Rant thread

[Farmduck]

I'm looking forward to seeing how the anti-SJW, pro-free speech, anti-Cultural Marxist community on YT handles the crashing and burning of Milo Yiannopoulos. I've only seen a couple of them attempt it thus far. It's one of those dilemmas like the classic SJW dilemma - what if Harambe had grabbed an AR15 and shot a lesbian Muslim couple and their disabled adopted black child? It would take forever to tally up the final victim points in that situation.

 

One of the first problems for the YT community of which I spoke - I can't think of a good name for them, Sargonistas? - is that, despite the general left hatred of Milo, they didn't bring him down. It was, allegedly, Glen Beck and the GOP establishment types who were looking for a way to get at the God Emperor ahead of his performance this week at CPAC. There are still no leftist, "Ding dong, the witch is dead," videos up on YT. In fact the most frequent commenter has been a fellow Breitbarter who may have his eye on Milo's job.

 

My 2 cents worth: Milo is/was an opportunist troll who didn't care who he offended as long as it advanced his career. Most of his more credible talking points were coming from people around him like Christina Hoff Summers but Milo was the one who could pull a crowd, or more accurately, an angry rioting mob, which played straight into the hands of the Trumpist alternative media and their "Sargonista" running dogs.

 

Ever since the Trump coronation I have been waiting for the God Emperor to do something so egregious that even his redneck fanboys would have to question it. I thought it would take 6 months and I never thought it would be Milo who played a role. I know this doesn't hurt Trump directly. What it does is require some bizarre mental gymnastics on the part of his YT hordes to decide what to do with Milo. If he's a pedophile, he must be shunned. If he attended a pedophile event in California and said nothing, then he's an enabler and must be shunned, particularly in light of the Pizzagater component of the Donald's Golden Shower. (oops! I meant Golden Horde, Golden Horde)

 

The preferred current narrative is that Milo is a victim of pedophilia who hasn't been dealing with it well. But hang on! Trumpists hate victims! Well, yes but only liberal victims so Milo is an acceptable victim. But hang on, if there are acceptable victims, who is sorting the piles? and since the Trumpistas hate the Hollywood elites, how can Milo be allowed to get away with continuing to cover up the events he allegedly saw at that party in California?

 

For shut-ins like me, with no personal lives and even fewer ambitions, YT promises an interesting week. (or 2 days, given the average YT attention span. I wish YT didn't have that feature to see your engagement time on your own vids. Visitors to my vids spend, on average, less than 30 seconds.)

Edited February 22, 2017 by Farmduck

[JohnM]

15 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I'll listen to a local 'oldies' station on the way home from work in the morning as it's very handy for traffic news and have avoided many a jam thanks to it.

But I don't really listen to any mainstream stations now, not even 6 Music really. The odd thing perhaps (On iPlayer maybe) but generally its online or various community stations that have shows of stuff I want to listen to. 'All hits all day' sounds like hell to me.

Classic FM? Jazz FM?

[Wolford6]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Classic FM? Jazz FM?

aka Radio Grandad.

And I am a grandad.

I think Radio 2 would be okay for me if it wasn't for the fact that I can't stand Vanessa Feltz, Chris Evans, Simon Mayo, Zoe Ball and that other woman who's got a voice like a chainsaw.

I listen to Radio Leeds except when Liz Green is on.

The absolute pits is the fact that the cd-player in my van doesn't work until the engine gets hot (!!!) and first thing in the morning is when Liz Green and Chris Evans are both on. So I listen to Heart, which is dire.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Farmduck said:

I'm looking forward to seeing how the anti-SJW, pro-free speech, anti-Cultural Marxist community on YT handles the crashing and burning of Milo Yiannopoulos. I've only seen a couple of them attempt it thus far. It's one of those dilemmas like the classic SJW dilemma - what if Harambe had grabbed an AR15 and shot a lesbian Muslim couple and their disabled adopted black child? It would take forever to tally up the final victim points in that situation.

 

One of the first problems for the YT community of which I spoke - I can't think of a good name for them, Sargonistas? - is that, despite the general left hatred of Milo, they didn't bring him down. It was, allegedly, Glen Beck and the GOP establishment types who were looking for a way to get at the God Emperor ahead of his performance this week at CPAC. There are still no leftist, "Ding dong, the witch is dead," videos up on YT. In fact the most frequent commenter has been a fellow Breitbarter who may have his eye on Milo's job.

