HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Soph0571 » Journal


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: UK
Home country: UK
Current location: UK
Member since: Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,970

About Me

I am a Brit. I am a working class child of the troubles in Belfast who now lives a life of privilege. I am an anti-racist, progressive monster for truth. If I fail in being that monster, call me out....

Journal Archives

Military orders troops to use gender-neutral language

British troops have been told to use gender-neutral terms, as the military moves away from needlessly gendered language.

Words like “manpower,” “forefathers” and “chap” have been scrapped in favour of less patriarchal language, The Sun has reported. 

The initiative has reportedly been taken at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom to make the military more inclusive of women and transgender people.


Trump Boasts He's Signed More Laws Than Any President Since Truman. He's Actually Signed the Least.

You know if Donald Trump is pushing some sort of record or achievement or a Time cover, you should probably run the numbers again, you know, just to double check. On Wednesday, while totally not golfing at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, Trump reflected on his first year in office in a way only Trump could. That is, he basically made it up. Ruminating on what he considered his achievements, Trump explained at an event with fire fighters in West Palm Beach that he had set a record for the most legislation passed in a year. At least that’s what it appears he was trying to say:

We got a lot of legislation passed… I believe—and you would have to ask those folks who will know the real answer—we have more legislation passed, including the record… was Harry Truman, a long time ago. And we broke that record, so we got a lot done.”

That is, predictably, not the case. In fact, Trump’s version of history is the exact opposite of reality. Trump has signed fewer bills into law than any other president in his first year in office since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, according to GovTrack.


Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Law Banning Mexican-American Studies

A federal judge on Wednesday issued an order stating that Arizona could no longer ban Mexican-American studies from the Tucson Unified School District, stating that doing so is unconstitutional, the Huffington Post reports.

The legal battle, which has been ongoing since 2010, came to a close this week after U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote that the program was cut “not for a legitimate educational purpose, but for an invidious discriminatory racial purpose, and a politically partisan purpose.”

Tashima’s ruling added that shutting down the program was “in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”


More Than 4 In 5 Enrolled In Obamacare Are In Trump states

Americans in states that Donald Trump carried in his march to the White House account for more than 4 in 5 of those signed up for coverage under the health care law the president still wants to take down.

An Associated Press analysis of new figures from the government found that 7.3 million of the 8.8 million consumers signed up so far for next year come from states Trump won in the 2016 presidential election. The four states with the highest number of sign-ups — Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia, accounting for nearly 3.9 million customers — were all Trump states.

“There’s politics, and then there’s taking care of yourself and your family,” said analyst Chris Sloan of the consulting firm Avalere Health. “You can have political views about a program like the Affordable Care Act, but when you get an opportunity to get subsidized health insurance for you and your family … politics is a distant consideration.”



Here comes an orange meltdown: Internet cheers as Obama beats Trump for Most Admired Man in


Gallup on Wednesday released the results of its annual poll to determine the most admired man and woman in America — and former President Barack Obama won the title for the tenth straight year.

Even though Obama has been out of office for nearly a year now, he still bested current President Donald Trump by three percentage points in Gallup’s poll. Additionally, former Trump rival Hillary Clinton was once again named the most admired woman in America for the sixteenth straight year.


hehe. Obama rocks. Trump sucks.

British MP's to Huckabee: Churchill my arse.....

Trump is to Churchill as Hitler was to Ghandi

Just sayin'

The Sky Over London

Flying over London @ dusk tonight

My Virtue Signalling Is Flashier Than Your Virtue Signalling, Or Is It?

Once upon a time, before the recent new rise of the strongman and the far right re-branding that has so successfully manoeuvred them to the top of the political dung heap in the West (from Trump, to Brexit, to Le Pen and Geert Wilders), openly fighting discrimination and oppression, particularly if the injustice did not impact you directly, led to a fair assumption that you are a generally an upright guy or gal. Altruism is, after all, defined as a ‘disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.’ I think we can all agree that being altruistic is a good and moral thing to be, right? At least it has been in the past. Now? Not so much. These days to express moral outrage at injustice is as liable to be scorned as virtue signalling as it is to be complimented for fighting the good fight. The expression ‘virtue signalling’ was created a couple of years ago by a chap called James Bartholomew and has been embraced with delight by the right side of the aisle. It is everywhere and it is tedious. Indubitably, what started out as a pithy and clever phrase coined in an attempt to shut down examination of immoral actions has very quickly become a lazy put down, a mental shortcut to dogmatism.

