Why ??!!...The whinging,moaning,complaining,ranting,letting off steam thread !!

1202123252688

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    I have absolutely no problem with a little disclaimer at the beginning of media like this that says "opinions and views are a product of the time and in no way represent blah blah". Nothing to complain about there. These forms of censorship that have been happening are a little more worrying for sure.
  • Posts: 372
    I'm not sure we are allowed to make up our own minds anymore. Say as they say, do as they do, think as they think or risk being cancelled and have your career ruined. No platforming at universities is an utter disgrace to free speech but bosses at universities are letting it happen
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    There are people out there, @cooperman2, who make it their business, a personal sort of crusade even, to read a book, watch a film, listen to a song, study a painting, analyse a word, ... and find something wrong with it in a race, sex, gender, religion, culture, politics related sense.

    Some do so because they truly believe that behind every expression, joke, depiction or statement hides a carefully positioned insult, rejection, conspiracy or offence, furthermore obviously meant to incite violence, exclusion and discrimination. Others merely do so because being the first to spot and unmask some evil will earn them extra cred within the SJW community and help them to therapeutically cope with all their personal issues. Just make sure you're the first to raise a point, even if your claims are false. Spit it out on social media; others will accept your claims, unsubstantiated though they may be, because the mindless drones who are active on FB, Twitter, ... go straight from accusation to conviction and don't care about the trial itself.

    So I agree, @cooperman2, that free speech, while still officially a fundamental right, has been placed between brackets by a crusading minority. Yet while a minority, these people seem to be frighteningly effective in getting things done, things with lots of names but which essentially boil down to censorship. There's still free speech... but if some celebrity says something slightly controversial, Twitter, preferred playground for the lower-IQ layers of society, turns into a warzone. A few incidents with James Gunn, J.K. Rowling and Kevin Hart later, others have grown weary and prefer not to speak their gut, or rather merely say what the SJW elite finds acceptable.

    I don't like this at all.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 14,861
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    So Macaulay Culkin is advocating cutting Donald Trump's cameo from Home Alone 2. Now I'm no fan of Trump but this growing trend for cutting stuff from movies and old TV because it doesn't fit in with modern attitudes is very worrying. Movies and TV are products of their time and should be viewed as such. The latest victim of this nonsense in the UK is Grease whish is now apparently racist, sexist and homophobic according to the woke brigade

    Grease got an uncut showing over Christmas on the BBC. So, so much for that idea...

    'Woke brigade' indeed; if there was something I'd moan about it would certainly be the use of that kind of terminology. The word 'woke' being used with a straight face to complain about something is usually a massive red flag to me.
    Even listening to a few old comedies on bbc radio 4, they play a warning
    before then stating they represent views and opinions of their time. I
    would have thought that was pretty obvious. Why not let people make
    up their own minds, we are supposed to be adults.

    That is letting you make your mind up.
  • Posts: 372
    Here Here @DarthDimi well said.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Was it not vegetarian complaints, all those Leather jackets and
    Grease in the hair ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    There are people out there, @cooperman2, who make it their business, a personal sort of crusade even, to read a book, watch a film, listen to a song, study a painting, analyse a word, ... and find something wrong with it in a race, sex, gender, religion, culture, politics related sense.

    Some do so because they truly believe that behind every expression, joke, depiction or statement hides a carefully positioned insult, rejection, conspiracy or offence, furthermore obviously meant to incite violence, exclusion and discrimination. Others merely do so because being the first to spot and unmask some evil will earn them extra cred within the SJW community and help them to therapeutically cope with all their personal issues. Just make sure you're the first to raise a point, even if your claims are false. Spit it out on social media; others will accept your claims, unsubstantiated though they may be, because the mindless drones who are active on FB, Twitter, ... go straight from accusation to conviction and don't care about the trial itself.

    So I agree, @cooperman2, that free speech, while still officially a fundamental right, has been placed between brackets by a crusading minority. Yet while a minority, these people seem to be frighteningly effective in getting things done, things with lots of names but which essentially boil down to censorship. There's still free speech... but if some celebrity says something slightly controversial, Twitter, preferred playground for the lower-IQ layers of society, turns into a warzone. A few incidents with James Gunn, J.K. Rowling and Kevin Hart later, others have grown weary and prefer not to speak their gut, or rather merely say what the SJW elite finds acceptable.

    I don't like this at all.

