The General Conversation Area

So I'm basically done with my group of friends.

And it's really because of just one of them. I don't like/do/think the same things he does, particularly in reference to going into town going to clubs and getting "smashed", and he feels the need to constantly bring this up and really tries to make me feel bad about it. It's not something I particularly enjoy doing so I don't do it, the others like it and that's fine, they go out and I don't nag them that they shouldn't or anything, I simply don't go because I don't enjoy it. It's like how I wouldn't force them to watch anime because it's not an interest of theirs, hell, I don't even talk about it because I know none of them like it. But this one guy, he just refuses to accept that not everyone is the same and not everyone likes/thinks the same things he does, he's of the opinion that the "social norm" is exactly that, it's what everyone must adhere to otherwise there's something inherently wrong with you. And when I do decide to go out with them this guy will without fail turn around and criticise me for not doing so in the past, he can't just be pleased that I've decided to join them, instead he feels the needs to get constant jabs in about basically he's right and I'm wrong at what I do. It makes me not want to go out with them, because as soon as drink touches this guy's lips, and it's never far from it in a social situation, he just starts getting mouthy and wanting to chastise me.

He can't let anything go. We had a falling out back at the start of the year over holidays and honestly, back then I felt that was it for the friendship, but I made an effort over the last few weeks to hang out with them all again and get along, I was willing to let everything that happened just go. But last night, after he'd had a few drinks, he starts bringing up the topic without any provocation, there's no reason for him to bring it up, doing so doesn't accomplish anything and only causes friction. But he feels the need to "be honest", as he puts it, and tell you what he thinks, and he has the bloody cheek to tell me to be quiet so that he can talk for a change because I always talk over him apparently...This is the same guy who goes on hour long bloody monologues about the most inane of stories that only he finds "hilarious" and that I've has heard a thousand times before where everyone has to just sit in silence nodding and smiling until he's eventually done. I can never get a bloody word in edgeways!

But anyway, so he brings it up again last night and starts talking down to me, basically insulting me and my family, trying to make me feel bad by telling me I may be "academically smarter" but he knows more, because he's always right, and even when I admit I'm wrong about things and tell him he's right he's the type of guy who instead of accepting it will then proceed to talk about it more and tell you why he's right and he just doesn't ever bloody let anything go!

I grew up around the corner from this guy and we were friends from about 4, but I can honestly say that if I hadn't grown up near him I wouldn't have ever been friends with him. There's others in the group that I love and are the nicest people imaginable, but the fact is that I can't be friends with them without being friends with him and I just want absolutely nothing to do with this guy anymore. I have no idea how he's considered the centre of the group, it just baffles me.
 
Yeah, he sounds like a massive waste of space. Be done with him and move on. You could maybe ask some of the others if they want to hang out without him around. You might find they all think he's just as much of an ****hole as you do.
 
Tachi said:
i'm buying a new car either later this year or next year when we have a house, mainly because we need a 5 door car and the other half also currently drives a 3 door (citreon C2) so a bigger car would serve as a family car of sorts (yep kids are on the table) I'm just alittle unsure which to go for; 2011 Ford Fiesta, Ford Mondeo Titanium or an Audi A4
Click to expand...
Family car? Get a pre '73 tax exempt Rover P6 or a Triumph 2000. The money you save can go on fuel and actual fun driving! :D

st_owly said:
he sounds like a massive waste of space. Be done with him and move on. You could maybe ask some of the others if they want to hang out without him around. You might find they all think he's just as much of an ****hole as you do.
Click to expand...
I'd further add that if you like the group but not the leader, identifying who else in the group already thinks he's a bit of a prick and who needs convincing could be a very useful exercise. Then get your Machiavelli on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd further add that if you like the group but not the leader, identifying who else in the group already thinks he's a bit of a prick and who needs convincing could be a very useful exercise. Then get your Machiavelli on.
Click to expand...

:lol:

But yeah that guy does sound pretty intolerable. If he's like how you've described him, I have no idea how you've managed to go nearly the whole of your life thus far without cleansing him out of it, to use a slightly dramatic term :lol:. Groups of friends that have one person as the "centre" also just baffle me,
 
Apologies, I have no idea where to place this question. Feel free the move it.

I bought a copy of Gurren Lagann (Beez) on eBay and the middle hinged bit snapped off in the post, actually creating a hole in the back of the case. If that makes any sense.

Does any one know what are the cases are called? As I'd like to replace it.
 
vashdaman said:
I'd further add that if you like the group but not the leader, identifying who else in the group already thinks he's a bit of a prick and who needs convincing could be a very useful exercise. Then get your Machiavelli on.
Click to expand...

