Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've yet to see reasoning and debate persuade the mindset of one with 'controversial' views on here. "Or in a lot of public debates | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've yet to see reasoning and debate persuade the mindset of one with 'controversial' views on here. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "I don’t think you understand what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from the consequences of what one says. If someone has something ‘controversial’ to say, they can expect for others to exercise their right to free speech in telling them that their ‘controversial’ views are, in fact, repulsive and wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "Sick of the lynchings round this way. Anyone says anything even remotely racist and the "PC brigade" will publicly execute them. FACT. Mob justice is always hardest on the largest group, and the wandering bands of goons stalk the streets looking for the latest offenders. FACT. The trees round here are full of the swinging burned remains of people who just wanted to use outdated pejoratives. Or "Just don't see why it's offensive" FACT. Strange fruit indeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement
Sick of the lynchings round this way. Anyone says anything even remotely racist and the "PC brigade" will publicly execute them. FACT. Mob justice is always hardest on the largest group, and the wandering bands of goons stalk the streets looking for the latest offenders. FACT. The trees round here are full of the swinging burned remains of people who just wanted to use outdated pejoratives. Or "Just don't see why it's offensive" FACT.
Strange fruit indeed."
Some people really do love to play the victim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement
I don’t think you understand what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from the consequences of what one says. If someone has something ‘controversial’ to say, they can expect for others to exercise their right to free speech in telling them that their ‘controversial’ views are, in fact, repulsive and wrong."Which is exactly the point of this post??? Controversy needs to be discussed. Just telling people there are consequences to them expressing their mindset, may keep them quiet. But debating conflicting views, usually highlights the flawed viewpoint. After all we may find somethings distasteful, but should popular views be dictated to others? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. " That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Well done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement
Sick of the lynchings round this way. Anyone says anything even remotely racist and the "PC brigade" will publicly execute them. FACT. Mob justice is always hardest on the largest group, and the wandering bands of goons stalk the streets looking for the latest offenders. FACT. The trees round here are full of the swinging burned remains of people who just wanted to use outdated pejoratives. Or "Just don't see why it's offensive" FACT.
Strange fruit indeed."Do people still put FACT in capitals when trying to make a dubious point? How delightfully retro. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Well done. "He thought he’d bamboozle people with bollocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which is exactly the point of this post???" Either it isn’t, or you’ve hidden it really well. You still seem to be struggling with the idea that freedom of speech applies to both sides of any argument. Telling people that their views are distasteful isn’t suppression of anyone’s freedom of speech. You also seem to be making the mistake of confusing right and wrong with popular and unpopular. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "The problem is that a lot of so-called 'free speech' isn't reasoned debate at all but rather a jumble of ill-informed prejudice and lies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Well done. ". Tell us the last thing that offended you then and we'll examine it's context and content and I'll try to understand why you were "offended" by it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "Too many people confuse freedom of speech with the belief that they can say anything and not be challenged on it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement
Sick of the lynchings round this way. Anyone says anything even remotely racist and the "PC brigade" will publicly execute them. FACT. Mob justice is always hardest on the largest group, and the wandering bands of goons stalk the streets looking for the latest offenders. FACT. The trees round here are full of the swinging burned remains of people who just wanted to use outdated pejoratives. Or "Just don't see why it's offensive" FACT.