 

My 2 cents worth: Milo is/was an opportunist troll who didn't care who he offended as long as it advanced his career. Most of his more credible talking points were coming from people around him like Christina Hoff Summers but Milo was the one who could pull a crowd, or more accurately, an angry rioting mob, which played straight into the hands of the Trumpist alternative media and their "Sargonista" running dogs.

 

Ever since the Trump coronation I have been waiting for the God Emperor to do something so egregious that even his redneck fanboys would have to question it. I thought it would take 6 months and I never thought it would be Milo who played a role. I know this doesn't hurt Trump directly. What it does is require some bizarre mental gymnastics on the part of his YT hordes to decide what to do with Milo. If he's a pedophile, he must be shunned. If he attended a pedophile event in California and said nothing, then he's an enabler and must be shunned, particularly in light of the Pizzagater component of the Donald's Golden Shower. (oops! I meant Golden Horde, Golden Horde)

 

The preferred current narrative is that Milo is a victim of pedophilia who hasn't been dealing with it well. But hang on! Trumpists hate victims! Well, yes but only liberal victims so Milo is an acceptable victim. But hang on, if there are acceptable victims, who is sorting the piles? and since the Trumpistas hate the Hollywood elites, how can Milo be allowed to get away with continuing to cover up the events he allegedly saw at that party in California?

 

For shut-ins like me, with no personal lives and even fewer ambitions, YT promises an interesting week. (or 2 days, given the average YT attention span. I wish YT didn't have that feature to see your engagement time on your own vids. Visitors to my vids spend, on average, less than 30 seconds.)

How about, Milo speaks from experience and is not being a victim.  It proves the power of our convictions.  The whining libtards are upset about being refuted?

[Farmduck]

27 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

How about, Milo speaks from experience and is not being a victim.  It proves the power of our convictions.  The whining libtards are upset about being refuted?

My preferred reality is that Milo embellished a story to make it sound better as part of his self-promotion. He just didn't think it through.

Live by the troll, die by the records of your trolling.

His biggest fault was misreading his audience. In France nobody would care about consensual sex especially when there's no "victim." The USA is a different kettle of fish. Apparently his book is already written so he can take it to another publisher and, given his obvious talent for self-promotion, he'll come out well in front.

 

[longboard]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

aka Radio Grandad.

And I am a grandad.

I think Radio 2 would be okay for me if it wasn't for the fact that I can't stand Vanessa Feltz, Chris Evans, Simon Mayo, Zoe Ball and that other woman who's got a voice like a chainsaw.

I listen to Radio Leeds except when Liz Green is on.

The absolute pits is the fact that the cd-player in my van doesn't work until the engine gets hot (!!!) and first thing in the morning is when Liz Green and Chris Evans are both on. So I listen to Heart, which is dire.

Presumably you have heard Gayle Lofthouse on Radio Leeds. I though I was listening to a comedy sketch about a gormless radio presenter when I first heard her. She makes Alan Partridge sound like a towering intellect. Her programme is unintentionally funny for a few minutes but is then just depressing. I wonder which genius producer at Radio Leeds decided to get rid of a broadcaster with the range of Martin Kelner and also give a slot to Gayle Lofthouse... 

[Wolford6]

Gayle came from Heart.

[Wolford6]

Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Gayle. First thing in the morning, the producers must identify all the points of interest in the day's papers then divvy them out for phone-ins on each presenter's programme. By the time poor Gayle comes on, all the topics that might have been interesting at 6am have been grabbed and done to death by the earlier shows. She's left to tread water with riveting things like "have you ever had a hole in your socks?" or "have you ever forgotten someone's birthday?".

[longboard]

47 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Gayle. First thing in the morning, the producers must identify all the points of interest in the day's papers then divvy them out for phone-ins on each presenter's programme. By the time poor Gayle comes on, all the topics that might have been interesting at 6am have been grabbed and done to death by the earlier shows. She's left to tread water with riveting things like "have you ever had a hole in your socks?" or "have you ever forgotten someone's birthday?".

Those examples would count as some of the more interesting topics on her programme.

[Mark S]

Chris Evans would be much better if he wasn't so obsessed ensuring no one is offended. He has become a typical Radio 2 safe pair of hands.

I am in my late 30s and have started to listen to radio 4 on a morning, it's pretty good considering it biased towards the Tories.

