Todays society - snowflakes

[peterb]

once does not a vienetta vendetta make.

Since we don't vendettas on HEXUS, that is probably a good thing and so there is no need to repeat it.

Doesn't mean you have to do it, though... It's not like he's a Mod/Admin, ya know!!
I don't believe he's on the approved list of oppressed/offended minorities, either...

Indeed - a joke taken too far can be construed intimidating or harrassing - which again we don't do on HEXUS.

Thread closed pending review

I am re-opening the thread - but no more ice cream please (the last time I shall ask politely) - it isn't the weather for it and the joke has gone far enough. (And seeing the video of how its made, while fascinating, has put me off it for a long time).

[ik9000]

Since we don't vendettas on HEXUS, that is probably a good thing and so there is no need to repeat it.



Indeed - a joke taken too far can be construed intimidating or harrassing - which again we don't do on HEXUS.



I am re-opening the thread - but no more ice cream please (the last time I shall ask politely) - it isn't the weather for it and the joke has gone far enough. (And seeing the video of how its made, while fascinating, has put me off it for a long time.

I'd already stopped - find one icecream I posted in a thread since you made your comment. You won't be able to.

And therein my experiment reaches its expected conclusion. In a thread of people vociferously berating over sensitive snowflakes and people who get offended on their behalf, it would seem either some have already got upset after three posts of an icecream dessert, or else the mods have stepped in pre-emptively for something as trivial as putting up pictures of a vienetta. Interesting to re-read the thread in light of that no?

Quite why the thread got locked at the point people were talking about reading mooses or Reading Mooses depending on google's ability to differentiate is puzzling to me, but hey ho.

[peterb]

Your experiment showed one thing - that if you set out to irritate a group of people - you will succeed - so congratulations on demonstrating the blindingly obvious.

As I said earlier, in a civilised society, one should be sensitive to other people sensitivities! (Without letting that stifle debate of course - but without ad hominem attacks).

As for ice cream pictures, I only need to look at your avatar which currently appears in every post you make!

[ik9000]

Your experiment showed one thing - that if you set out to irritate a group of people - you will succeed - so congratulations on demonstrating the blindingly obvious.

As for ice cream pictures, I only need to look at your avatar which currently appears in every post you make!

Pictures aren't in a thread, and no worse than a chainsaw, which could be construed as far more sinister and threatening by those prone to a snowflake disposition.

Your post above about potential harrasment shows someone somewhere was considering more than just irritating posts. I think my experiment worked well.

Do I take it you'd like me to change my avatar? I will consider all requests on their merit, but I fail to see why it is a problem to have a Vienetta as an avatar picture. Having bought one today I'm quite looking forward to having it later.

[TeePee]

I've never had Mint Vienetta. My childhood in the UK did feature the vanilla version very rarely, on ultra special occasions, perhaps yearly. It was about the most extreme delicacy we could afford. They slowly drifted from my recollection until this thread brought them up. Sadly they are not available here in the US. I am simultaneously thankful to you for bringing back memories of this slab of deliciousness, while also hating you for taunting me with the unobtainable. I suggest this be a banning offense, with a duration of several seconds.

[peterb]

I've never had Mint Vienetta. My childhood in the UK did feature the vanilla version very rarely, on ultra special occasions, perhaps yearly. It was about the most extreme delicacy we could afford. They slowly drifted from my recollection until this thread brought them up. Sadly they are not available here in the US. I am simultaneously thankful to you for bringing back memories of this slab of deliciousness, while also hating you for taunting me with the unobtainable. I suggest this be a banning offense, with a duration of several seconds.

It was of its time - along with Black Forest Gateaux and prawn cocktail! Although I did a prawn cocktail recently and that revived happy memories!

(Sadly I dont recognise offense so I am unable to comply )

[badass]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/557435...-asda-t-shirt/

This is precisely our bleeping issue at the moment. Literally wandering round shops, finding stuff to get offended about.

You take the Sun as a source of truth? If so, you've got bigger problems than easily offended people to whinge about

[Hoonigan]

You take the Sun as a source of truth? If so, you've got bigger problems than easily offended people to whinge about

Oi, how dare you say that! What gives you the right to make such assumptions on my lifestyle and which problems I have?!