    I don't really tend to like it when people say they speak for the silent majority- that's what these Trump/Brexit/anti-masker etc. folks prey on: "The minority elite want to stop us doing this!" etc. Generally that's a bit of an illusion conjured to make people angry and follow them. They don't speak for 'the people', they speak for some people.
    There certainly are overreactions, and you're right about people doing it to take a prize- it's the gamification of the whole thing: they literally win points if they start a movement. But then that just happened up there too: claiming Grease has been 'cancelled' when really the reverse just happened: it hasn't had an uncut showing before last month in decades, I think. And identifying this 'elite minority' as the 'woke brigade': really that's just two sides of the same thing- trying to get people stirred up.
    So sometimes there are overreactions, but then also sometimes people do do unbelievably unacceptable things. We were just talking in this very thread about how clearly there is sexism aimed at women in the movie industry- does that make us 'SJW elite' to have noticed that? No-one should generalise the overreactions and the actually unacceptable into being one thing: there are shades of difference. Because if you do then you get people being wilfully sexist and racist because they think of it as some kind of points-scoring win over those they have been told are the 'woke elite' trying to tell the good honest 'majority' what to do.
  • Posts: 7,500
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    There are people out there, @cooperman2, who make it their business, a personal sort of crusade even, to read a book, watch a film, listen to a song, study a painting, analyse a word, ... and find something wrong with it in a race, sex, gender, religion, culture, politics related sense.

    Some do so because they truly believe that behind every expression, joke, depiction or statement hides a carefully positioned insult, rejection, conspiracy or offence, furthermore obviously meant to incite violence, exclusion and discrimination. Others merely do so because being the first to spot and unmask some evil will earn them extra cred within the SJW community and help them to therapeutically cope with all their personal issues. Just make sure you're the first to raise a point, even if your claims are false. Spit it out on social media; others will accept your claims, unsubstantiated though they may be, because the mindless drones who are active on FB, Twitter, ... go straight from accusation to conviction and don't care about the trial itself.

    So I agree, @cooperman2, that free speech, while still officially a fundamental right, has been placed between brackets by a crusading minority. Yet while a minority, these people seem to be frighteningly effective in getting things done, things with lots of names but which essentially boil down to censorship. There's still free speech... but if some celebrity says something slightly controversial, Twitter, preferred playground for the lower-IQ layers of society, turns into a warzone. A few incidents with James Gunn, J.K. Rowling and Kevin Hart later, others have grown weary and prefer not to speak their gut, or rather merely say what the SJW elite finds acceptable.

    I don't like this at all.

    I don't really tend to like it when people say they speak for the silent majority- that's what these Trump/Brexit/anti-masker etc. folks prey on: "The minority elite want to stop us doing this!" etc. Generally that's a bit of an illusion conjured to make people angry and follow them. They don't speak for 'the people', they speak for some people.
    There certainly are overreactions, and you're right about people doing it to take a prize- it's the gamification of the whole thing: they literally win points if they start a movement. But then that just happened up there too: claiming Grease has been 'cancelled' when really the reverse just happened: it hasn't had an uncut showing before last month in decades, I think. And identifying this 'elite minority' as the 'woke brigade': really that's just two sides of the same thing- trying to get people stirred up.
    So sometimes there are overreactions, but then also sometimes people do do unbelievably unacceptable things. We were just talking in this very thread about how clearly there is sexism aimed at women in the movie industry- does that make us 'SJW elite' to have noticed that? No-one should generalise the overreactions and the actually unacceptable into being one thing: there are shades of difference. Because if you do then you get people being wilfully sexist and racist because they think of it as some kind of points-scoring win over those they have been told are the 'woke elite' trying to tell the good honest 'majority' what to do.

    +1
    Very well, put @mtm
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    There are people out there, @cooperman2, who make it their business, a personal sort of crusade even, to read a book, watch a film, listen to a song, study a painting, analyse a word, ... and find something wrong with it in a race, sex, gender, religion, culture, politics related sense.

    Some do so because they truly believe that behind every expression, joke, depiction or statement hides a carefully positioned insult, rejection, conspiracy or offence, furthermore obviously meant to incite violence, exclusion and discrimination. Others merely do so because being the first to spot and unmask some evil will earn them extra cred within the SJW community and help them to therapeutically cope with all their personal issues. Just make sure you're the first to raise a point, even if your claims are false. Spit it out on social media; others will accept your claims, unsubstantiated though they may be, because the mindless drones who are active on FB, Twitter, ... go straight from accusation to conviction and don't care about the trial itself.

