This has become the most defensive, and most meaningless phrase in the English language recently. Corbyn’s response to vicious antisemitism in the Labour party – “racism will not be tolerated in any form”. Lord Chancellor Truss on prison violence – will not be tolerated. Likewise Councils on fly tipping; domestic abuse – dishonesty in divorce cases – exam cheating – plagiarism by students – post referendum racist abuse – long waits in A&E – drug dealing – resale of Adele concert tickets – dog fouling on public footpaths – the list is endless. What these protestations have in common is that they are unlikely to be followed by action. The Guardian reported today that sexual harassment in universities had reached “epidemic levels”. But measures were put in place by univerities to tackle this decades ago. Staff were warned that their careers would be ended or blighted in case of offence. Universities may be among the worst offenders in this rash of protestations of innocence – we are still waiting for Oxford University to announce action taken against the perpetrators of nasty antisemitic incidents connected with the student Labour Club more than a year ago, or at least an investigation. Perhaps the modern practice of public relations is at fault. Make an announcement, hit the headlines, and then sit back.
“Perhaps the modern practice of public relations is at fault”-
Yes; and our Information availabilities are woefully insufficient, and “hijacked” into individually-capitalistic “intellectual-ownership” safe-vaults.
Even Wikipedia is woefully short of Facts, Factors, Factualities, Truths and Perspective-Relevances,
Cambridge Dictionary too gives us an Oxymoron in leaving out definition 1. of “perception” altogether i.e. its principal meaning of “anything ‘sensed’ (and prior to its ‘interpretation’ etc)
defining “perception” as an ‘imagined’ or ‘subjectively-slanted view’ of anything or of any state of affairs
(which letter is is definition 2. in other respectable dictionaries)
i.e. when you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched something, you have perceived it . (full stop).
Psychologically the ‘interpretation’ of the percept follows that initial perception.
Where in the UK is it even recognised, that one of our democratic-citizen duties is to scrutinise everything,
and to “nail” all such “fogs” and “underminings” as this
‘sledgehammer-to-crack-a-peanut’
“that will not be tolerated” ?
“Perhaps the modern practice of public relations is at fault”-
Yes; and our Information availabilities are woefully insufficient, and “hijacked” into individually-capitalistic “intellectual-ownership” safe-vaults.
Even Wikipedia is woefully short of Facts, Factors, Factualities, Truths and Perspective-Relevances,
Cambridge Dictionary too gives us an Oxymoron in leaving out definition 1. of “perception” altogether i.e. its principal meaning of “anything ‘sensed’ (and prior to its ‘interpretation’ etc)
defining “perception” as an ‘imagined’ or ‘subjectively-slanted view’ of anything or of any state of affairs
(which latter is definition 2 in other respectable dictionaries)
i.e. when you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched something, you have rationally perceived it . (full stop).
Psychologically the ‘interpretation’ of the percept follows that initial perception and can neither precede nor ‘conflate’ it.
Wherein this UK is ‘tolerated’, even recognised, our participative-democratic-citizen scrutiny duty to “nail” all such “fogs” and “underminings” ?
One of the major fans behind this absurd response to everything is a spread and acceptance of political correctness. It is an easy way of being able to play the game of fake news. Rather than find out who, what, where, why or how, is at the back of any alleged offence.
Example, you are right about rape in university raised many years ago and not properly addressed at the time. Why was that? It was because nobody wanted to discuss the possible causes. It is not politically correct to do so? It is spouted, it may offend to tell the truth. As the truth is seen as unacceptable it follows with the line, and what can we do about it anyway.
When did all this rape begin in the universities? Wasn’t it as a result of females being allowed into male domains? Therefore, creating a sense of loss in the male psyche. The feeling of them having to compete against women? If they are equal then let them be just that, equal. The rape of boys had been going on for eternity in schools and universities but it was rarely, if ever, spoken of. It was hushed up because so much of it was perpetrated by the faculty or those with some kind of power.
Unless the university, or more, the State, is willing to look into the uncomfortable facts behind this kind of scenario there will never be a path to eliminate it. Just as with all politically correct nonsense returning to common sense is never addressed. Female colleges are no longer an option, are they?