We all know what the right wing did to the term political correctness, a phrase which has finally lost all currency through chronic and habitual over use by the right in their ongoing attempts to shut down any attempt to challenge unfairness and discrimination in society. The right wing desperately needed an updated slogan to underpin their earnest efforts to shut down all dissent to their othering of minority communities, and so very very predictably ‘virtue signalling’ has become the new ‘political correctness’. It is defacto the latest way for generally right-wing people to avoid confronting ideas they don’t like by impugning the motives of generally left-wing people. There is a certainty on the right that precludes any opposition or disagreement and accusing others of virtue signalling dismisses the morality and virtue of the political opponent to a very dangerous point, in that it further encourages people on the right not to interrogate their own beliefs.

However, on the left we see things through a different prism. Even if we can't change something we know to be wrong, big collective moral shifts in society have to start somewhere, and the rights ongoing attempt to dismiss them as empty gestures is a cynical ploy of malfeasance intent to stifle debate on all the shit that still needs fixing. Without a doubt, there will always be those that want to disparage the practice and promotion of morality and those that do virtuous acts. Those with a social conscience get called do gooders or moralisers. The implication being that somehow they are doing good shit to make others feel bad – rather than to help shape the communities in which they live. In that context surely virtue signalling is little different from what we used to call setting a good example? Why would the right wing have a problem with that?

Those that fling about the accusation of virtue signalling the most have failed to grasp the irony of the insinuation. To level the complaint that someone is virtue signalling is in and of itself virtue signalling. What the accuser is saying (whether they realise it or not) is that my virtue is humbler than your virtue. I am more modest than you. My virtues are quieter than yours. To claim virtue signalling is simply to claim that your own virtues are unassuming and real, and other people's virtues are flashy and insincere. Of course that is supposing that those on the right, that like to fling the phrase around like so much mud, have ‘virtues’ to signal – one might wish to call them something else entirely - however I am sure they would argue that they do have virtues, and that by virtue of our virtue signalling as a moral act, we are really just trying to demonise people with a right wing view, that we are using our virtue as a weapon to spread hate and shut down dissent, that it is a leftist tool of doom. Hehe

At the end of the day acts of morality are done by people, and people are silly, they are selfish and they are self –important. That is part of the human condition and it has been forever thus. What the right is saying when they level the accusation of ‘virtue signalling’ is that any moral act you participate in, is by virtue of your human condition not being perfect, negated. Therefore, as a person who seeks to stand for morality and justice you can never win because if you take those things about people that are not terribly moral and say that this thereby disparages their attempts at morality, we will never get anywhere in improving the world -something I am sure the right wing is very comfortable with.

My virtue signalling is flashier than your virtue signalling

Does Morality Come from RELIGION or EVOLUTION?

Planet Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years young and primordial life forms emerged around 1.5 billion years later. A mere 6 million years ago (barely a blink in the eyes of the life span of the world), the first apes started walking upright and it is only 200,000 years ago that we see the emergence of our species. Man is 200,000 years old, however, Hinduism, which is recognised as the world’s oldest living religion, began to emerge a mere 5,000 years ago. Judaism dawned in the 2nd Century BCE. Logically then men existed for approximately 195,000 years before any religions that we can recognise as religions today were established.

For those 195,000 years did we care about our neighbours? Did we help each other out in times of need? Did we feed each other when we were hungry? Did we act in a moral way towards our neighbours? I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that we had not acted with morality towards one another man would not have survived its emergence.

As human beings we have moral instincts. As human beings we have evil instincts. Evolution has given us the tools to make choices in how we wish to behave. One would suggest that the ordered societies in which we now live is because man tends to choose mortality over evil and religions emerged through using man’s innate morality to form communities and groups, and then used man’s morality as a function of power and control – sometimes progressive power, but sometimes regressive power.

Did man co-opt morality? Religion and culture have a role to play in codifying our moral norms and systems, consolidating those and turning them into moral communities. It is easier to a moral individual if you are within a community who sets certain standards of moral behaviour, or who, for example, are not going to exploit you or take advantage of you….. and in, theory religious groups are good at providing those sorts of communities for people.

Morality evolved. Morality got co-opted. To be moral you do not need a religion, but somehow, we have managed to get ourselves into a situation where men claiming to have a relationship with their one true god have become the morality police.

Democrats Sue to Keep GOP Congressman Accused of Sexual Harassment on Ballot

On Wednesday, Texas Democrats fight to keep a Republican on the ballot. The local GOP officially withdrew Rep. Blake Farenthold‘s from the primary because he won’t seek election amidst a sexual harassment scandal, but local Dems said they pulled his name after the deadline.

“Texas Democrats will not stand idle while Republicans rig the ballot,” Dems said in a statement obtained by the Austin-American Statesman. “Only voters have the power to choose who leads our state and nation, not politicians and party officers in backroom decisions. Last we checked, this was Texas not Russia.” They said that “This is about protecting democracy, not Republican Blake Farenthold’s vile actions. Farenthold has no business serving in public office, but the primary ballot is set and he failed to withdraw.”

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 ... 484 Next »