    So I agree, @cooperman2, that free speech, while still officially a fundamental right, has been placed between brackets by a crusading minority. Yet while a minority, these people seem to be frighteningly effective in getting things done, things with lots of names but which essentially boil down to censorship. There's still free speech... but if some celebrity says something slightly controversial, Twitter, preferred playground for the lower-IQ layers of society, turns into a warzone. A few incidents with James Gunn, J.K. Rowling and Kevin Hart later, others have grown weary and prefer not to speak their gut, or rather merely say what the SJW elite finds acceptable.

    I don't like this at all.

    I don't really tend to like it when people say they speak for the silent majority- that's what these Trump/Brexit/anti-masker etc. folks prey on: "The minority elite want to stop us doing this!" etc. Generally that's a bit of an illusion conjured to make people angry and follow them. They don't speak for 'the people', they speak for some people.
    There certainly are overreactions, and you're right about people doing it to take a prize- it's the gamification of the whole thing: they literally win points if they start a movement. But then that just happened up there too: claiming Grease has been 'cancelled' when really the reverse just happened: it hasn't had an uncut showing before last month in decades, I think. And identifying this 'elite minority' as the 'woke brigade': really that's just two sides of the same thing- trying to get people stirred up.
    So sometimes there are overreactions, but then also sometimes people do do unbelievably unacceptable things. We were just talking in this very thread about how clearly there is sexism aimed at women in the movie industry- does that make us 'SJW elite' to have noticed that? No-one should generalise the overreactions and the actually unacceptable into being one thing: there are shades of difference. Because if you do then you get people being wilfully sexist and racist because they think of it as some kind of points-scoring win over those they have been told are the 'woke elite' trying to tell the good honest 'majority' what to do.

    +1, thanks for crystallizing my thoughts into comprehendible text.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    First of, I really like this thread and think it is a very healthy thing for the community to have. There are disagreements and it's not just "everything goes" but in general it seems to be a place where people sometimes a statement is just left standing as something someone had to get of their chest without it being immediately analysed to shreds. That is valuable for a community.

    As for the topic du jour: The stuff that really gets my pulse up is people with huge platforms saying they are no longer allowed to speak their mind. Being on a TV segment or speaking in a parliament or having a Twitter account with millions of followers are platforms that only comparatively few people in the history of humanity ever had, if you think about it. Yes, I know it's annoying if people very loudly disagree with you and make fun of you. I wouldn't want that. But you can't have the platform to air your views to literally potentially billions of people and demand no one push back, ever.

    That's my two cents.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    Well, naturally I agree with all of the above. However, the issue itself remains, whether on both sides or merely one, that speaking one's mind--"speaking" meaning lots of things--is not the absolute right we are told it is. Maybe it still is, legally, but mincing one's words is nevertheless part of the deal too. I know that in my profession, for example, it really has because quite a big part of it. :)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2021 Posts: 7,518
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Well, naturally I agree with all of the above. However, the issue itself remains, whether on both sides or merely one, that speaking one's mind--"speaking" meaning lots of things--is not the absolute right we are told it is. Maybe it still is, legally, but mincing one's words is nevertheless part of the deal too. I know that in my profession, for example, it really has because quite a big part of it. :)

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mincing one's words is nevertheless part of the deal too."

    It seems to be important to remember (not you specifically Dimi as I'm sure you know) that the constitutional first amendment seems to simply say the government will not make laws prohibiting free speech, practice and formation of religion, and peaceful gathering and protest. Effectively it will not arrest you for what you say. There are a lot of people comparing a Twitter ban or loss of employment due to what they say as an infringement on free speech, which to me, it seems it is not.

    Twitter is a private corporation and can refuse service to anyone for any reasons (bar discrimination), and as far as I know, can employers not terminate any employee for any reason as long as proper severance is paid out?

    I suppose it's true that we live in a reality where there are overreaching consequences for speaking out about your opinion these days, which is certainly a shame, but to me that's a court-of-public-opinion, marketing-through-virtue-signaling problem, and not a freedom of speech problem.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    As for the topic du jour: The stuff that really gets my pulse up is people with huge platforms saying they are no longer allowed to speak their mind. Being on a TV segment or speaking in a parliament or having a Twitter account with millions of followers are platforms that only comparatively few people in the history of humanity ever had, if you think about it. Yes, I know it's annoying if people very loudly disagree with you and make fun of you. I wouldn't want that. But you can't have the platform to air your views to literally potentially billions of people and demand no one push back, ever.

