-
OK, I will try and make myself clear.
We live in very complex, fast moving times, and I am struggling to make sense of what's going on. So much so, in fact, that I'm probably going to enrol in some form of post-grad study so I can try and get a better understanding of what's happening to the world.
I find that currently, in the public domain, informed debate has been replaced with finger-pointing and sloganeering.
In the case of the Kevin Myers article, I believe he made some sort of link between the religious status of two women, and the gender pay differentials at the BBC. His point may or may not of been anti-semitic, I don't know because the article has been deleted.
So my point, as such, is that I think it may be more dangerous to try and delete history (for all the best intentions), than to engage with the enemy head on.
You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Jingle_Jangle
I thought I had made my point.
There is much less debate these days in the public domain. There seems to be a very narrow, dogmatic agenda, which I believe to be dangerous.
I stated fundamentally in my first post that I abhor anti-semitism, and then get accused of being a fascist and an anti-semite just because I want to rationalise for myself what someone has said.
That sort of response, when I was young, was described as Stalinist. Just sayin'.