It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This is vomit inducing.
Let's see how many lawsuits await me if I walk into a public restroom, unzip and whip my man-thing out for everyone to behold. That's typically the moment when women immediately feel "assaulted" or "offended" or "shocked" or "intimidated" or ...
Let's see the courts turn gender neutral.
"He touched me in certain places."
"Hey, we're all "he" and "she" and "it" and "he turned she" and "she turned he" and "(s)he doesn't know it yet" and "(s)he's unhappy about being a (s)he" now."
"But I'm a woman. Remember? Week sex and all?"
"Person, you're an "everyone" now."
"But he touched my t--"
"Person, by using the gender offensive word "he" so often, you're insulting this court and you shall be reprimanded for your conduct. You are a gender terrorist. Case closed."
When we start treating our biology as a negative element, simple because of a minority of people unhappy with who they were born as, I'm calling it a day. I'm not sure how long I can maintain my mental sanity and emotional stability in a world that demands I 'respect' deniers of the big bang theory, deniers of the theory of evolution, deniers of climate change and now, sadly, deniers of our gender differences too.
I'm all for gender equality, except when pushed to its limits, in which case it become something that straddles the thin line between obsessive absurdity and straight-up foolishness. But this isn't even a case of gender equality, in which men and women are treated with the same fairness, but one in which men and women are no longer recognised as such. Gender neutrality? Since when are we playing Switzerland when it comes to our sex?
O tempora, o mores! One thing that's very clear to me is that intellectual neutrality, unlike gender neutrality, is something far outside our reach. For I consider myself fairly smart, and the people who, like London's own major, follow this sad line of reasoning anything but.
That is correct.
By now it is well known that religion is one of my pet peeves. It is also perfectly relevant in this discussion. As I've stated before, not a single religion can be found amongst the half dozen of the so-called "world religions" that doesn't treat women as vastly inferior to men. Apologists will no doubt claim otherwise. "We respect all lifeforms" and such are phrases I've heard countless times before, but clearly when women are shunned from the priesthood or rendered household slaves to their husbands and sons, they are granted no equal rights to men.
This is a problem, and not just because of the moral issue of gender equality, but also because keeping women oppressed is the most powerful tool religions have to maintain control over their followers. You see, when women share equal rights to men, they can have equal access to education, high-profile jobs, political mandates and so on. With that comes independence. Independent women can divorce abusive husbands and have something to say about the number of children they'll give birth to, if any at all. Educated women with their own bank accounts are also more likely to contribute to a secular society, holding intellectual freedom in high regard and thus dismissing the dogmatic teachings of any religion as rubbish and, in fact, dangerous.
It follows that in societies where women are treated completely inferior, many of them not only accept this fate as 'normal' but also ignorantly keep the abuse intact by never opposing it. Tasked with the upbringing of their offspring, they pass on their own religious teachings--usually it's the only kind of teachings they know!--and agree with the absolute dominance of their husbands and their husbands' "right" to impregnate them until the womb can take no more. Keep the women leashed, and they will raise enough drones for your religious armies. If all women could stand up and say no, that would be the first step towards a decline in our dangerously high birth rates for example. Countries which, with the exception of the USA, are rapidly growing more and more secular, are typically countries in which gender equality is very much a fact. There must be correlation if not a direct causality.
So what am I getting at?
Since certain minorities, like part of the LBGT crowd, seem very sensitive about this whole gender neutrality thing--which is technically not the same as gender equality but definitely linked to it--and since certain politicians and other influential people de facto agree with them by supporting and giving in to demands like not addressing people as "ladies and gentlemen" anymore, why then are those same politicians and influential people so supportive of and tolerant towards one of the least "gender neutrality" friendly institutions in the whole world: religion? How can they defend the presence of organised religions, some of the most misogynistic structures in existence, in our 21st century society, while at the same time campaigning for gender neutrality, not just in legal matters for example, but even in silly things like age-old phrases such as "ladies and gentlemen"?
If we must insist on walking down this dark path towards such extremes as replacing "ladies and gentlemen" by "everyone", why don't we first deal with a much bigger and more pressing threat? Gender neutrality is a luxury I don't think we can yet afford in a world that hasn't first and foremost torn down the misogynistic Christian, Muslim, Jewish, ... superstructures. How can we not differentiate between men and women when the latter are forced by religious dogma to hide under thick layers of cloth lest other men gaze upon the naked flesh of their faces, arms and legs? Pretending that we're all part of "everyone" while simultaneously syphoning tax money to the preservation of religious buildings like churches and mosques, places where the very antithesis of gender equality can be practised and, indeed, celebrated, is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in my entire life. Let the LBGT crowd first worry about the fact that almost all religions see them as abominations, as aberrations even, as sinners, no better than filthy pigs, who deserve to burn in hell. I'd say that's a bigger concern right now than "ladies and gentlemen".
