: "I'm a 'transphobe' for knowing that only women have a cervix… ?!".

She later acknowledged that some trans men have a cervix.

Appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, Sir Keir Starmer was asked if it was transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

The Labour leader replied: "Well, it is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right."

Sir Keir added: "We need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights and we need to... bear in mind that the trans community are amongst the most marginalised and abused communities."

 

Seems like a fairly level-headed response to me, is that seriously something we need some sort of anti-woke rally against?