:lol:

But yeah that guy does sound pretty intolerable. If he's like how you've described him, I have no idea how you've managed to go nearly the whole of your life thus far without cleansing him out of it, to use a slightly dramatic term :lol:. Groups of friends that have one person as the "centre" also just baffle me,
Click to expand...

The rest pretty much agree with his "go out, get pissed" principle so he doesn't have any qualms with them or vice versa. I'm really just singled out by him. I suppose things were better when we were younger because alcohol and going to clubs simply wasn't a factor.
 
Yeah, it's really annoying when people try and make someone out to be social pariahs just because they don't like alcohol or clubs. In fact, to tell the truth, people who don't require excesses of alcohol or music blaring at a deafening decibel in order to have a good time with friends, are probably infinitely more sociable than those that do, yet often get treated like they are opposite. It can annoying sometimes.

I've pretty much always been in a similar camp; I like to socialise, but I don't particulraly like overcrowded clubs that play music at levels my eardrums aren't used to. There's just nothing for me there really. That's why I long ago decided that I need to find a strict Muslim girlfriend, they don't go for any of that stuff either, and seeing as I look a bit like I could be Muslim, the door might be open for me! And then over the years I'll slowly break her down get her out of that dogmatic religious stuff. Solid plan.

Those last few sentences were entirely tongue in cheek by the way. I would never really try and get anyone to renounce their faith. Though I must admit to feeling a strange sense of gratification when a bona fide Muslin hottie in one of my classes decided to stop wearing her hijab. I'd been fantasising about what was underneath that for months, and it didn't disappoint! Honestly, how did I even get on to this, what's wrong with me haha.
 
vashdaman said:
That's why I long ago decided that I need to find a strict Muslim girlfriend, they don't go for any of that stuff either, and seeing as I look a bit like I could be Muslim, the door might be open for me! And then over the years I'll slowly break her down get her out of that dogmatic religious stuff. Solid plan...

Honestly, how did I even get on to this, what's wrong with me haha.
Click to expand...
Yes, we quite understand vash... You're only joking about your budding corruption fetish, of course. Nothing to do with all those innocence destroying links you've been following ever since you arrived. Heh.

Heh heh heh.
 
Haha i dont really want to drive round newborns in a car that is already 20 something years older than myself Ayase :p

20th; The friend you are referring to is not just the friend you have but the social norm for 18-25 year olds... or so the general peer pressured opinion on the matter.

I used to go out every week, several times and with a large base of friends to do so with (lads night down the local pub for beer, banter and pool was a thursday, night on the town with my other mate and his 26 year old cousin and all his mate varied from 18 to 31 year olds) regularly the week would be split into thursday through to sunday was drinking and the remainder of the week was 18p noodles from asda to get me through till payday the next thursday.

As time went on i learnt that the money i spend on alcohol does not directly corrolate to the amount of fun had on that evening, for instance you can aim to drink the bar dry and you'll have no fun when you are wiping sick off yourself and trying to get home 4miles away with nothing but your uncoordinated feet (as nobody would allow you in the taxi) now i'd be lying if i didnt admit that yes that happened to me a few times but not alot due to being able to know my limits and drink more than the next guy.... its all a waste of money, sure go for the fun and enjoy it but the money will still be pissed against the wall.

Step forward 4 years and much has changed, the ones that went to uni maintained the illusion that going and getting wasted was the best thing since sliced bread, but one by one they returned home and the realization that the money they wasted on all these nights out has bought them nothing but haze filled memories and some regrets. If you value their friendship then stay friends, ifnot then walk away but know one thing, the people you know in school through to adult life only diminishes in numbers, suddenly i'm at a juncture in life where my party mad brother in arms is now talking to me about cars and his 2 kids and the improvements he needs a hand with around the house. fun changes, ideals and goals change and most importantly people change, i'd personally say that you are better off working things out for yourself, nobody here can give you the right or wrong answer because ultimately its your life and we can only look through a window to it, you are the one walking along your own path.

I'm still the leader of my merry troop, we dont even have lads night that often (once a month if that) and other halfs automatically join the fold so things arent even the same when going to the pub, people are getting engaged, considering moving away and so forth... don't be so quick to give away your friends, one day you'll stand there on the street at night and take a deep breath and wonder how everything changed so quick and why there is never enough time. You only begin to know the true worth of things when they are gone or going.