Strange fruit indeed."What's do you mean by "remotely racist? It's either racist or it isn't! The problem starts with people not understanding what's offensive and what's not in the first place. Even the PC brigade get it wrong and think they're doing the right thing by challenging anything they think is offensive even if they're not part of that particular group. Then you get the racists, homophobic, sexist people who think discussion is their chance to spew their vile beliefs because a minority agree with them. Discussion and debate are healthy and help to break down ignorance, as is integration and inclusion. Unfortunately it's lost on many and spirals into name calling and silliness. If you need someon to explain why something is offensive when it's obviously racist, homophobic, sexist or anything else then you have no business being part of an intelligent debate and should seek education in whatever it is that you're struggling to understand. Easier to research than debate on a forum with lots of different views whether they be wrong or right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement
Too many people confuse freedom of speech with the belief that they can say anything and not be challenged on it". That's his entire point, being challenged on what you've said is fine, suppression of it isn't!. The problem with this supposed I've taken offence so you shouldn't say it applies to everybody as well. There's a strict Christian cake maker in northern Ireland that gets "offended" by taking about gayness, there's some volatile Muslims that get "offended" by a cartoon of Mohammed, which one has the right to keep you quite or which one should I avoid "offending". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "Problem is on here is that there are some incredibly touchy people on here who usually don't actually READ what's been said and if they see certain words in a sentence they immediately cry I'm offence and start throwing insults at the person in question, shortly followed by the white Knights who will jump to their defence with the sole purpose of getting on their good side in the hopes of a shag. Worse still are the people (and this happens everywhere) who take offence on the behalf of others. This is very common in council offices for example where they state that a certain thing or act is racist claiming that people will be offended. Even though they haven't actually spoken to the"offended" parties in question ,they assume that they know more than them claiming they know what's offensive. These types are usually as bad as the people at the other end of the spectrum. Both are usually very closed minded and don't allow debate. They always start shouting and don't let people talk and express their views good or bad. And lastly are the people on here who regardless of your opinion they will take an opposite view just for the sake of argument as their view is the only view,and these are the ones who claim there is no rational conversation and discussion on here usually because they jump in crying foul before people can actually start a decent conversation. Lastly we have censorship by admin who rightfully or wrongfully on occasions prevent a decent debate however this is rare because it's usually stopped when someone start's getting personal or nasty or beak site rules. But there have been some decent threads where stuff is actually discussed in a civilised manner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m a misanthropist; I hate everyone equally "Well yes, it's not so much I hate everyone equally.its more I prefer my own company to others. I would happily become a hermit living in a cave if it meant I didn't have to interact with people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Well done.
He thought he’d bamboozle people with bollocks."You have both made one of my points perfectly. Rather than directly question the statement and ask for the reasoning you both resort to insults. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have freedom of speech in this country, it's not meant literally though. What that actually means is that we are allowed to speak out against our government and speak out about other stuff we believe in, within reason. Whereas some other countries, you can get hung, shot, thrown in jail for years ect...for doing that. Freedom of speech in this country does not include being racist, offensive, homophobic ect ect. Common sense needs to be applied. Yes there can be offence, of course there can. " The problem is that a significant minority try to make everything a matter of race, sexuality and identity politics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. " I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? " . If you want to take offense to it you will, are you now the judge of what people find offensive or is it the individuals choice to be offended | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? . If you want to take offense to it you will, are you now the judge of what people find offensive or is it the individuals choice to be offended" A simple yes or no will suffice. Do you think the comment I refered to is offensive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? . If you want to take offense to it you will, are you now the judge of what people find offensive or is it the individuals choice to be offended A simple yes or no will suffice. Do you think the comment I refered to is offensive?" . No,I read it and I'm no more offended now than I was before!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended" Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? . If you want to take offense to it you will, are you now the judge of what people find offensive or is it the individuals choice to be offended A simple yes or no will suffice. Do you think the comment I refered to is offensive?" I think his point is that "offence" is always subjective and exists only in the minds of those offended. That's true as far as it goes, but every society has standards of offence which are essentially the standards held by most people in that society. On that basis, the post you mention was clearly offensive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive?" . Of course that's perfectly right to challenge my statement, unless I or somebody says it, you can't challenge it, hopefully your challenge will be stronger than my personal offense and we all can move on with me just being offended! Yes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. " "Offense is something you take, not something thats given" That and the "offended" clip by Steve Hughes on Youtoob pretty much nail it for me. Them and the "offended on behalf of someone else" (who probably isnt offended) brigade..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you want to take offense to it you will, are you now the judge of what people find offensive or is it the individuals choice to be offended" Have you ever been eaten by a lion? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven’t. Would you quibble someone referring to lions as man-eaters? No. A word, or phrase, or remark doesn’t have to personally offend you for it to nevertheless be offensive. Personally, the ‘n’ word doesn’t hurt me. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t find it offensive. I know how hurtful it is to other people, so it’s use angers me. There’s this thing you might have read about called empathy. It’s arguably one of the things that makes us human. It’s why, when I read posts which criticise others for standing up for and defending other people, I can only feel sorry for the poster. To lack such a basic understanding of human interaction, to be do hollow, is a pretty sorry state of affairs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Offense is something you take, not something thats given"" And yet we have the word ‘offender’. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Offense is something you take, not something thats given" And yet we have the word ‘offender’." Frequently used by the offended.