    That's my two cents.

    Ha! Yes I love those guys. Saying loudly that they've not been allowed to speak their mind to their millions of followers on Twitter, then saying that they've not been allowed to speak their mind in their newspaper column, then saying they've not been allowed to speak their mind on their radio show, then saying they've not been allowed to speak their mind on YouTube etc. etc.
    "The minority elite won't let me speak!" :))
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2021 Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    As for the topic du jour: The stuff that really gets my pulse up is people with huge platforms saying they are no longer allowed to speak their mind. Being on a TV segment or speaking in a parliament or having a Twitter account with millions of followers are platforms that only comparatively few people in the history of humanity ever had, if you think about it. Yes, I know it's annoying if people very loudly disagree with you and make fun of you. I wouldn't want that. But you can't have the platform to air your views to literally potentially billions of people and demand no one push back, ever.

    That's my two cents.

    Ha! Yes I love those guys. Saying loudly that they've not been allowed to speak their mind to their millions of followers on Twitter, then saying that they've not been allowed to speak their mind in their newspaper column, then saying they've not been allowed to speak their mind on their radio show, then saying they've not been allowed to speak their mind on YouTube etc. etc.
    "The minority elite won't let me speak!" :))

    There's a great joke about this exact thing in "Death to 2020" on Netflix, performed by Lisa Kudrow as a Kellyanne Conway-type.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Well, naturally I agree with all of the above. However, the issue itself remains, whether on both sides or merely one, that speaking one's mind--"speaking" meaning lots of things--is not the absolute right we are told it is. Maybe it still is, legally, but mincing one's words is nevertheless part of the deal too. I know that in my profession, for example, it really has because quite a big part of it. :)

    I don't know what the 'mincing words' bit refers to I'm afraid, but speaking one's mind does not mean that no-one is allowed to then take issue with what one has said.

    And don't forget: you yourself Darth are a moderator on this forum. If someone says enough offensive and unpleasant stuff, they get kicked off. They are 'cancelled' on this place, I'm sure you've probably had to do it yourself at some point. Is there free speech on here? Is there an absolute right to speak one's mind on MI6?

    That's not a complaint about the forum incidentally, just that here, as everywhere, if you piss enough people off they won't want to hear from you anymore. Free speech only works if people want to listen to you.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2021 Posts: 23,447
    Very well then. I am afraid we're not talking about the same thing. I am not saying free speech is dead, nor that one isn't allowed to take issue with what someone else is saying.

    What I am saying is that some reactions to certain statements can be pretty sour and, in the age of social media, cause a usually short-lived but meanwhile freaky outrage during which a typically "famous" person can quickly become the target of people who skip the debate and go straight to a conviction. That's what bothers me. A few words pulled from their context lead to anger before people have set down to actually talk about the issue, which is what we are doing right now.

    Obviously both sides -- assuming there are only two sides -- make exactly the same mistakes, as has been correctly pointed out. When I made sole reference to SJW, I did so from a personal frustration and I probably shouldn't have.

    Mincing words... Ah yes. It's what I have to do every day. I must choose my words carefully and sometimes "bend" my opinion a little. For example, I can say that I like Harry Potter but not that I respect J.K. Rowling. I did so the other day and had to spend the better part of an hour explaining to students that I have no issues with the LGBTQ community. But my case was lost nevertheless, because no less than four e-mails were sent by "concerned parents", not to me but to my school principal, basically calling me a homophobe, which I am absolutely not. I was asked by my "superiors" to next time avoid the issue or simply openly support the popular view, even if that view isn't mine. And while none of this took place in a court, it still feels like free speech somehow took a beating, hence why I wrote that it is put between brackets.

    I did not youtube, facebook, tweet or Instagram about this. The accusation that complainers make the same mistake doesn't in that sense apply to me. I did talk about it here because this forum isn't the same thing as addressing the entire world; here, we're having actual conversations and I merely responded to a point raised by someone else.

    Lastly, removing accounts because some people bully, troll or spam the hell put of this place, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We never ban people because of their opinion. Some members would love it if we did and are, in fact, pretty upset with us for not flat-out banning people who disagree with them, often resulting in highly animated private chats, but opinions have never gotten people banned. We do not object to free speech, we object to people willingly causing trouble by directly attacking others. Name-calling, for example, is an unwelcome form of social conduct, not an opinion. To say that you disagree with someone because of this or that reason has never not been okay, but to persistently attack others and use strong insults as a means of addressing someone is a problem which has nothing to do with speaking one's mind but with doing so in a respectful manner.