(For the record im not going to be friendless, its just a harsh shock to realize that the guys i grew up with are eventually going to go their own ways, its just life i guess)
 
Tachi said:
Haha i dont really want to drive round newborns in a car that is already 20 something years older than myself Ayase :p
Click to expand...
Ah, suit yourself. I think I'll just make sure I never find myself in a position of having the responsibility of driving children around (which shouldn't be difficult). :p

It is surprising to me how often people bring up the safety angle when I talk with them about old cars, as though danger (and presumably also excitement) is something to be minimised if not avoided altogether. When people tell me they buy modern cars because they're safer, or even go so far as to say they wouldn't own a car like mine because of its lack of safety features, I have the immense urge to suddenly kick them hard in the crotch (regardless of gender, I'm a firm believer in equality) and say "Tsk, bit unsafe not to wear a cup, wasn't it?"
 
Hahaha if you ever muster the courage to kick someone like that, please make sure you have a camera handy.

I'm in the middle when it comes to cars and age, the old cars can hold their own very well in a crash (my friends old skoda was hit by a truck, the skoda came off with scratches, the truck needed a replacement bumper) although it wasnt breakneck speeds it was still able to come off better than a newer vehicle.

For me its the rust issue with old motors, i dont want to try and get into a car with a rotting floorpan and actually put my foot through the bottom of the car and become fred flintstone, on the other end of the scale i'd rather not have a brand new car if i can help it because (as weve spoken about) all it needs is for a fault to read up on the dashboard and it'll need a diagnostics to find the problem, then fit it and parts for new motors arent cheap. No i'm happy with my middle ground car which is old enough to have cheap parts and sturdy body but with the addition of soft bumpers and modern-ish tech.

Received my request for sportka bumpers from Ford;
Sprortka-Front Centre Bumper ‘Primed’
Part Number: 1315881
Retail Price: £156.94
You Pay: £133.40
Sprortka-Front Centre Bumper Grille Upper
Part Number: 1236061
Retail Price: £93.09
You Pay: £79.13
Sprortka-Front Centre Bumper Grille Lower
Part Number: 1236062
Retail Price: £86.08
You Pay: £73.17
Sprortka-RH Bumper Section ‘Primed’
Part Number: 1315880
Retail Price: £119.01
You Pay: £101.16
Sprortka-LH Bumper Section ‘Primed’
Part Number: 1315883
Retail Price: £119.01
You Pay: £101.16
Postage & Packing
Royal Mail/Parcel Force UK 2Day Service £16.50
Prices subject to VAT @ 20%
Total Cost: £605.42

Looked at standard bumper for a Ka on ebay; £20 with postage. It seems upgrading my cars look will cost a pretty penny... or i can just buy a second bumper and use body filler and cardboard to build up a bumper that looks like a sportka, probably a damn site cheaper to do.
 
Was reading this http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/3 ... e-officers just now, as I'm actually just trying to finish up a project I'm doing on black British police. It's quite surprising how many Guardian readers (going from the comments) seem to think racial discrimination in Britain is a thing of the past. Though I guess any mention of positive discrimination does always inevitably cause debate. Personally, I think positive discrimination is still a necessary right now, because without it there's little to prevent institutions from practising typical discrimination. Obviously any form of affirmative action won't completely stop prejudicial people from being prejudiced, but it can at least limit it slightly. All this talk of it creating a "backlash of angry white racists" is complete rubbish in my opinion. If they are racist, it wasn't the positive discrimination that caused it, and doing away with those policies certainly won't make those people any less racist.
 
IMO all racial and gender discrimination, whether positive or negative, needs to be done away with. It does nothing but foster resentment that people are getting special treatment just because of who they are. We need a meritocratic system across the board where the best people for a job get it rather than because the people hiring don't want to look like they're discriminating (or are legally mandated to positively discriminate) - I'm reminded of Lenny Henry's "It's 'cause I'm a black man innit?" sketches. Rather than having quotas on hiring certain ethnicities or genders surely the best policy is "Don't f*cking hire sexists and racists and if you find out someone is one, fire them" which should surely be standard practice now anyway.

I don't look at an organisation and say "for this organisation to serve me satisfactorily, it needs more Yorkshiremen in it" because that would be ridiculous. Why some people of various ethnicities and genders do say things which amount to this I can only attribute to bitterness and perhaps unfulfilled ambition. The important thing an organisation should be doing is it's bloody job. If the Met is no longer unfairly targeting ethnic minorities then job done. It doesn't need a load of black chief constables in order to achieve that goal, the idea that it does is nothing but tokenism. Obviously officers should be getting promoted if they're good enough, but surely an outside body could easily check and see if outstanding officers keep getting passed over for promotion and investigate if there is discrimination taking place?