I think if we went back to dueling to the death a lot more people would be a lot less offended and a lot more "stuff"........ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended" Some people have nothing to say,but say it to loudly (DO YOU LIKE MY SKIRT ?, LOL ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it" But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Some people have nothing to say,but say it to loudly (DO YOU LIKE MY SKIRT ?, LOL )"Its more of a belt really...... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Frequently used by the offended. "Putting a smiley after something doesn’t make it funny. Or accurate. Or a point. "I think if we went back to dueling to the death a lot more people would be a lot less offended and a lot more "stuff"........" Yes, if we went back to less civil times, people would get away with being less civil. What’s your point? Does being better with a sword or pistol make you right? Unchallengeable? Or does it just give arseholes more opportunities to be arseholes? Maybe get back to us when you’ve actually got a reasoned argument rather than empty sounbytes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive?" It's a fairly sexist assumption that the trans members of fab are all male to female and have a proclivity for skirts. There will be some, I'm sure, that are female to male and would prefer to wear trousers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Frequently used by the offended.
Putting a smiley after something doesn’t make it funny. Or accurate. Or a point.
I think if we went back to dueling to the death a lot more people would be a lot less offended and a lot more "stuff"........
Yes, if we went back to less civil times, people would get away with being less civil. What’s your point? Does being better with a sword or pistol make you right? Unchallengeable? Or does it just give arseholes more opportunities to be arseholes?
Maybe get back to us when you’ve actually got a reasoned argument rather than empty sounbytes."Although my duelling comment was glib, the point is valid. Those times were much more civil. People were compelled to think before they spoke and compelled to consider before they responded. Sas that a considered enough "soundbyte" for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Frequently used by the offended.
Putting a smiley after something doesn’t make it funny. Or accurate. Or a point.
I think if we went back to dueling to the death a lot more people would be a lot less offended and a lot more "stuff"........
Yes, if we went back to less civil times, people would get away with being less civil. What’s your point? Does being better with a sword or pistol make you right? Unchallengeable? Or does it just give arseholes more opportunities to be arseholes?
Maybe get back to us when you’ve actually got a reasoned argument rather than empty sounbytes.
Although my duelling comment was glib, the point is valid. Those times were much more civil.
People were compelled to think before they spoke and compelled to consider before they responded.
Sas that a considered enough "soundbyte" for you?