[ckn]

15 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Chris Evans would be much better if he wasn't so obsessed ensuring no one is offended. He has become a typical Radio 2 safe pair of hands.

I am in my late 30s and have started to listen to radio 4 on a morning, it's pretty good considering it biased towards the Tories.

Evans' show is quite harmless commuting music with occasionally quite good guests.  It's not commercial radio so no need to get "Joe Bloggs' Double Glazing, our pricing is as transparent as our windows" or "Give us £2 or we'll blame you for the slaughter of innocent children" adverts.

[JohnM]

18 hours ago, Mark S said:

it's pretty good considering it biased towards the Tories.

You wish! There is abundant evidence collected over many many years that this is most definately NOT the case. It might be prejudiced against far left lies, nonsense and rubbish, but then, who in their right minds wouldn't be? 

[Bob8]

22 hours ago, Mark S said:

Chris Evans would be much better if he wasn't so obsessed ensuring no one is offended. He has become a typical Radio 2 safe pair of hands.

I am in my late 30s and have started to listen to radio 4 on a morning, it's pretty good considering it biased towards the Tories.

I started listening to Radio 4 in my twenties.  But I did feel I was listening into a radio station for other people.  I said at work that it was aimed at a more middle aged, middle class audience.  I no longer feel like I am only listening in, but then I am far more middle aged and middle class now.

As for the bias, it is for a rather cozy middle class audience and presents the world with that outlook.  I do not think it is a deliberate bias and I actually believe they try to be as impartial as possible.

[Maximus Decimus]

4 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I started listening to Radio 4 in my twenties.  But I did feel I was listening into a radio station for other people.  I said at work that it was aimed at a more middle aged, middle class audience.  I no longer feel like I am only listening in, but then I am far more middle aged and middle class now.

As for the bias, it is for a rather cozy middle class audience and presents the world with that outlook.  I do not think it is a deliberate bias and I actually believe they try to be as impartial as possible.

I also switched to Radio 4 in my twenties. I've always preferred talking on the radio to music and I liked Moyles on Radio 1 for a few years.

I've since discovered audiobooks and with a mixture of them and podcasts I almost never listen to the radio which I find much more tolerable for my near 2 hours in the car of a day!

 

[graveyard johnny]

on a morning listening to union jack radio on digital - mix of comedy and  british music- yes, like any other station it can tend to repeat a lot of songs but hardly any adverts and no boring chat or self obsessed presenters makes that worth while, 6 music in the aft for Radcliffe or maconie  (they never seem to be on together) - would like to see where the likes of feltz, evens, vine etc would be if the licence payer woke up and said they were not prepared to line the pockets of chums of chums friends well connected mates anymore

[Maximus Decimus]

On 2/22/2017 at 7:08 AM, Farmduck said:

I'm looking forward to seeing how the anti-SJW, pro-free speech, anti-Cultural Marxist community on YT handles the crashing and burning of Milo Yiannopoulos. I've only seen a couple of them attempt it thus far. It's one of those dilemmas like the classic SJW dilemma - what if Harambe had grabbed an AR15 and shot a lesbian Muslim couple and their disabled adopted black child? It would take forever to tally up the final victim points in that situation.

 

One of the first problems for the YT community of which I spoke - I can't think of a good name for them, Sargonistas? - is that, despite the general left hatred of Milo, they didn't bring him down. It was, allegedly, Glen Beck and the GOP establishment types who were looking for a way to get at the God Emperor ahead of his performance this week at CPAC. There are still no leftist, "Ding dong, the witch is dead," videos up on YT. In fact the most frequent commenter has been a fellow Breitbarter who may have his eye on Milo's job.

 

My 2 cents worth: Milo is/was an opportunist troll who didn't care who he offended as long as it advanced his career. Most of his more credible talking points were coming from people around him like Christina Hoff Summers but Milo was the one who could pull a crowd, or more accurately, an angry rioting mob, which played straight into the hands of the Trumpist alternative media and their "Sargonista" running dogs.