    So I am perfectly happy to apologize if my previous post lacked nuance and was fueled by a personal bias which I have tied to explain even if that doesn't justify it. At the same time, I remain convinced that the "public court" isn't such an innocent thing considering the fact that its "judgements" really can have quite an impact on people's lives, effectively lead to censorship of some form or another, and silence debates that people should be having instead. Said public court isn't itself yet another form of free speech which I am now trying to destroy in my own way, but a blatant attempt at discouraging further statements of some sort.

    And by the way, all of the above is merely my opinion, and I would never pretend it to be factual truth.

    I hope this clarifies things. 🙂
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Very well then. I am afraid we're not talking about the same thing. I am not saying free speech is dead, nor that one isn't allowed to take issue with what someone else is saying.

    What I am saying is that some reactions to certain statements can be pretty sour and, in the age of social media, cause a usually short-lived but meanwhile freaky outrage during which a typically "famous" person can quickly become the target of people who skip the debate and go straight to a conviction. That's what bothers me. A few words pulled from their context lead to anger before people have set down to actually talk about the issue, which is what we are doing right now.

    Indeed, and we agree, but there's a problem with labelling those as the 'woke elite' or minority or whatever, because making them the enemy who are trying to silence us good honest people just encourages a war and provokes more and more extreme opinions.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Obviously both sides -- assuming there are only two sides -- make exactly the same mistakes, as has been correctly pointed out. When I made sole reference to SJW, I did so from a personal frustration and I probably shouldn't have.

    Fair enough.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mincing words... Ah yes. It's what I have to do every day. I must choose my words carefully and sometimes "bend" my opinion a little. For example, I can say that I like Harry Potter but not that I respect J.K. Rowling. I did so the other day and had to spend the better part of an hour explaining to students that I have no issues with the LGBTQ community. But my case was lost nevertheless, because no less than four e-mails were sent by "concerned parents", not to me but to my school principal, basically calling me a homophobe, which I am absolutely not. I was asked by my "superiors" to next time avoid the issue or simply openly support the popular view, even if that view isn't mine. And while none of this took place in a court, it still feels like free speech somehow took a beating, hence why I wrote that it is put between brackets.

    I'm not sure the classroom has ever been a place where teachers are supposed to speak their minds unfiltered, has it?
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I did not youtube, facebook, tweet or Instagram about this. The accusation that complainers make the same mistake doesn't in that sense apply to me. I did talk about it here because this forum isn't the same thing as addressing the entire world; here, we're having actual conversations and I merely responded to a point raised by someone else.

    Lastly, removing accounts because some people bully, troll or spam the hell put of this place, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We never ban people because of their opinion. Some members would love it if we did and are, in fact, pretty upset with us for not flat-out banning people who disagree with them, often resulting in highly animated private chats, but opinions have never gotten people banned. We do not object to free speech, we object to people willingly causing trouble by directly attacking others. Name-calling, for example, is an unwelcome form of social conduct, not an opinion. To say that you disagree with someone because of this or that reason has never not been okay, but to persistently attack others and use strong insults as a means of addressing someone is a problem which has nothing to do with speaking one's mind but with doing so in a respectful manner.

    Well now we're qualifying what free speech is, what it does and doesn't include, therefore it's not totally free. And you'd never ban anyone for, for example, extreme sexist or racist comments?
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    So I am perfectly happy to apologize if my previous post lacked nuance and was fueled by a personal bias which I have tied to explain even if that doesn't justify it. At the same time, I remain convinced that the "public court" isn't such an innocent thing considering the fact that its "judgements" really can have quite an impact on people's lives, effectively lead to censorship of some form or another, and silence debates that people should be having instead. Said public court isn't itself yet another form of free speech which I am now trying to destroy in my own way, but a blatant attempt at discouraging further statements of some sort.