"They whispered behind their pink, lacey handkerchiefs; the ladies, behind their fans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack." . How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people get a thrill out of saying their "stuff". No one really wants to hear the drivel that comes out of their mouths, but can't say so, because they get called snowflakes. " . Free speech or freedom to write stuff in the forums doesn't enforce you to listen or read it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Some people have nothing to say,but say it to loudly (DO YOU LIKE MY SKIRT ?, LOL )". You've clearly missed the context in which I wrote that as an argument to being offended.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive? It's a fairly sexist assumption that the trans members of fab are all male to female and have a proclivity for skirts. There will be some, I'm sure, that are female to male and would prefer to wear trousers. ". It's not a sexist assumption because I was directly replying to a man wearing a kilt as an argument about being offended, if you couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, that's your problem not mine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack" So no evidence of any actual threat to this person's free speech, then. How unexpected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack So no evidence of any actual threat to this person's free speech, then. How unexpected. " . If you find where I said there was I'll give you a Jim I'll fix it badge! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world." Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although my duelling comment was glib, the point is valid. Those times were much more civil. People were compelled to think before they spoke and compelled to consider before they responded. Sas that a considered enough "soundbyte" for you?" If you spent time considering that response, you either don’t really know what ‘civil’ means, or your understanding of history doesn’t extend much further than period dramas on ITV. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack" I hate to be a spelling/grammar dick but are you defending their right to say it. Or defending that they are right to say it? As they are very different comments... But regardless I don't see how telling people that they have no right to be offended is defending free speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack So no evidence of any actual threat to this person's free speech, then. How unexpected. . If you find where I said there was I'll give you a Jim I'll fix it badge!" Glad we agree. So my point stands that all you are doing is defending this person from criticism, not suppression. And this is how 'but free speech!' arguments are usually, and disingenuously, made. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack I hate to be a spelling/grammar dick but are you defending their right to say it. Or defending that they are right to say it? As they are very different comments... But regardless I don't see how telling people that they have no right to be offended is defending free speech? " . I never said people couldn't be offended, I said firstly I don't think they are offended and secondly them being offended is less important than the right to offend people, as somebody said if free speech is anything it's the right to hear something you don't like!. If offence is only in the person's perception then I could be offended about anything you say and according to your stance then you shouldn't say anything at all for fear of offending me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism." It's not my idea it's the society that we live in and it's been pretty sweet so far.Ive never read Karl max before you accuse me of wanting a revolution and you won't be going down the salt mines comrade if you disagree  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack So no evidence of any actual threat to this person's free speech, then. How unexpected. . If you find where I said there was I'll give you a Jim I'll fix it badge! Glad we agree. So my point stands that all you are doing is defending this person from criticism, not suppression. And this is how 'but free speech!' arguments are usually, and disingenuously, made. " . Far from it, criticism can be offensive to some, everybody has the right to be critical of another's action even if it offends them, you agree with me, offensive has no argument in free speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack I hate to be a spelling/grammar dick but are you defending their right to say it. Or defending that they are right to say it? As they are very different comments... But regardless I don't see how telling people that they have no right to be offended is defending free speech? . I never said people couldn't be offended, I said firstly I don't think they are offended and secondly them being offended is less important than the right to offend people, as somebody said if free speech is anything it's the right to hear something you don't like!. If offence is only in the person's perception then I could be offended about anything you say and according to your stance then you shouldn't say anything at all for fear of offending me " Hang on, what have I said that could be perceived as that stance? I've never said free speech should be curtailed or anything close to that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's silly, crass and juvenile,I wouldn't have wrote it but I'll defend the person's right to say it But no one has reported that person to the police, or physically attacked them, or tried to have them kicked off the site. Correct? So you're defending them from nothing but criticism. This is a typical example of when people get worked up about defending free speech - free speech is never usually under attack.. How do you know nobody's tried to have them kicked off the site or reported them to the police?. I'm defending they're right to say it, just because they can say it now doesn't mean they will have that right in the future, this thread is about defending free speech which is perceived to be under attack I hate to be a spelling/grammar dick but are you defending their right to say it. Or defending that they are right to say it? As they are very different comments... But regardless I don't see how telling people that they have no right to be offended is defending free speech? . I never said people couldn't be offended, I said firstly I don't think they are offended and secondly them being offended is less important than the right to offend people, as somebody said if free speech is anything it's the right to hear something you don't like!. If offence is only in the person's perception then I could be offended about anything you say and according to your stance then you shouldn't say anything