Buce Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, toddybad said: cuckold UK US a man whose wife deceives him by having asexual relationship with another man I happen to agree with Stephen Fry on matters of offense and political correctness. It is not your right not to be offended and free speech must be an absolute right. The law may no longer agree with that standpoint but then the law is an ass (there I go again). There are obviously limits to this - essentially direct threats and incitement to violence but the idea that nobody should offend anybody else is, frankly, absurd. I'm well aware what of 'cuckold' means, thanks. You, however used the word 'cuck' which despite having 'cuckold 'as its etymological root, has a different meaning. As for free speech being an absolute right, that is an opinion which I doubt you'd share if you thought about it. For example, would you support the right to free speech of a publication advocating legalising sex with children? Edited 4 January 2018 by Buce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Just now, bovril said: Isn't that just like fan / fanatic? Nah, the name of someone who has been cuckolded is actually a cuckold. A cuck is a completely separate thing I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Agree with the sentiment that things have gotten too personal and that we're rather arguing over semantics tbh. Also, quite frankly, what's the point in using or debating a term that has been basically been co-opted by the alt-right, whose opinion is by definition worth less than the binary information that it's made of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Nah, the name of someone who has been cuckolded is actually a cuckold. A cuck is a completely separate thing I'm afraid. I always thought it was just an abbreviated form of the same word. Edited 4 January 2018 by bovril Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 10 minutes ago, Innovindil said: You called us cucks, not cuckolds. Just admit you didn't know the meaning of it, apologise, and I am sure we shall forgive you. Cuck is the shortening of cuckold. As a relatively new term I suspect you could find myriad descriptions. I absolutely know the meaning of it and have no intention of apologising, even if you weren't just being a WUM. One other thing I hate is fake apologies. I've said far worse in the past on here after a few beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Well it didn’t take very long for this thread to descend again into the depths of cvntdom now did it? ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 15 minutes ago, toddybad said: Cuck is the shortening of cuckold. As a relatively new term I suspect you could find myriad descriptions. I absolutely know the meaning of it and have no intention of apologising, even if you weren't just being a WUM. One other thing I hate is fake apologies. I've said far worse in the past on here after a few beers. There are myriad descriptions but you absolutely know the meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 hour ago, Webbo said: I've just re read my comment and I did say most when I meant more, I'm sorry for that. I was commenting on this headline The implication was that tory members are authoritarian hangers and floggers. The point of posting the article was to score points so lets not pretend it's me who's picking on innocent labour supporters. I see, you saw a wrong and thought you'd right it with another wrong. Re. Cuck: I understand it to mean somebody who supports people/policies which the accuser judges to be against that person's own personal interests, but it has a bit more bite thanks to the implied emasculation from cuckold. It's a ridiculous term generally favoured by your macho gorilla types and as far as I'm aware it originates from the alt-right lot though you see it being used across the spectrum now. All that said it's such a ridiculously over the top, bitter label that I personally find it quite amusing to see somebody use the term in serious communication and I've become quite fond of using it ironically when I'm feeling a bit naughty, much like with "fake news". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 18 minutes ago, Webbo said: But despite what I've just said about you it was unnecessary and it leads to escalation. If we end up just calling each other cvnts there's no point keeping this thread open. True. We need to find a way to have debate though as the thread is currently a bunch of lefties lined up against a bunch of righties with no inch being budged and others feeling excluded from the thread. I would absolutely welcome a true debate where we discuss issues from a neutral starting piint but I've seen no evidence this can happen. For instance, often I see you argue against any tiny complaint about goveenment policy, even when all available evidence points against what you're saying. Yet you've also said you think this is just about the worst tory government ever. Those two things don't ring true. If you think some of their policies are bad why not just admit their not infallible? I'll openly about that there are things I like about the labour manifesto - renationalisation, investment bank, increased corporation tax, most wealthy paying a little more, redistributive politics, national education service etc but there are other policies where I'm much more ambivelent. I also want the right wingers to be more honest about labour. It isn't enough to hark back to the 1970s. History is written by the winners. George Osborne's claim that the 2008 crash