You mention antisemitism. Well, what is that? What is the basis of the accusation? Why would anyone want to be antisemite? Who are the perpetrators of it? Are they a particular group or is it random in the population? Are Jewish people equally anti any part of a population? Do they act on it in the same way the antisemites do? And if they do not, why do they not? What is the cause for all anti other groups? Is it tribalism?
Our cultural habits have been changed to include and envelope other creeds and cultures that do not observe similar forms of respect toward their fellow human being as the British historically have moved toward. For example, many other cultures or clans don’t stand in a queue. They push and shove and knock women and children out of the way. It is not something many different tribes find an acceptable method of getting to the front of the line when they have to be polite and stand and wait. As a result, those shoved aside start to push back and you end up with the need for swords carried on the hip. As was once the method of Parliament itself.
More, who is to blame for these changes in our society? Could it be our politically correct politicians who find rather than being able to explain their reasons in a debate and offer a common sense solution they turn and cry, racist, misogynist, fascist and on and on, until we end up with the Obama/Clinton response to Trump in the US White House. It appears the fanning of civil war is preferable to those who so desperately want to say they are the leaders of the free world. Their citizens didn’t want any more of the pretence called education, when quite clearly it is in fact a form of stultification. As can so clearly be seen in our news pictures. All of it being paid for by those who are in a panic at the rejection of their suspect future for us all, named, Globalism. The fat money earner the big players had set up for themselves looks ready to fall apart as the man in the street has finally got wise to the scam and voted against it.
So the answer to the dilemma has to be turned back on the so called leaders. Those who have forgot the basic method and reasoning of civilisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtDcTKAvUQ
Again yes, and bravo, maude:
this time no need to “be careful”
because
as you intimate –
the real overarching and underpinning Need is for
firstly, Holistic-living- and holistic-health-building constitutional, legislative, and implementational support;
secondly, citizenry Lifeplace establishment of
(at least voluntary-commitment to)
‘No-Lose’ Cooperative Needs & Hows Recognition and Problem Solving [T.Gordon or R. Bolton].]..
Incidentally, my first submission, at the top, was meant to be replaced by my second corrected one.
Could you kindly allow an “adjunctive” little submission here ? – arguably of quite vital relevance nonetheless ? :-
The Planet is in a real-sense past a point where it might have been “saying” to us “Your-demands and invasive-destructions – will not be tolerated”.
Similarly there are many British citizens, and Commons “elected people’s advocates”, who are stacking-up against the House of Lords’s very existence, saying “the House of Lords ‘will not be tolerated’ “.
————-
Consider, every-one of The Peers themselves please, in the Lifeplace (outside of The Workplace and “after hours”) both Individually and in a new “peacefully-positively revolutionary Trust Foundation”,
co-founding a “Sustainworthying Communities”
on many landed estates especially including perhaps upon your own …
[Please find some published and recommended (but seriously-neglected) life-leadership guidances and ideas, please, in the four not-for-profit, power nor prestige e-sites reachable via http://lifefresh.net .
—————-
And Godspeed.
If universities stopped promoting sexual harassers and serial student-daters and actually fired or accepted the resignations of these people it might curtail the abuse. As it is, when people raise concerns about sexual harassment the people who are supposed to be investigating lash out at victims and witnesses speaking on behalf of victims. The problem is universities care more about their reputations and their funding, so they will not fire someone because it makes them look bad, and it might mean losing a staff member who brings in grants. I’m sure there are other factors, this is just my observation. It might also have to do with liability. If they fire an offender they may worry about their reputations and any legal actions victims might take that could reflect poorly on them so they try to intimidate the victims and anyone who sides with the victims, thinking they can make the problem go away. Often the abusers who are in positions of power hire more of their own and create networks of support to protect themselves in their abusive ways. What too few people want to talk about is the women who enable, support, and side with male abusers in universities. But, of course, no women’s organizations want to address that serious and pervasive problem because it is easier to only ever talk about women as victims/survivors rather than abusers and enablers.