Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Is 'political correctness gone mad' a lie? Nesrine Malik | In my opinion" video.

  1. Nesrine Malik clearly hasn't watched much Guardian content. As the aim of the 'progressive' (radical) left is well known. It is to appropriate a legitimate social concern, then use it as a shield to further their own political agenda. It enables them to call those who disagree with them 'racist', 'homophobe', 'xenophobe', 'transphobe', 'Islamophobe', or 'misogynist'.  Yanis Varoufakis, the ex-Greek finance minister, is a classic example of this. As a committed leftist he became secretary of the Black Students Alliance while studying in the UK. He justified this by saying that, according to his PhD supervisor Monojit Chatterjee, "...black was a political term and, as a Greek, on the grounds of ethnicity he had as much reason to be there as anyone else." If skin colour is political, then you can't argue against that politics without being branded a racist. Another example was the supposed BLM demonstration at Heathrow Airport. The idea that the politics of airport expansion should be 'racialized' is ludicrous. But that is exactly what they did. And for a very good reason. The objective of the radical left has always been to create division within society. Class warfare is now dead and buried. So they must switch their focus to other subsections of society in order to gain power. The aim is not to solve the problem. But to make it worse. By doing so they steadily build up influence and authority. Without ever having to seek a democratic mandate to do so. Until finally they are forcing university professors to undergo compulsory political education. But if one person's skin colour is political, or their gender, or their sexuality. Then all peoples skin colour, gender, and sexuality, are political. Do we really want to live in a world like that?
    3
  2. +oBLACKIECHANoo Women do think differently to men. But you can't really have diversity of thoughts. The question 'what constitutes diversity?' is a massive problem. You could divide and subdivide until you're pretty much down to the individual. My point was, that much of the push for diversity is about self-appointed gatekeepers using differences between people as ideological weapons. If you make the colour of someone's skin, or their gender or sexuality a political statement, then opponents can't argue against the politics without being denounced as racist, sexist, or homophobic.
    3
  3. There is power in diversity. The more people are diversified, the more power for those who claim to speak on their behalf.
    1
  4. What the hell was all that about? Tim Farron couldn't muster up enough commitment to be slightly peeved. Let alone homophobic.
    1
  5. There are many reasons why most ceos and rich people are 'cis' men.
    1
  6. No thanx
    1