was caused by Labour was the winners writing history. It's nonsense, it was a worldwide crisis. Discussion and opinion about whether Labour's deficit before the crash is of course legitimate but refusal to admit the worldwide nature of the problem - as osborne has admitted since leaving front line politics - just makes that debate impossible. Likewise, empirical evidence shows that the idea that labour trashed the country in the 70s is history rewritten by the Thatcher government. There is honest debate to be had astound the 1970s but not if people refuse to look honestly at figures from the time. I want honest debate about policies being put forward now, not shutting down of that debate by simple pointing back to a scewed version of the country 45 years ago. Likewise, me and others need to give you a chance to explain why you believe tory policies are right. But I really would like that debate to go further than simply talking about deficits as that surely can't be the answer to every question? Anyway, that's my two-penneth worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said: I see, you saw a wrong and thought you'd right it with another wrong. Re. Cuck: I understand it to mean somebody who supports people/policies which the accuser judges to be against that person's own personal interests, but it has a bit more bite thanks to the implied emasculation from cuckold. It's a ridiculous term generally favoured by your macho gorilla types and as far as I'm aware it originates from the alt-right lot though you see it being used across the spectrum now. All that said it's such a ridiculously over the top, bitter label that I personally find it quite amusing to see somebody use the term in serious communication and I've become quite fond of using it ironically when I'm feeling a bit naughty, much like with "fake news". Tbf I've only used it to gently rile Webbo and strokes. It's a pretty ridiculous term but does give a nice shorthand for the turkey/Xmas idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Well it didn’t take very long for this thread to descend again into the depths of cvntdom now did it? ? Can you define that word? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I see, you saw a wrong and thought you'd right it with another wrong. Re. Cuck: I understand it to mean somebody who supports people/policies which the accuser judges to be against that person's own personal interests, but it has a bit more bite thanks to the implied emasculation from cuckold. It's a ridiculous term generally favoured by your macho gorilla types and as far as I'm aware it originates from the alt-right lot though you see it being used across the spectrum now. All that said it's such a ridiculously over the top, bitter label that I personally find it quite amusing to see somebody use the term in serious communication and I've become quite fond of using it ironically when I'm feeling a bit naughty, much like with "fake news". As I put above, I see the term and I just think "alt-right channer" and switch off, really. Lends nothing to any kind of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: There are myriad descriptions but you absolutely know the meaning? Ok. I know exactly what I meant by it. Beyond that arguments over phraseology are pretty meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said: I see, you saw a wrong and thought you'd right it with another wrong. I think if you read my post before that you'll see that I was pointing out that the article was picking out what it perceived to be negative traits of tory members and that if they'd asked a different set of questions it could have shown Labour members in a bad light. I call it balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Anyhow, in an attempt to get some good debate going again...http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42495883 Great news tbh, and I'm glad the UK doesn't seem to use environmental issues as a political football as they seem to do here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: I think if you read my post before that you'll see that I was pointing out that the article was picking out what it perceived to be negative traits of tory members and that if they'd asked a different set of questions it could have shown Labour members in a bad light. I call it balance. You're welcome to call it that, you're still doing the exact same thing that you're complaining about (worse even given that your accusations amount to slander). A rose by any other name and all that. For what it's worth I agree that the article was pretty pointless though I will say it's a surprise to see the bit about conforming to leadership given how their support consists in no insignificant part of people who a year and a half ago turned out in droves specifically to rail against such an idea. Edited 4 January 2018 by Carl the Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: For instance, often I see you argue against any tiny complaint about goveenment policy, even when all available evidence points against what you're saying. Yet you've also said you think this is just about the worst tory government ever. Those two things don't ring true. If you think some of their policies are bad why not just admit their not infallible? A) your complaints are never tiny. B) I'm almost certain I've never said that about this govt. C) There are somethings the govt does that I don't like and sometimes I'll say so without going over the top, I still prefer them to any Labour govt. It's not up to me to point out the inadequacies