at all for fear of offending me Hang on, what have I said that could be perceived as that stance? I've never said free speech should be curtailed or anything close to that" . Well we agree then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole worlds gone pc crazy I tell you ! Well , maybe not the whole world , but certainly from my experience in the UK it has . I’m old enough to remember the 1970s television and if you want stuff to be offended by , watch some of that . Yet I grew up with Programmes like Love thy Neighbour , The Benny Hill show , Q , etc... and the music , the general consensus back then would make a lot of you squirm . As time has passed , times and attitudes have changed . When I was about eight , homosexuality was decriminalised , yes it was illegal to engage in homosexual relations up until the late sixties . Now gay marriage and gays adopting kids is commonplace . What a headfuck for so many of the older generation . But they just have to get on with it don’t they ? Even the royals are getting in on it , with the upcoming marriage of Prince Harry to a divorced actress . It wasn’t that long ago we had kings abdicating so they could do the very same thing . As recently as the eighties we had the AIDS epidemic , and saw the gay men being almost 100% blamed for it . The media created such hysteria and ultimately the stigma still remains , albeit in a more diluted form now . So times and attitudes change and we all move on with these changes . Some find it easy and realise the new ways of thinking are much better , others find it a bit more difficult . That’s understandable isn’t it ? But shouting out your disdain from the rooftops is never the answer . Discussion , empathy , and ultimately understanding are the way forward in this ever changing world . Anything which encourages that should be applauded as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else . The faux offence brigade should look first at themselves and why they feel,offended before trying to stop any discussion at all on a subject . They may well be stopping the furtherance of more people’s understanding ." You speak a lot of sense........ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although my duelling comment was glib, the point is valid. Those times were much more civil. People were compelled to think before they spoke and compelled to consider before they responded. Sas that a considered enough "soundbyte" for you? If you spent time considering that response, you either don’t really know what ‘civil’ means, or your understanding of history doesn’t extend much further than period dramas on ITV." OK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Far from it, criticism can be offensive to some, everybody has the right to be critical of another's action even if it offends them, you agree with me, offensive has no argument in free speech" Yes. But people typically use 'but my free speech!' in situations where there is no threat at all to their free speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole worlds gone pc crazy I tell you ! Well , maybe not the whole world , but certainly from my experience in the UK it has . I’m old enough to remember the 1970s television and if you want stuff to be offended by , watch some of that . Yet I grew up with Programmes like Love thy Neighbour , The Benny Hill show , Q , etc... and the music , the general consensus back then would make a lot of you squirm . As time has passed , times and attitudes have changed . When I was about eight , homosexuality was decriminalised , yes it was illegal to engage in homosexual relations up until the late sixties . Now gay marriage and gays adopting kids is commonplace . What a headfuck for so many of the older generation . But they just have to get on with it don’t they ? Even the royals are getting in on it , with the upcoming marriage of Prince Harry to a divorced actress . It wasn’t that long ago we had kings abdicating so they could do the very same thing . As recently as the eighties we had the AIDS epidemic , and saw the gay men being almost 100% blamed for it . The media created such hysteria and ultimately the stigma still remains , albeit in a more diluted form now . So times and attitudes change and we all move on with these changes . Some find it easy and realise the new ways of thinking are much better , others find it a bit more difficult . That’s understandable isn’t it ? But shouting out your disdain from the rooftops is never the answer . Discussion , empathy , and ultimately understanding are the way forward in this ever changing world . Anything which encourages that should be applauded as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else . The faux offence brigade should look first at themselves and why they feel,offended before trying to stop any discussion at all on a subject . They may well be stopping the furtherance of more people’s understanding . You speak a lot of sense........" ^^ hear hear ^^ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "These days just about everything.....but what really annoys me is phoney outrage by sycophants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said people couldn't be offended, I said firstly I don't think they are offended" If you genuinely believe this, there is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn. Ironically, though, in a thread about freedom of speech, if I post it I’ll receive a ban. "and secondly them being offended is less important than the right to offend people," Neither is more important than the other. However, people being offended, and action being taken when people say things which are criminal, is not and never will be an infringement of the right to freedom of speech. "as somebody said if free speech is anything it's the right to hear something you don't like!." That doesn’t really mean anything. Yes, it’s important to be aware of distasteful views, but it’s also important to challenge them. "If offence is only in the person's perception then I could be offended about anything you say and according to your stance then you shouldn't say anything at all for fear of offending me" But you’ve already told us that you think people are making it up when they say that they’re offended. Or maybe, just maybe, there’s a general consensus on some things being offensive. A general agreement that they are criminal, and should be dealt with accordingly. Or not criminal, and should be challenged. But still, it seems, it has to be repeated that none of this is an infringement of people’s right to free speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint ." I spy a Daily Mail reader. This is one of the common myths perpetuated by that nasty rag and its ilk. There is nothing saying that you can’t say ‘blackboard’. It was pounced upon by those who wanted a starting point to defend their