    Well no-one is saying it's innocent: I got extremely annoyed this week when a celeb posted a link on Twitter to one of those Auschwitz T-shirts from the Capitol attack last week being sold on Etsy and called for a boycott of Etsy, a really quite stupid thing to do which would harm many small businesses (Etsy is a marketplace, not one shop), but she didn't think about the effect of her actions, it was just an instant decision of 'this is bad' with any nuance. But even so, I did agree that the shirt wasn't really a hugely funny joke and really quite unpleasant, and I doubt you'd consider turning up to school wearing one! :)
    Yes, I hate the automatic silencing of debate on those subjects too: the JK Rowling one is a great example and that's a subject I think could use plenty of debate, but it is shouted down as soon as its started. But I also absolutely deplore anyone who complains of 'the woke brigade' as if white males have it really bad suddenly. In terms of TV and films and other media it shows a weird lack of empathy, as if we need to see a white man on screen in order to follow what they're doing. When I see the word 'woke' being invoked it just says 'bigoted views ahead' to me.
  • My particular bugbear at the moment is the British media's almost continual use of wartime terms when reporting about the pandemic - eg. 'fighting' against the virus or especially the phrase 'frontline workers' to describe NHS staff. I know they're trying to get across how serious this is, but I just feel like the wartime language is really overdoing it and sounds silly after a while. At the end of the day this is a health crisis, it's not a war so please stop talking about it as if it is one.

    Also, please stop refering to the virus as if it's a sentient being that makes plans and strategies for infecting people or 'evading' vaccines, it's just cells and biology at the end of the day so please describe it in more scientific terms and less like in we're still in flipping WWII and we have a great enemy to defeat. Of course, Boris Johnson's language in his TV announcements haven't helped with this.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    In the time that I have paid closer attention to the United Kingdom, I have gotten the impression more and more that there is a certain cultural element that just stopped in it's tracks on 8 May 1945. Even for people who were born after that.

    As a German born after reunification, this is something that I can just not fathom on a very basic level, which makes it so fascinating.

    (And Bond obviously is a large part of this fascination.)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yes indeed, agreed with both. This country has an unhealthy obsession with the war and I think there's been a massive failure to move on.
    Obviously the dead should be commemorated, but we're still celebrating the war, it's ridiculous. I found the VE Day street parties etc. last year just stupid considering the situation we were in, to be honest.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Daily Record: Drunk James Bond fans visiting Skyfall location plague Scots locals with rowdy behaviour.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/drunk-james-bond-fans-visiting-23322158
    I hope no mi6 members got drunk there
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    There wasn't a village in Skyfall?
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,655
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes indeed, agreed with both. This country has an unhealthy obsession with the war .../quote]

    Don't mention the war!
  • Posts: 14,797
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    It's a fresh start then, Ludovico. I wish you the best of luck in your new job, mate.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 14,861
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    Sounds like a turn for the better, I hope it all works out. I've found myself in the past that it's too easy to stay in a job you're not happy with and things can improve with a change, although of course I know nothing is certain and when I quit to go freelance (i.e. with no job to go to) I felt like I'd chucked myself off a building, but it did work out for the better.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2021 Posts: 17,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    Believe me when I say I know where you're coming from. I'm so glad you got something better. It's proof there's a silver lining to every cloud. Being relatively happy at your work means a lot. All the best with your new position.
  • Posts: 14,797
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    It's a fresh start then, Ludovico. I wish you the best of luck in your new job, mate.

    Well, not so new now, I've been I'm the place since July.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    It's a fresh start then, Ludovico. I wish you the best of luck in your new job, mate.

    Well, not so new now, I've been I'm the place since July.

    That's good to know you've settled in well, then. You now know how the place runs beyond the positive facade of the first week impressions that some workplaces can engender!
  • Posts: 14,797
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's a bit late to moan about it, but I really, really, really hated my previous job. Or, more precisely, the company, my bosses and most of my colleagues. When I got furloughed due to COVID was relieved, when I was made redundant due to COVID again I was worried but even more relieved. Now I've got a new job, not great, but the employer is a million times better and it's a great team.

    It's a fresh start then, Ludovico. I wish you the best of luck in your new job, mate.

    Well, not so new now, I've been I'm the place since July.

    That's good to know you've settled in well, then. You now know how the place runs beyond the positive facade of the first week impressions that some workplaces can engender!

    Yes that's very true. It didn't take me long to hate my previous job: after a few weeks I started having a seriously bad feeling about it due to office politics and after six months I've had enough and wanted out. I lasted three years.
    It's a strange time: I have been working from home for nearly a year and haven't seen my new colleagues in person. It's contractual, so I'm already looking for a new job, but I'm very glad I don't work for my previous employers anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.