The real problem with prejudice (and the one that won't go away) is that people aren't born with it - It's taught by parents, peers and even encouraged by some in authority. It also seems difficult to remove once people reach adulthood. I can't ever see a way of eliminating it bar taking children from their parents at birth and having them educated by neutral machines while the rest of society is culled to make way for the new prejudice-free generation (which I'm not altogether against) but until then, I think the best thing people without such prejudices can do is call out people who are discriminating - And that includes positive discrimination.

Might the News and Current Affairs Thread be a better place for this? Dunno.
 
We need a meritocratic system across the board where the best people for a job get it rather than because the people hiring don't want to look like they're discriminating (or are legally mandated to positively discriminate) - I'm reminded of Lenny Henry's "It's 'cause I'm a black man innit?" sketches. Rather than having quotas on hiring certain ethnicities or genders surely the best policy is "Don't f*cking hire sexists and racists and if you find out someone is one, fire them" which should surely be standard practice now anyway.
Click to expand...

I can respect this opinion, as your right, what we do need is a meritocratic system. But the problem as I see it is that if we do decide that all forms of discrimination are wrong and so all these policies should be done away with on principle of it, we still won't be any closer to having a truly fair meritocratic system of the kind you and I would both desire, but it would erode at least one line of the minimal defences we have against properly racist discrimination. Places like Britain and especially the US still have too much proper racism ingrained in it's cultures. When you look at higher education establishments for example, the top echelon within them are still overwhelmingly white and male. So is it really much of stretch of the imagination to imagine that without at least some form of mandatory protection, racist and sexist discrimination within these institutions would be allowed to flourish to a greater extent. And I think they would probably get away with it too, as it can probably be difficult on a practical level to prove that they are being racist.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's not ideal by any means, but I think if we do away with these things because of ideals without considering the actual practical effects, we may just go back a step. I read an interesting article about all this a while ago, I'll try and find it.
 
vashdaman said:
...the problem as I see it is that if we do decide that all forms of discrimination are wrong and so all these policies should be done away with on principle of it, we still won't be any closer to having a truly fair meritocratic system of the kind you and I would both desire, but it would erode at least one line of the minimal defences we have against properly racist discrimination. Places like Britain and especially the US still have too much proper racism ingrained in it's cultures. When you look at higher education establishments for example, the top echelon within them are still overwhelmingly white and male. So is it really much of stretch of the imagination to imagine that without at least some form of mandatory protection, racist and sexist discrimination within these institutions would be allowed to flourish to a greater extent.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a bit presumptuous though? I don't buy the "Because the people in x organisation are overwhelmingly one race, they're more likely to be racist" argument. It's true of organisations which are explicitly racist like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam, obviously, but university posts? You're talking about some of the most intelligent people in the country there. Now there might be the odd David Irving among them, but I think (largely because of their level of intelligence) that on the whole they're actually far less likely to be racist than any other cross section of the general public.

Why are they overwhelmingly white and male? Well, history and demographics. The wealthier, established people in this country who've had a few hundred / thousand years head start on everyone else happen to be white and that's just genetics. For much of that time they've been followers of religions which are very anti-woman, so that's kept women down. Ethnic minorities have been the immigrants and have arrived much more recently, most have come here to make a better life for themselves and by and large, they've started at the bottom. But now that racism is much less prevalent and certainly much more frowned upon, I think it's important to realise they are hardly any worse off than the white working class (or underclass given that there's no longer work for them, thanks Thatcher). It isn't white people who have an inherent advantage, it's wealthy people, and those wealthy people are predominantly white because it takes time to accumulate wealth and they've been here the longest. But at the same time there were plenty of poor, downtrodden people in this country who stood no chance of ever receiving a good education or bettering their situation long before the first boats arrived carrying Indian or Jamaican immigrants. Most white people, in fact. And there still are plenty of white people who see themselves as being in the same ****** no-hope situation as black people or people of any shade in between. Come to Teesside and visit a JobCentre. I get the feeling some people (and I'm not saying you do, I don't believe that's the case at all) just think "Oh well, white men have been in charge for hundreds of years, time for them to suffer a bit" which is an equally bloody horrible way of treating a whole section of people just because of their race and gender and failing to take into account the fact that "white men" has always included some of the poorest in society as well as the richest and most successful.