racism. Which nicely leads us on to... "And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges" Giving away collectible badges, per se, not racist. Giving away badges based on racist stereotypes and perpetuating those racist stereotypes; yes, that is a problem. "world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol" There are lots of circumstances where you can’t say the ‘c’ word. And, no, if you want black guttering, call it black guttering. You don’t have to re-word it. You don’t seem to have a sound grasp of this topic at all. "im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life [free" Yes, you can use the word ‘fags’ to describe your cigarettes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said people couldn't be offended, I said firstly I don't think they are offended If you genuinely believe this, there is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn. Ironically, though, in a thread about freedom of speech, if I post it I’ll receive a ban. and secondly them being offended is less important than the right to offend people, Neither is more important than the other. However, people being offended, and action being taken when people say things which are criminal, is not and never will be an infringement of the right to freedom of speech. as somebody said if free speech is anything it's the right to hear something you don't like!. That doesn’t really mean anything. Yes, it’s important to be aware of distasteful views, but it’s also important to challenge them. If offence is only in the person's perception then I could be offended about anything you say and according to your stance then you shouldn't say anything at all for fear of offending me But you’ve already told us that you think people are making it up when they say that they’re offended. Or maybe, just maybe, there’s a general consensus on some things being offensive. A general agreement that they are criminal, and should be dealt with accordingly. Or not criminal, and should be challenged. But still, it seems, it has to be repeated that none of this is an infringement of people’s right to free speech." . I don't agree with any suppression of free speech I'm fully in favour of the American idea of free speech, your consensus argument is a failed one by any standard | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism." I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people get a thrill out of saying their "stuff". No one really wants to hear the drivel that comes out of their mouths, but can't say so, because they get called snowflakes. . Free speech or freedom to write stuff in the forums doesn't enforce you to listen or read it" Without reading something we won't know if it's worth reading or not. I can, however, see who has written something and choose not to read it, going by past experiences. We have to experience something to decide whether we want to keep reading. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life free " Better move soon before we lose freedom of movement within the European. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . I spy a Daily Mail reader. This is one of the common myths perpetuated by that nasty rag and its ilk. There is nothing saying that you can’t say ‘blackboard’. It was pounced upon by those who wanted a starting point to defend their racism. Which nicely leads us on to... And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges Giving away collectible badges, per se, not racist. Giving away badges based on racist stereotypes and perpetuating those racist stereotypes; yes, that is a problem. world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol There are lots of circumstances where you can’t say the ‘c’ word. And, no, if you want black guttering, call it black guttering. You don’t have to re-word it. You don’t seem to have a sound grasp of this topic at all. im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life [free Yes, you can use the word ‘fags’ to describe your cigarettes." Oatcake you seem to be posting on every single Thread at the moment and all you ever do is try to correct what others have said or to tell them they are wrong the idea of the forums is that we all have our say and not to be continually contradicted by you it's becoming a little tiresome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . I spy a Daily Mail reader. This is one of the common myths perpetuated by that nasty rag and its ilk. There is nothing saying that you can’t say ‘blackboard’. It was pounced upon by those who wanted a starting point to defend their racism. Which nicely leads us on to... And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges Giving away collectible badges, per se, not racist. Giving away badges based on racist stereotypes and perpetuating those racist stereotypes; yes, that is a problem. world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol There are lots of circumstances where you can’t say the ‘c’ word. And, no, if you want black guttering, call it black guttering. You don’t have to re-word it. You don’t seem to have a sound grasp of this topic at all. im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life [free Yes, you can use the word ‘fags’ to describe your cigarettes. Oatcake you seem to be posting on every single Thread at the moment and all you ever do is try to correct what others have said or to tell them they are wrong the idea of the forums is that we all have our say and not to be continually contradicted by you it's becoming a little tiresome" . You have to remember that he's the soul self appointed guardian of empathy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have to remember that he's the soul self appointed guardian of empathy "Shouldn't you be defending his freedom of speech?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life free Better move soon before we lose freedom of movement within the European. " He'll still be able to go. They aren't building a wall around us. I hope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life free Better move soon before we lose freedom of movement within the European. He'll still be able to go. They aren't building a wall around us. I hope." He won't have the automatic right to live there, as he does now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have to remember that he's the soul self appointed guardian of empathy
Shouldn't you be defending his freedom of speech? ". I don't advocate any suppression whatsoever including his right to post anything, personally Ive never been offended by anything I've seen written on here. If your only argument to what somebody's wrote is that it offended you then your probably on the wrong side of history | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have to remember that he's the soul self appointed guardian of empathy
Shouldn't you be defending his freedom of speech? .