/snowflake

[Ttaskmaster]

I am re-opening the thread - but no more ice cream please (the last time I shall ask politely) - it isn't the weather for it and the joke has gone far enough.

Just ice-cream, or are things like sorbet banned as well?
Ice lollies?
What about a Baked Alaska?
McDonalds Milkshake?

[Smudger]

Anything involving cold dairy products. To include yoghurts, smoothies and especially Petits Filous.

[wysiwug]

Can imagine this column becoming really busy over the next couple of months, but will probably slow down again as summer approaches

[Galant]

That moment when you open up a thread about 'snowflakes' and find a discussion on ice-cream...

My advice is, don't eat yellow snow. It's pretty offensive stuff.

(Now to figure out how this thread ended up here.)

[Zak33]

I like a feast.. always have.

I mean, all these modern Oreo and Mars Bar on a stick things... pathetic attempts at Icecream

Feast.. with the nuts that everyone's allergic too please.. with a hint of celery and any other allergen you can smear on in please.

ta

[Smudger]

Feasts didn't have nuts on, that was biscuit. Unless they made one with nuts on that I can't remember...

[philehidiot]

Okay, this looks like a good thread to stir.

The Tower Effigy Burning Scandal. Should the police be involved? Surely we live in a society where naming and shaming and having social consequences can be differentiated from legal consequences? Do we need to quite literally police hurt feelings?

What they did was utterly disgusting, posting it on the internet was downright stupid but ought a lack of taste (to put it mildlly) need result in a criminal record and all the potential for unemployment and the suffering of their families that might well bring?

[Saracen]

Okay, this looks like a good thread to stir.

The Tower Effigy Burning Scandal. Should the police be involved? Surely we live in a society where naming and shaming and having social consequences can be differentiated from legal consequences? Do we need to quite literally police hurt feelings?

What they did was utterly disgusting, posting it on the internet was downright stupid but ought a lack of taste (to put it mildlly) need result in a criminal record and all the potential for unemployment and the suffering of their families that might well bring?

First thought - it was a momumentally thoughtless and tasteless stunt, and that was bad enough but posting it online .... well, it leads me to at least suspect that the reason for doing it was to post it and the reason to post it was to cause upset, and offence .... to put it mildly.

Put it this way. I do not personally know anybody that was a victim of a certain tower fire, and that prank offended me. Had I lost family, I'd probably be seriously hoping to see the idiot prankster dangling from a rope.

That stunt was, IMHO, monumentally stupid, sick, tasteless and highly offensive.


But should the police be involved?

Well, whoever posted it did, at a minimum, potentially commit an offence by doing so. If they intended the result they achieved, and my suspicion is it is exactly what was intended, then a crime has been committed. And that is a matter for police.

However, given that the police are apparently horrendously under-resourced, and recent figures suggest tgat between 25% and 70%-ish, depending on geographic locationm of crimes such as burglary, car theft and even muggings may never even be investigated I do have to wonder if it is an appropriate, efficient use of police time.

But then again, given the potential offence, and that the idiots responsible apparently walked into a police station and gave themselves up, what were police supposed to do? Kick thdm out and refuse to deal with it?

Seems to me, as is often the case, especially where media were involved, the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they hadn't dealt with it, the next day's headlines and TV news lead story would be outrage over them not dealing with it.

What's more of a question is why such worthies as the Prime Minister, and any other politician successful in finding a passing camera, felt the need to get on their high horse sbout it, thereby giving said idiot miscreants exactly the publicity they probably sought.

Oh, and by the way, why did the media need to go on and on about it? I mean, was it so that any Grenfell victims or families tgat hadn't seen it were certain to catch it on TV and so, be offended?

Who csused the most offence - the idiots that pulled the stunt and posted it, or the idiot news editors that made oh-so-sure that nobody coukd fail to be aware of it.

Rather than question police involvement, I'd question the PM (etc) getting in on it, and the media and press editors giving it such prominent billing.