 

Ever since the Trump coronation I have been waiting for the God Emperor to do something so egregious that even his redneck fanboys would have to question it. I thought it would take 6 months and I never thought it would be Milo who played a role. I know this doesn't hurt Trump directly. What it does is require some bizarre mental gymnastics on the part of his YT hordes to decide what to do with Milo. If he's a pedophile, he must be shunned. If he attended a pedophile event in California and said nothing, then he's an enabler and must be shunned, particularly in light of the Pizzagater component of the Donald's Golden Shower. (oops! I meant Golden Horde, Golden Horde)

 

The preferred current narrative is that Milo is a victim of pedophilia who hasn't been dealing with it well. But hang on! Trumpists hate victims! Well, yes but only liberal victims so Milo is an acceptable victim. But hang on, if there are acceptable victims, who is sorting the piles? and since the Trumpistas hate the Hollywood elites, how can Milo be allowed to get away with continuing to cover up the events he allegedly saw at that party in California?

 

For shut-ins like me, with no personal lives and even fewer ambitions, YT promises an interesting week. (or 2 days, given the average YT attention span. I wish YT didn't have that feature to see your engagement time on your own vids. Visitors to my vids spend, on average, less than 30 seconds.)

 

As a fellow YT tragic (although I don't post videos) I've been following these events with some interest.

I first became properly interested in YT during the early days of YT atheism and skepticism when it was all about making fun of creationists and debunking homeopaths and the like. The vast majority of people in this were fellow left-leaning people like myself and there was little drama to speak of.

This changed pretty suddenly over the role of women and allegations of rampant sexism within the community. Over the years this has merged into a much bigger online feud between SJW's and anti-SJW's with much wider disagreements over misogyny, Islamophobia, free speech, safe spaces, cultural appropriation etc  

Throughout my life I've always been passionate about judging each case on its merits and this often leaves me a bit in limbo with this. I dislike a great deal about SJWs and think that their approach is often disastrous. Their obsession with identity politics and reluctance to accept different opinions is illiberal and helping to contribute to the rise of Trump and the like. However, I do think that there is merit in some of what they say. However the anti-SJW crowd has often lurched towards the right and does have a significant proportion that are quite bigoted. For instance, whilst probably being initially liberal-leaning they would now watch and quote people like Steven Crowder and Lauren Southern and doubt global warming etc I like your term of Sargonista to describe them as he is a good example of what I'm talking about. I've watched his videos but never followed him, there was just something I didn't like or trust about what he was saying.

I found the past year useful in knowing who to continue watching. The Trump election and to a lesser extent Brexit were clear lines in the sand for me when it came to people who actually look at facts and give their opinions and those who were defined by being anti-SJW and as a result were left in the ludicrous situation of supporting Trump over Clinton. There are relatively few people who I trust to look at evidence objectively while broadly agreeing with their conclusions. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaz and a YTber called Noel Plum are a few I still enjoy listening to. Even though he has many (many) flaws Thunderf00t is somebody who will call out obvious bull even if most of his followers are jumping on an anti-SJW bandwagon.

Milo was an obvious troll who many anti-SJWs had embraced and not just because they wanted to defend his right to have an opinion. Interestingly, I caught a clip from an old Big Questions episode before that he happened to be on and he was much more civil and less of a flamboyant provocateur so to speak. It was an act and it was always likely to end in tears as he was going to say something that went much too far. 

 

 

 

[Farmduck]

6 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I found the past year useful in knowing who to continue watching. The Trump election and to a lesser extent Brexit were clear lines in the sand for me when it came to people who actually look at facts and give their opinions and those who were defined by being anti-SJW and as a result were left in the ludicrous situation of supporting Trump over Clinton. There are relatively few people who I trust to look at evidence objectively while broadly agreeing with their conclusions. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaz and a YTber called Noel Plum are a few I still enjoy listening to. Even though he has many (many) flaws Thunderf00t is somebody who will call out obvious bull even if most of his followers are jumping on an anti-SJW bandwagon.

Milo was an obvious troll who many anti-SJWs had embraced and not just because they wanted to defend his right to have an opinion. Interestingly, I caught a clip from an old Big Questions episode before that he happened to be on and he was much more civil and less of a flamboyant provocateur so to speak. It was an act and it was always likely to end in tears as he was going to say something that went much too far.

I only got into YT bigly after the election because I wanted to see if I was stuck in a bubble, or echo chamber. I started with Dawkins and Hitchens, just to flush out my brain then found Thunderfoot, Sargon, etc. I learnt that I really was in an echo chamber - ABC and SBS TV, SMH, Guardian,I vote Greens, etc - but I wasn't exactly wrong. I'd just become very lazy in my thinking over the last 15 years. As an example, when Global Warming started to be a big thing, I went to the library (I didn't have the webzes) and got a series of 500-page science textbooks and geography texts and worked it out for myself. I hadn't bothered doing that for years, except for Indigenous issues in Australia where I've learnt so much about it that now I'm not on anyone's side.