of this govt just as I don't expect you to come on here complaining about Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) Cuck/cuckold in this context is interchangeable. To me its meaning in a political context is to describe someone who will, for whatever reason, stand up for the interests of somebody else, even when the other person's interests are opposed to their own. For example employees standing up for business profits even when it comes at the expense of their own wages. The term was originally used in a political context by the alt-right to describe 'liberals' and was being used on here by right wing posters when I first joined. I don't think it's a particularly strong insult. It's not necessarily insulting at all. Like toddy says it's on a par with "turkeys voting for Christmas". Edited 4 January 2018 by Rogstanley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Wow ! ... not much politics in the politics thread ! ... In order to assist and hopefully move things on I will help as best I can .... A 'cuck' is : someone who cucks food and is often found working in a kitchen A 'woman who deceives her husband by having sexual relations with another man' is : a bleedin trollop, aka dead tart walking. Now then ... politics ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Can you define that word? Isn't it one of those female condoms? 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Anyhow, in an attempt to get some good debate going again...http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42495883 Great news tbh, and I'm glad the UK doesn't seem to use environmental issues as a political football as they seem to do here in the US. It is good news, but what gets me is why, if renewables are doing so well, are we getting a shite nuclear power station built? I know renewables aren't reliable all the time, solar and wind in particular are unreliable. But surely there are better ways forward, like hydro energy. We're an island ffs, make use of the sea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Innovindil said: It is good news, but what gets me is why, if renewables are doing so well, are we getting a shite nuclear power station built? I know renewables aren't reliable all the time, solar and wind in particular are unreliable. But surely there are better ways forward, like hydro energy. We're an island ffs, make use of the sea. 2 TBH I think as an island we could use tidal and other forms of renewable to satisfy pretty much all of our needs, but personally, I do like the idea of thorium-fission plants and the like as a backbone too, at least until any kind of shortfall is made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 4 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Isn't it one of those female condoms? It is good news, but what gets me is why, if renewables are doing so well, are we getting a shite nuclear power station built? I know renewables aren't reliable all the time, solar and wind in particular are unreliable. But surely there are better ways forward, like hydro energy. We're an island ffs, make use of the sea. Coal is all going offline and there is a big gap that needs to be plugged. Nuclear is proven technology whereas tidal isn't. Do you want to take the gamble? Personally I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 5 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Isn't it one of those female condoms? It is good news, but what gets me is why, if renewables are doing so well, are we getting a shite nuclear power station built? I know renewables aren't reliable all the time, solar and wind in particular are unreliable. But surely there are better ways forward, like hydro energy. We're an island ffs, make use of the sea. It don't burn so I'd say forget it ... 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: TBH I think as an island we could use tidal and other forms of renewable to satisfy pretty much all of our needs, but personally, I do like the idea of thorium-fission plants and the like as a backbone too, at least until any kind of shortfall is made up. I'm with you on that one ... they come out in those lovely red buds in the spring. Personally ... I'm all for nuclear power ... not a problem for us now with the waste but when it is several generations later we will all have pissed off to another planet and will be hard at work fvcking that up ... P.S. Just whiling away a few minutes while I wait for our taxi to the airport ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Countryfox said: I'm with you on that one ... they come out in those lovely red buds in the spring. Personally ... I'm all for nuclear power ... not a problem for us now with the waste but when it is several generations later we will all have pissed off to another planet and will be hard at work fvcking that up ... P.S. Just whiling away a few minutes while I wait for our taxi to the airport ... 2 Well, thorium tends to produce less waste which is nice. Would also be nice if they could throw enough money at fusion to actually get it working rather than treating it as a historical in-joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Well, thorium tends to produce less waste which is nice. Would also be nice if they could throw enough money at fusion to actually get it working rather than treating it as a historical in-joke. There's been no lack a research in fusion it just hasn't delivered so far. If any of these alternative sources were commercially viable they'd be up and running already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts