How to fend of the PC brigots

February 15, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

If you’re one of the people who thinks things have gone mad with regards to political correctness, then here is a guide for how to counter the PC brigade, or what I call ‘PC brigots’ (a combination of brigade and bigot).

Race

If you ask someone for a ‘Black tea’ and they say that is racist against Black people, you can say, “Are you saying that Black people are all wet and contained? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Disability

If someone says to you that saying “brainstorm” is offensive to those with epilepsy (it is not to me) then say, “Are you saying all people with epilepsy are psychologically disturbed? That is disgusting”

If you say, “That is completely insane!” If someone says, “that is discrimination against mentally ill people” then you say back, “are you saying that people with mental health conditions are all insane? You are so disgraceful”

Sex/gender

One should always try to make one’s language gender neutral, especially as this makes it easier to trip up the PC brigade. For example, if one were to say, “I think all prostitutes should be sterilised so they can’t have children”, then the chances are a PC brigot will say that is discrimination against women. You can then say, “Are you saying all prostitutes are women? You are so sexist”

Summary

In conclusion, to fight off the PC brigots one must turn around what one is being accused of being a bigot on to the PC brigot. So as soon as they say you are bigoted for saying a word that could describe a minority if used in bad faith, you must make them realise it is them acting in bad faith by assuming that word is generalisable to that group they claim to be protecting the interests of.

 

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie

Letter to the Sun

February 13, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

NOT all internet trolling is harmful. Websites that make friendly fun of politicians are also trolling. How boring a world where jokes are mistaken for attacks.

Letters and other Op-Eds

The Autism Continuum

February 13, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

A new way of differentiating people who are autistic from those who are not?

 

Leonardo's Tribute Gallery

Disappointing vision

February 13, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

With Simon Thomas dropping out of the Plaid leadership contest to support Elin Jones (Western Mail, February 6), the campaign should have become less of a one-horse race that Leanne Wood was guaranteed to win, but reading Elin’s “vision” on her website disappoints me.

Elin talks Wales down from the start, feeling she has to justify we are a nation.

She says our legal system is not a separate jurisdiction, that we can only legislate in a small number of areas, and that we have no tax-raising powers so are therefore a “quandary” with no “power and status”.

As a Master of Laws, I’d argue all of these are wrong. Since last May, Welsh laws have to receive Royal Assent from the Queen, which means that it is only a matter of time before a conflict between ‘Welsh law’ and ‘English and Welsh’ exists before the Supreme Court will have to determine whether Welsh law is to be treated on par with Scottish law.

In terms of tax-raising powers, the Assembly does have those. It can pass any law it wants on local government providing it doesn”t take away their law enforcement and civic responsibilities. This means it could decide to set council tax on a Wales-wide basis and order the local authorities to pay the tax they collect through the precept directly to the Welsh Government.

The Assembly is now a Parliament in all but name. Primary legislative powers are just that, and Elin needs to move with the times.

Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

Media studies more valid than Oxbridge degrees

February 10, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

I WAS disgusted to read how students taking A-levels in media studies are being blacklisted by some educational institutions (‘Students counting on maths to get good job’, Echo, January 31).

I have an A-grade GCSE in the subject and a joint-honours degree with a 2:1. I have gone on to be “one of Britain’s foremost exporters of online community and e-learning research to the USA and mainland Europe” according to Incisive Media, and have become a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts for my Emotivate Project of increasing social change through multimedia education (www.emotivate.org.uk). Media studies certainly hasn’t done me any harm.

An Oxbridge academic called my degree a “Mickey Mouse” degree. I call their degrees “Betty Boop” degrees. Mickey Mouse is as relevant to our economy as when he was in black and white, yet Betty Boop has been replaced by more sophisticated animated adult cartoons.

They say people with media studies degrees can only hope to work in McDonald’s – I’m a director of three limited companies. But what about Oxbridge graduates? Maybe someone on their “classics and oriental studies” degree can hope to work in a topnotch Chinese restaurant in Dursley? Maybe a graduate of their “sexuality” degree could be given a scholarship to do a PhD by doing a photo-ethnography on the Avenue in New York? The truth is, a media studies degree has far more practical use than any Oxbridge degree, with the exception of those with professional relevance like law or engineering, for which their tutorial systems produce better elite professionals than most other universities without this are able to.

Letters and other Op-Eds

Voters would say yes to Welsh independence if given more facts

February 9, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

As a recent covert to supporting independence for Wales I am not surprised that only 10% of those surveyed from Wales would agree to it in light of the polarised debates on the subject (Voters would say “No” to an independent Wales, February 2). Things will change though.

I am not a separatist for wanting Wales to be independently constituted – I am as British as I have always been. I want joint British and Welsh nationality, and the current settlement does not give me that. Nor am I a nationalist for wanting independence – I am as much of a British and European Unionist as I have always been. I want a British Isles Customs Union (BICU), where each of the four British nations is equal rather than Wales being legally constituted as a province of England.

Independence within the EU could actually make our British union stronger not weaker – we just need to drop the archaic United Kingdom constitution. In such a set-up it would be illegal to discriminate against someone because they are Welsh. And Welsh firms would be expected to be treated as favourably as those in England when tendering for work in England and not charged more tax as present (Western Mail, November 16, 2011).

I do not think Wales should have a seat on UN like Plaid – in fact I think the EU should sit as one block. I don’t think Wales would need its own passport office as Labour seem to – We can share all these state entrappings, including the DVLA and other registrars within BICU, as Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg do with Benelux. If they can be independent in the EU while dependent on one another – why can’t we?

Socio-legal, The Official Weblog of Jonathan Bishop

Bishop’s letter to (the) Giboff

February 9, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

My dear parents Christened my Jonathan, which means ‘God has given’ because they knew I was going to be special. They thought of calling my Thomas, after my grandmother’s maiden name, but that means ‘twin’ and they knew I was the one and only.

I heard something about someone came to them in a dream to tell them not to be afraid because conceiving me was fine as there would be some good news for them. They weren’t married at the time, and they didn’t want me to turn into a right bastard, so they made sure they got married before having me.

This guy came on to the maternity ward with his ewe and asked to see me. One of the male nurses said, “Dai, have you been stealing sheep from Celyn Farm again?”

There were these three weirdos who came to see me at East Glamorgan where I was born with gifts. They were wearing these silly party hat crowns. I later found out they were my step-brothers and sisters. They were worried. They told my parents that the Tafia were looking to kill me, because they knew my good news about the benefits of parental choice and the market and competition in education was not something they wanted to hear.

Then years went by, and in my thirties, I realised that I was not a naughty boy, I was a prophesy to warn the authorities that the children of this time, would be equally and individualistic and challenging of their authority. These children would not be willing to accept what their teacher said, when the great Jimbo Wales proclaimed otherwise. Nor would they accept the teacher was any better than them, and would expect to be seen as equals. What became clear was that my life, of a fight for the right to my voice, and respect for my own choices, and my desire to assert my identity due to my interactions with technology became the norm, and all those who saw my as a deviant full of self importance became nobodies of a forget past, where their desire for sameness and commonality and their resentment of anyone with individual achievement were as welcomed as Simon Cowell at a job interview, or the Queen at a Irish Republican Convention.

Creative Writing

Bishop’s letter to the Giboff and Steve

February 7, 2012 jonathanbishop 21 comments

In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:

My religion is called: Mixed – Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.

From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!

They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a <a href=”/1790/unplugged-and-uncut/protocols-and-commandments-of-jonathan-bishop/”>personal code of ethics</a> which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!

I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.

As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.

The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in the legitimacy of the Bible and Christ after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Bible, with what I know about science, with what I know about how Equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give Solomon legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the equality Act 2010:

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

How Labour and the Trade Unions Destroyed the Construction Industry’s Marxist Utopia

February 6, 2012 jonathanbishop 2 comments

Pre-2007 many workers in the construction industry of which I was part were de-facto Marxists – they were self-employed and could decide when they worked and when they didn’t, and how much they were willing to work for and which they wouldn’t.

But then at the request of the trade unions, the Labour Government forced nearly all these workers to become employed by the private firms. In effect, they were working against the Marxist ideal of the workers controlling their own lives without being dictated to by business owners, by forcing them onto employment contracts that meant private business owners had more say over their working terms and conditions than before! Whereas before they could take a holiday whenever they wanted, now they had to do it whenever it was best for the firm. They may have had more employment rights, but this was at the sacrifice of other perks, like having allowable expenses and paying a flat 20% tax. So, a Labour Government in effect, in order to please the unions and get a few more bucks for the tax man, took the dreams of its party’s founders, of an end to domination of people’s lives by big capitalist firms, and replaced it with further domination by capitalist firms by taking away the rights of workers to withdraw their labour on their terms without having to ballot a trade union for the right to do so.

Any Marxist sympathisers who would rather willingly work for someone else’s private firm than set up their own on either a self-employed or sole-shareholder limited company basis therefore, is too much talk and not enough action. How exactly do they expect capitalism and the state to fall if they are each day of their working lives sucking their metaphorical teet?!

Any socialist who willingly works for a private firm that they or their family don’t own are capitalist sell-outs also. If they truly believed in their ideology they would do what I have done:

Take control of the means of production, distribution and exchange by becoming self-employed and the sole shareholder of their own firm, while co-operating with others through mutually owned co-operatives.

It seems to me on most issues, the people who claim to believe that the workers should own the means of production, distribution an exchange, are all too happy  for the status quo of a government, trade union, and big business oligopoly to continue rather than take the risk of going it alone as Marx envisaged.

Bestowal, Boundlessness, Breadth, The Official Weblog of Jonathan Bishop

Policy on Women’s Rights

February 5, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

It is my view that women should not seek to treated the same way as men but should assert their own identity and expect to be treated equally to them by their differences being taken into account.

Consider for a moment this jovial comment:

My wife is so funny – so typical of women. She always gets me to put the toilet seat down. Why doesn’t she put it up for me?!

Would you say this was sexist? If yes then you need to question your ethics. By not accepting that women have different needs to men, then people are being institutionally discriminatory on the grounds of sex. Treating women equally means treating them differently. One would treat women the same if they were made to use the same urinals as men – but they would not have equal access to relive themselves as men unless there were WC cubicles installed.

I set out below my policies in relation to women’s rights.

The Status Quo

These are a number policies that are currently law relating to women that I agree with:

  • All women-short-lists are a proportionate means to acheive a legitimate aim of increasing the number of women in public life.
  • In the case of interviewing people for employment, where there is a tie between a man and a woman, the woman should be treated more favourably, except if the man is disabled and she isn’t.
  • Women who have new born children should be allowed to bring them into the workplace and be able to breast feed them if they wish providing they are never left unsupervised, for their own protection as any.
  • Women with young children should be allowed to ask for flexible working in order that their job supports their family life rather than detract from it.
  • Women should have the right to abortion – It is inhuman and degrading treatment to expect her to carry a foetus she doesn’t want.

New Rights

These are a number of new rights I want women to have:

  • When a woman is the best person for the job, she should be given the right to request that the second best candidate be offered the chance to job share with her if she wants flexible working.
  • Women who are in self-employment should have the same access to maternity pay and other rights as women who are employed.
  • A woman should have a statutory right to have her embryos frozen so that she can have her career without the risk of sacrificing her chance to found a family afterwards.

These are the rights I want women and parents/guardians in general to have:

  • Where a parent has a child with behavioural difficulties they should immediately qualify for a Blue Badge and be able to park in disabled parking spaces.
  • All ‘accessible toilets’ currently for disabled people should be fitted with baby changing facilities and other essential features a mother (or other parent) and child might need.
Auto-Wiki, Boundlessness, Policies and Consultations
« Older Entries