 

It's a worthwhile pursuit. Rightists like Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Summers and Thomas Sowell are good coherent thinkers but they still haven't won me over. Their analysis of root causes of issues is so much better than anything on TV. The more popular Right, like Rebel Media and Crowder fall into the same trap as many of the popular anti-SJWs, nutpicking. You see a group with an opinion and pick out the nuttiest member or speaker then focus on demolishing them, rather than any fact-based dismantling of the argument. On the "left" (or what Americans call the Left) I don't follow anyone. I follow Colbert and Samantha Bee as comedians and Matt Dillahunty (an atheist) for his ability to construct long-form arguments. I like a young English guy, Cosmic Skeptic and I can't believe he's only 18. He's a big Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss fan, mainly a science-based atheist. I like Magdalen Berns who's a lesbian mainstream feminist who does a few anti-trans vids. I think she lives in Edinburgh. I follow Feminism LOL who is a Canadian who is actually more concerned with legal issues like free speech - a la Jordan Petersen - and the current state of Canadian rape laws. I like Potholer who seems to be an Anglo/OZ scientist who has done some good debunkings of Creationism and Climate Change denial.

YT is like anything - the quality depends on how hard you look. It has definitely made me a better thinker than 4 months of TV would have.

[Griff9of13]

2 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I also switched to Radio 4 in my twenties. I've always preferred talking on the radio to music and I liked Moyles on Radio 1 for a few years.

I've since discovered audiobooks and with a mixture of them and podcasts I almost never listen to the radio which I find much more tolerable for my near 2 hours in the car of a day!

 

Very similar listening habits to myself, though I didn't make the R4 switch until my 40s. Really enjoying the audio books which I've only got into since just before Christmas. They are such a convenient way to consume a good book; time and place being no hindrance to "reading" them. Currently working my way through all the Dickens classics.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Griff9of13 said:

Very similar listening habits to myself, though I didn't make the R4 switch until my 40s. Really enjoying the audio books which I've only got into since just before Christmas. They are such a convenient way to consume a good book; time and place being no hindrance to "reading" them. Currently working my way through all the Dickens classics.

One of the best things I ever did.

I'm currently looking to move jobs closer to home but this is the one aspect I will genuinely miss because I know I won't "read" as much without the drive.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, Farmduck said:

I only got into YT bigly after the election because I wanted to see if I was stuck in a bubble, or echo chamber. I started with Dawkins and Hitchens, just to flush out my brain then found Thunderfoot, Sargon, etc. I learnt that I really was in an echo chamber - ABC and SBS TV, SMH, Guardian,I vote Greens, etc - but I wasn't exactly wrong. I'd just become very lazy in my thinking over the last 15 years. As an example, when Global Warming started to be a big thing, I went to the library (I didn't have the webzes) and got a series of 500-page science textbooks and geography texts and worked it out for myself. I hadn't bothered doing that for years, except for Indigenous issues in Australia where I've learnt so much about it that now I'm not on anyone's side.

 

It's a worthwhile pursuit. Rightists like Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Summers and Thomas Sowell are good coherent thinkers but they still haven't won me over. Their analysis of root causes of issues is so much better than anything on TV. The more popular Right, like Rebel Media and Crowder fall into the same trap as many of the popular anti-SJWs, nutpicking. You see a group with an opinion and pick out the nuttiest member or speaker then focus on demolishing them, rather than any fact-based dismantling of the argument. On the "left" (or what Americans call the Left) I don't follow anyone. I follow Colbert and Samantha Bee as comedians and Matt Dillahunty (an atheist) for his ability to construct long-form arguments. I like a young English guy, Cosmic Skeptic and I can't believe he's only 18. He's a big Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss fan, mainly a science-based atheist. I like Magdalen Berns who's a lesbian mainstream feminist who does a few anti-trans vids. I think she lives in Edinburgh. I follow Feminism LOL who is a Canadian who is actually more concerned with legal issues like free speech - a la Jordan Petersen - and the current state of Canadian rape laws. I like Potholer who seems to be an Anglo/OZ scientist who has done some good debunkings of Creationism and Climate Change denial.

YT is like anything - the quality depends on how hard you look. It has definitely made me a better thinker than 4 months of TV would have.