This entire affair proves how dysfunctional our PC world has become. Under the banner of "political correctness" we demand respect for the most unethical and morally corrupt remnants of the Dark Ages, and at the same time we work from an ultra-progressive bit of hippy logic which verbally ignores the biological fact of men and women so as not upset the very few who keep struggling with their own gender. All of this causes me to disgorge massive avalanches of vomit. And the funny thing is that some people are surprised why kind citizens at some point just stop being kind. Enough is enough and these intellectual assaults have lasted long enough. Screw organised religion and screw the PC world!
Martin: No, but I do have a very nice cat.
Debi: Not the same.
Martin: Well, you don't know my cat, it's very demanding.
Debi: It? You don't know if it's a boy or girl?
Martin: I respect its privacy.
.[/quote]
Yeah, those are all the same.
Sikhism
Oh dear you really don't get it do you mate. Someone who has a penis might not be a bloke. They might be a bird trapped in a bloke's body. So think how they feel when someone announces 'Ladies and gentlemen'?
Was watching Wimbledon yesterday and found it grossly offensive that there is the ladies' singles and the gentleman's singles but where was the tranny singles? Disgusting.
And you note the feminazis seem quite happy to sacrifice equality when it comes to earning millions at top level sport. If they really want equality why isn't there just one tournament at Wimbledon and let all the top women's players sink or swim against the men? Because they'd get smashed off the court by blokes who were ranked 500th in the world.
I had to take to self harming by cutting the Russian letter Ш into my hand before they took me seriously that I was Bond living in an ordinary man's body.
Got the scar on my cheek last week and next week I'm going to have my hair comma implant. I've never been happier as I can finally feel like my true self and I'm not living a lie any more. All my work colleagues have been told they must refer to me as James, Mr Bond or 007 from now on and I have to be allowed to wear a tuxedo in the workplace at all times.
Nail not only hit on the head but also smashed out of the park at the same time. Dear Darth why cant we have you as Prime Minister?
Lets not forget the ludicrous homosexuality/Islam paradox! I'm wondering how the laughable Sadiq Khan manages to reconcile the two contradictory positions of saying we all have to respect Muslims and homosexuals rights? Well its one or the other mate because Islam despises gays. One day a Muslim and a homosexual are going to have some dispute at work and then TfL will finally implode trying to decide whose right to be offended takes precedence.
Meanwhile I'm sure none of you mind your bus being late or the tubes being on strike because as you can see TfL has far more important things to worry about than the trivial minutiae of running a functional transport network.
I don't suppose it takes much to look at the world and notice how appalling the Muslim-dominated countries are in terms of civil rights, or how they're the most troublesome major religion by far in terms of damage and inability to assimilate. The idea that Islam should be granted clemency on the grounds of religious tolerance or that speaking up against it constitutes "Islamophobia" and comparisons to Hitler is laughable when there's rather condemning objective evidence on the matter. That isn't to say all Muslims are bad; far from it, but there's a powerful correlation between them and a great deal of issues in today's world and it needs to be owned up to instead of playing the "No True Scotsman" card and being in denial.
On another point, there's far too noise being made by the "identity politics" crew who are just looking for attention. Most discrepancies would be sorted out if you just put your head down and worked hard for a change instead of making superficial complaints about comparatively minor or even non-existent advantages and disadvantages, most of which, assuming they even exist, could be circumvented through sheer human willpower and hard work. It seems to be a thing that modern society feels entitled to this that and other and they're no longer willing to work to get anything.
We're also placing way too much emphasis on feelings. I mean, I'm still pretty young but it appears to me that society is weakening dramatically by rendering a lot of places "off-limits" when it comes to social conduct. We're curbing people's capacity to speak their actual thoughts, and ultimately damaging people's freedoms. It's appalling how much of politics is centered around this nonsense when we've got so many more threatening issues on the horizon.
My doctor told me that any employees at my future workplace/s wouldn't have to call me 007 at any point regardless of if I actually got my operations or not, and you can imagine the heated reaction I had to that. If I'm paying for all this surgery, call me what I want to be called, all right?! I then asked him if I could be called 007 if I got two kills and earned the title as Bond had to, then he kindly pointed out that that was murder and had me put on a watch list for every clinic in my area. Now I've got the local police ringing me biweekly, asking about my mental state, stability and what medications I'm taking.
Asshats.
So does the Koran. We all know that in reality this means zilch.
Because I would go to war, first with the Vatican and then with the rest of the bunch.
Then I'd ask Lawrence Krauss to be president of the world. ;-)
Excellent choice, sir!
Margaret Thatcher was a chemist I believe.
I myself am neither as smart as Asimov nor as politics savvy as most of our members here, but I too would decline any offer to go into politics right away. Several things just don't make a lot of sense to me and unfortunately one cannot run a nation from the Schrödinger equation. ;-)
Either way, yes, Lisa Randall is a brilliant and fascinating woman.
This post got me thinking.
All these groups are called 'minorities'. So for there to be a 'minority' it would be logical to infer that there must be a 'majority' would it not?
