Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable." Is that your opinion on the subject  
Sadly I think that's the way things are going to be fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable." I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. Is that your opinion on the subject
Sadly I think that's the way things are going to be fair. "I daren't say what my opinion is.  
I hate they way people dig up allsorts from the past or maybe (deliberately?) take things out of context. Ahh I do it too, fuck I hate myself!!
I don't know what he said but unless he was inciting murder I think he should be assessed on his skills for the job, not what comments he made. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? " Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was watching the news last last night about Phil Neville and his ability to manage the England ladies football team following the discovery of some derogatory tweets posted years and years ago and it got me thinking (yes, it did hurt!). This seems to be a recurring theme at the moment, people being put into high flying positions only to resign weeks later due to something they have posted online in the past. As far as I know Phil hasn't yet resigned or been sacked at the time of writing this. Is this fair? Can we not accept that who were are now is not who we were then? When social media first started people were a lot less aware of the reach their comments would have. If you were promoted to a position in the public eye is there anything that could be unearthed to undermine your position? Is being on here enough to make your position untenable? " In many cases a public apology and explanation would be enough. Certainly in Nevilles case. Theres probably quite a few delicate scenarios where theres no coming back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area." If the British Priminister had said a fraction of some of the things Trump has come out with then I'm pretty sure they'd of been forced to resign a long time ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area." Interesting. Genuine question: What about the "grab them by the pussy" video? It was anold video that was dug up. But I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad it was brought to light. And I judge him on it. Do you think that was wrong to unearth because it was from over 10 years ago? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area. If the British Priminister had said a fraction of some of the things Trump has come out with then I'm pretty sure they'd of been forced to resign a long time ago."  They wanted to sack her just for coughing during a speech! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area. Interesting. Genuine question: What about the "grab them by the pussy" video? It was anold video that was dug up. But I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad it was brought to light. And I judge him on it. Do you think that was wrong to unearth because it was from over 10 years ago?" Yeah sorry good point. That would come under my earlier 'inciting murder' comment- I know not literally the same thing but in my eyes equally offensive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area. Interesting. Genuine question: What about the "grab them by the pussy" video? It was anold video that was dug up. But I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad it was brought to light. And I judge him on it. Do you think that was wrong to unearth because it was from over 10 years ago? Yeah sorry good point. That would come under my earlier 'inciting murder' comment- I know not literally the same thing but in my eyes equally offensive. " Yes, see this is the point I was trying to make. To keep such decisions about what can and can't be brought up from being arbitrary and capricious we have to accept that stuff from the past will arise. And I also don't see a problem with that. I judge people for things they did in the past, and I judge people for over-reacting to those things. But I think more information is better information. I think we need to get through a period of teething - where people learn to be careful about what they say and do online, while society learns to accept that everyone has said something that wasn't acceptable and that we aren't all perfect. We can address the past without (necessarily) persecuting people based purely on that past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should stop having or expressing opinions, and stop having thoughts of anything other than pre-approved as acceptable. I assume you are being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know anything about the example used in the OP, but I often think that people should be able to say what they like. However, if what they say is considered not pre-approved or not acceptable, that's fine, but does that mean people shouldn't then be able to object to it? Its a weird Catch22, isn't it? I like people expressing their opinions, but then I do think those opinions should have an impact on how they are viewed as a person, both professionally and personally. I could use Donald Trump as an example here. He is a bit incendiary. Many of his statements are not "acceptable" - so what do we do about it? Do the things he says not have an impact on how you view him or how you speak about him (either good or bad)? Should they not? Yes I was being sarcastic. Good point, I think it is a catch 22. Yes I think their current opinions should affect them now but not previous comments. I don't know what line I'd draw on how long ago though. I think that Trump has a position now where he shouldn't be saying certain things as it will incite goodness knows what. But on the other hand, him saying things incites debate too which I think can be good. Grey area. Interesting. Genuine question: What about the "grab them by the pussy" video? It was anold video that was dug up. But I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad it was brought to light. And I judge him on it. Do you think that was wrong to unearth because it was from over 10 years ago? Yeah sorry good point. That would come under my earlier 'inciting murder' comment- I know not literally the same thing but in my eyes equally offensive. Yes, see this is the point I was trying to make. To keep such decisions about what can and can't be brought up from being arbitrary and capricious we have to accept that stuff from the past will arise. And I also don't see a problem with that. I judge people for things they did in the past, and I judge people for over-reacting to those things. But I think more information is better information. I think we need to get through a period of teething - where people learn to be careful about what they say and do online, while society learns to accept that everyone has said something that wasn't acceptable and that we aren't all perfect. We can address the past without (necessarily) persecuting people based purely on that past." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was watching the news last last night about Phil Neville and his ability to manage the England ladies football team following the discovery of some derogatory tweets posted years and years ago and it got me thinking (yes, it did hurt!). This seems to be a recurring theme at the moment, people being put into high flying positions only to resign weeks later due to something they have posted online in the past. As far as I know Phil hasn't yet resigned or been sacked at the time of writing this. Is this fair? Can we not accept that who were are now is not who we were then? When social media first started people were a lot less aware of the reach their comments would have. If you were promoted to a position in the public eye is there anything that could be unearthed to undermine your position? Is being on here enough to make your position untenable? " It's a fair question. But this isn't about when social media arrived. It's about people in positions of responsibility (where they should have known better) saying or doing things they really shouldn't. It reveals lack of judgement. At the same time, we all change and hopefully for the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was watching the news last last night about Phil Neville and his ability to manage the England ladies football team following the discovery of some derogatory tweets posted years and years ago and it got me thinking (yes, it did hurt!). This seems to be a recurring theme at the moment, people being put into high flying positions only to resign weeks later due to something they have posted online in the past. As far as I know Phil hasn't yet resigned or been sacked at the time of writing this. Is this fair? Can we not accept that who were are now is not who we were then? When social media first started people were a lot less aware of the reach their comments would have. If you were promoted to a position in the public eye is there anything that could be unearthed to undermine your position? Is being on here enough to make your position untenable? It's a fair question. But this isn't about when social media arrived. It's about people in positions of responsibility (where they should have known better) saying or doing things they really shouldn't. It reveals lack of judgement. At the same time, we all change and hopefully for the better." What responsibility did he have when he made the comments? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