Everybody is born into the circumstances their parents find themselves in. Naturally, this means someone born to unemployed parents with nothing on a council estate has to fight a lot harder than someone born to parents with hereditary peerages in a stately home built by their ancestors 300 years ago, on land given to even further back ancestors by William the Bastard a thousand years ago after he had the original inhabitants murdered. So yes, fight by all means. Fight like a m*therf*cker to get what you want. But fight for yourself to get where you want to be because you know you're good enough. You haven't really won respect or done anything for equality if you achieve your position in society by banding together with people who just happen to share some of your genetic make-up and convincing the people with the power that if they don't employ you, they're racist / sexist / discriminating in some way. It's circumstances and attitude that determines how far people get in this world - I think a black guy or a white woman from a council estate has far more chance of getting to be a chief constable or a professor if they give it their all and display the skills and attitudes appropriate to those positions than if they spend their time whining about how they're being prevented from doing do because of their circumstances of birth. We're all in that same boat - From the top to the bottom, none of us choose those circumstances. Hell, I'd be willing to bet even the Queen has days she wishes she'd been born into an ordinary suburban family just as we no doubt have days when we wish we were Lord or Lady of the manor somewhere. The bar is set higher for some than it is for others, yes. That's not fair, no. But you can stand around and complain about how it should be lowered for you because that rich white guy over there only had to step over it, or you can grab the pole and take a run up. And it's not difficult to see why the second type of people receive a lot more respect and are far more likely to get over the bar.
 
woah, ive stumbled into something serious here haven't i? i really cant be bothered to go through the essays and provide me opinion on the topic so not to be rude but i'm going to divert the topic now :p

What are people doing this weekend?

Since we rarely have nice weather here in Manchester, I'm happy to say that I'm at Grillstock tomorrow! - http://grillstock.co.uk/manchester-festival and on Sunday, I'm buying picnic stuffs from M&S to have a picnic in my garden with the boy. I kinda want to try the new limited edition Pimms flavour so i might buy a bottle of that too.
 
We interrupt this thread for a public service announcement.

Today I was able to obtain free iced-cream by stationing myself at the correct whereabouts at the correct time.

But how can I do likewise, I hear you ask. Fear not: Those in London can obtain a free scoop of the aforementioned by gathering outside the Truman Brewery on Brick Lane tomorrow at noon. The agents distributing the treats in question have been so careless as to announce their further plans publicly.
 
Isn't that a bit presumptuous though? I don't buy the "Because the people in x organisation are overwhelmingly one race, they're more likely to be racist" argument. It's true of organisations which are explicitly racist like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam, obviously, but university posts? You're talking about some of the most intelligent people in the country there. Now there might be the odd David Irving among them, but I think (largely because of their level of intelligence) that on the whole they're actually far less likely to be racist than any other cross section of the general public.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is presumptuous, but it is conceivable certainly. I guess I just have less faith than you that men who hold those credentials going to necessarily be colour blind. And if they do decide to racially discriminate they will more than likely get away with it. And what about other institutions? If in 1999 even the commissioner of the Met police had to concede that his organisation was "institutionally racist", doesn't this tell us something?

but now that racism is much less prevalent and certainly much more frowned upon, I think it's important to realise they are hardly any worse off than the white working class (or underclass given that there's no longer work for them, thanks Thatcher). It isn't white people who have an inherent advantage, it's wealthy people,
Click to expand...

Well yeah it's always been the wealthy who have had the greatest advantage, and the working class have always been trodden on regardless of race, but I think your perhaps downplaying or underestimating how much the colour of someone's skin still impacts their life experience unfortunately. Racism might be outwardly officially frowned upon, and yeah things have no doubt improved over the years, but racism still quietly chugs away in our institutions, and is allowed to, until outrage gets to such a point that they have no choice but to acquiesce (as was the case with the accusations of police corruption that followed Stephen Lawrence's murder, and which led to the 1999 statement I mentioned earlier). There's plenty of evidence to prove that race still has a profound effect on how the institutions in this county, and especially in the US, treat us. Though I obviously agree that class discrimination is certainly rampant too, and I would never suggest that it wasn't, but I don't think we should so easily dismiss the issue of racism.

"Oh well, white men have been in charge for hundreds of years, time for them to suffer a bit" which is an equally bloody horrible way of treating a whole section of people just because of their race and gender and failing to take into account the fact that "white men" has always included some of the poorest in society as well as the richest and most successful.
Click to expand...

Some people (probably not many though) probably do think like that, but how many of these people actually have the sufficient power to inflict such suffering white people? The roles aren't anywhere close to being reversed, and I don't think it's ever going to happen in this country, so I wouldn't worry too much.

And speaking of "reversing", this might be worth a read http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/1 ... rse-Racism
It focuses largely on the semantics of the word racism and what it's proper definition should be (according to the author). But many of the themes and points brought up are relevant to this discussion.

And on as for what I'm doing on the weekend: nothing but typing essays :( I wouldn't mind a bottle of Pimms myself right now...
 
Back
Top