Which group of people constitute this 'majority' then? Women are classed as a minority, LGBT are a minority, members of different religious groups are a minority, people who are not white are a minority.
Thus we must conclude that the 'majority' must comprise of people who do not fall under any of the minorities listed above so white British (important to make the distinction between white British and white others as white Polish, for example, would be classed as a minority), heterosexual, atheist males.
But if we run the maths (taken from the 2011 census) I'm not sure it adds up:
No religion = 32.8% of the population.
Women = 50% of the population so that means the percentage of the population who are neither religious nor women = 16.4%
Now things get a bit tricky as 2% men are homosexual but they could also be non religious so may have already been counted. Similarly 18.1% of the population is non white but again a proportion of these people will have already been counted under the non religious category.
So what we can conclude for sure is that the absolute maximum possible 'majority' that white, heterosexual, atheist, British males (that is people who cannot be classed as belonging to any of the recognised 'minorities') can command is a paltry 16.4% of the population and this figure is likely to be somewhat less when the numbers of non religious homosexuals and non religious non whites are factored in.
Now how can a figure of just over 16% be classed as a majority? It would seem if the minorities all club together they would be the majority by a landslide, but then I guess that perhaps this is what PC (a good idea in principle) has now actually morphed into - a coalition against the oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti Semitic, non inclusive, non diverse, hideously white 16.4%?
Given that 16.4% is not actually a majority at all (if Brexit has taught us nothing else its that a majority is anything over 50%) but a minority, when are we going to start having campaign groups for white British, heterosexual, atheist males? Surely we can only have true equality and inclusivity when all minorities and their issues are catered for?
But I do feel in a minority, especially concerning the atheist part. That sounds a lot like it's time to have my own political party. ;-)
We're definitely a minority, @DarthDimi, and we don't have the old, "I'm practicing my religious freedoms and you have no right to tell me what to believe" excuse to fall back on. I'm sick of being told I have no sense of optimism, or that I see no value or meaning in life just because I don't worship old age sci-fi. I'm TRIGGERED.
This could just be my self-loathing coming out, however, which I'm told is apparently a symptom of being a privileged cismale white oppressor.
We are just now understanding genetic coding and how hormones and chromosomes work (together) and/or don't. Our ideas (or previous conclusions) about human nature are getting blown to shreds by science.
I'm not a Who fan and given other people who are seem fine with it I wish Whitaker nothing but the best in the role. It's not the fact that there's anything wrong with the decision to cast a woman it's the reasoning behind said decision that needs questioning. If it's for creative decisions in terms of where they wanted to go with the character or to help the story fine but do any of us really believe this was the driving force?
For example read the opening blurb of this article from the lefty press:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/16/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-as-the-first-female-time-lord-will-make-this-show-buzz-again
'An outrage if a man had been cast'? Really? Is that where we're at now?
An actual outrage would have been if they'd cast Rolf Harris (although he's served his time so if he had committed any other crime apart from noncing the left would be fighting for his right to get on with his life), Abu Hamza or even dear old Fritzl himself. But stating in a national newspaper that casting someone representative of half the population merely for the crime of having a penis would have been 'an outrage' is terrifying.
Even if said man had been gay would it have still been an outrage?
What about a man in a wheelchair? Would the writer of this drivel have still gone on a rant about how outraged they are?
And obviously a chap belonging to an ethnic minority would also have been a total outrage to all right minded people everywhere.
As it is I'm surprised Jodie is getting such an easy ride. If casting a man was not on due to the public 'outrage' it would've caused then it's very depressing that the woman they went with happened to be white.
I'm pretty outraged they couldn't find a black lesbian with no arms frankly.
12 is ok. It only becomes an outrage when you cast the 13th.
So thankfully we have another 6 Bonds before we need to worry about this rubbish and at the rate they make the films these days I will be long dead by then which is fine by me.
Out of interest I just googled this to see how many Batmen we have to go:
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-all-the-actors-who-played-Batman-in-order
Only three more before outrage sets in and we get Batwoman.
But of far more interest in that article is that MGW's old man was the first ever Batman!! Now there's something I never knew although I dare say I'm showing my ignorance here as there are quite a few hard core bat fans on here who will be laughing at how far behind the curve I am.
Perhaps I'm missing something. But doesn't Dr Who and the time lords just regenerate? If so they would have no need for sexual organs as they wouldn't reproduce? Not accounting for how they were 'born' in the first place of course. If I am right Dr who wouldn't be either a man or woman but some form of genderless being?
For those who weren't there at the time I wish Dr Who could transport you back to the the 1960s and '70s and those halcyon pre PC days when anything went and no one was ever 'offended'.
I'm curious to see if RDJ will step down soon and make way for a teenage black girl (or whoever Iron Man is supposed to be now. Could've swore I read something about him being a teenager in the comics now).
@stag, no clue, I don't watch the show. I wanted to discuss all of this, too, without taking over the thread and derailing it, so I'm glad it got moved to here.