The echo chamber is a real problem of modern society and something I try to fight against but with little success. I don't for instance unfollow people or stop watching their videos if they give one opinion that I don't agree with. I even kept Steve Shives for ages for this principle but eventually gave up and stopped bothering when he went full SJW and blocked everyone who asked him a question.

I've been watching people on YT for a number of years and find myself losing interest in listening to people who are opinionated but don't necessarily know much about it. Very few people are willing to say 'I might be wrong about this,' or present a balanced view of both sides. Videos tend to be one-sided rants that only present their side of the evidence.

I watched Potholer for years and is one of the few YTers who has managed to keep on doing it completely drama free. I don't mind Hoff Summers and she makes some good points in a non-partisan way, like with the gender pay gap, as you say though I'm not 100% convinced that she is telling the whole story. Shapiro sounds good but again it's a very one-sided view, he came across better on The Rubin Report recently though although I still didn't agree with him. I actually follow Crowder but only for entertainment purposes, he's gone from being anti-Trump to a pro-Trump mouthpiece. I'd probably get criticised from both sides for saying this but people only listen to Lauren Southern because she's a pretty face. I really dislike Jordan Peterson, there is something about him that I distrust. 

I don't really follow too many on the left because of their obsession with identity and inability to take a difference of opinion. There are a number of issues of which there is a correct viewpoint and if you are not 100% in agreement then you are not only wrong but are borderline evil. Abortion and trans issues are two examples that come to mind. 

 

[Bob8]

5 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

.......

I don't really follow too many on the left because of their obsession with identity and inability to take a difference of opinion. There are a number of issues of which there is a correct viewpoint and if you are not 100% in agreement then you are not only wrong but are borderline evil. Abortion and trans issues are two examples that come to mind. 

 

One thing I found in California were the feminists I knew either could not understand why or struggled to accept that I did not consider myself feminist.  The other feminists I knew considered me a hard-line misogynist.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

One thing I found in California were the feminists I knew either could not understand why or struggled to accept that I did not consider myself feminist.  The other feminists I knew considered me a hard-line misogynist.

Almost everybody is a feminist when it comes to the issue of equal rights for women. However, I wouldn't call myself a feminist because it is so much more than this; it is an ideology with a whole host of other things attached to it. Even something as simple as the gender pay gap is used in a completely misleading way even though it does exist on some level.

I still class myself as a liberal but becoming a dad made me think twice on some subjects such as abortion. It's not something I'd ever questioned before and accepted what everybody I knew said even to the point where I thought pro-life people were dinosaurs. However, when I went for a 12 week scan and saw something in the shape of a mini-human kicking its legs around, it certainly made me question what actually happens. Now I'm not saying I'm a pro-lifer or anything but I don't think many 'feminists' would even accept the questioning part. 

[Griff9of13]

52 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

One of the best things I ever did.

I'm currently looking to move jobs closer to home but this is the one aspect I will genuinely miss because I know I won't "read" as much without the drive.

I "read" them on the train alot. My eyesight isn't brilliant for reading (I'm short sighted, but it fluctuates between wearing and not wearing glasses when reading, which is tiering. Bifocals becon) so they are great. Plus you get to gaze out of the window while enjoying the book.

[Griff9of13]

9 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Almost everybody is a feminist when it comes to the issue of equal rights for women. However, I wouldn't call myself a feminist because it is so much more than this; it is an ideology with a whole host of other things attached to it. Even something as simple as the gender pay gap is used in a completely misleading way even though it does exist on some level.

I still class myself as a liberal but becoming a dad made me think twice on some subjects such as abortion. It's not something I'd ever questioned before and accepted what everybody I knew said even to the point where I thought pro-life people were dinosaurs. However, when I went for a 12 week scan and saw something in the shape of a mini-human kicking its legs around, it certainly made me question what actually happens. Now I'm not saying I'm a pro-lifer or anything but I don't think many 'feminists' would even accept the questioning part. 

I question many of the things I hold true. Often. It's only by constant questioning can you have any possibility of being right (right being your own subjective right rather than a definite "right").

Edited February 23, 2017 by Griff9of13

[Johnoco]

I used to listen to Radio 4 years ago and used to love it and never thought of it as for older people or middle class. 

But nowadays I can't bear to listen to it, even for a minute. Anything that I might like is invariably on 4Extra anyway.