I don't advocate any suppression whatsoever including his right to post anything, personally Ive never been offended by anything I've seen written on here.
If your only argument to what somebody's wrote is that it offended you then your probably on the wrong side of history"I was just having a little fun, take it easy old chap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...your consensus argument is a failed one by any standard" Really? You’d better tell the rest of society, and the people who write the law, because there’s a general consensus on plenty of things being offensive. "Oatcake you seem to be posting on every single Thread at the moment and all you ever do is try to correct what others have said or to tell them they are wrong the idea of the forums is that we all have our say and not to be continually contradicted by you it's becoming a little tiresome" I hardly post in any threads. I could take a screenshot of my phone which proves this, if you like. Or, we could examine your post which basically says that everyone is allowed to post, except me. Or, maybe, if people didn’t post utter nonsense like the one you’ve posted, I wouldn’t have to point out that they’re wrong. Take your pick. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life free " I was going to give you a little history lesson on the origins of the term golliwog and why it's a racist stero type.Then i thought an excerpt from an Enid blyton book from the 1950s would be sufficient a example.Here you go.Read away.Its a teachable moment. Once the three bold golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woogie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song -- which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys.(page. 51) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...your consensus argument is a failed one by any standard Really? You’d better tell the rest of society, and the people who write the law, because there’s a general consensus on plenty of things being offensive. Oatcake you seem to be posting on every single Thread at the moment and all you ever do is try to correct what others have said or to tell them they are wrong the idea of the forums is that we all have our say and not to be continually contradicted by you it's becoming a little tiresome I hardly post in any threads. I could take a screenshot of my phone which proves this, if you like. Or, we could examine your post which basically says that everyone is allowed to post, except me. Or, maybe, if people didn’t post utter nonsense like the one you’ve posted, I wouldn’t have to point out that they’re wrong. Take your pick." I think it's more that you're aggressively "shouting down" anyone else's comments and telling everyone who posts they're wrong to be honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have to remember that he's the soul self appointed guardian of empathy
Shouldn't you be defending his freedom of speech? .
I don't advocate any suppression whatsoever including his right to post anything, personally Ive never been offended by anything I've seen written on here.
If your only argument to what somebody's wrote is that it offended you then your probably on the wrong side of history
I was just having a little fun, take it easy old chap.". Haha, irony alert | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? " gosh. that sounds awful. thank goodness u were there to be offended. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? " Yes it is offensive and wrong no matter how vile she is,what's your point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? gosh. that sounds awful. thank goodness u were there to be offended." Things that mean you don't have free speech when you say something 1. The government locking you up for saying it. 2. Someone threatening you with violence if you say it. Things that do not mean you do not have free speech when you say something 1. Someone disagreeing with what you said 2. Someone saying that they find what you say offensive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's more that you're aggressively "shouting down" anyone else's comments and telling everyone who posts they're wrong to be honest." I see. I’ll be interested to have it pointed out where I’m aggressively shouting people down. I’ll also be excited when I see any evidence that I’m telling ‘everyone’ that they are wrong. No doubt I’m doing that in ‘every’ thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's more that you're aggressively "shouting down" anyone else's comments and telling everyone who posts they're wrong to be honest. I see. I’ll be interested to have it pointed out where I’m aggressively shouting people down. I’ll also be excited when I see any evidence that I’m telling ‘everyone’ that they are wrong. No doubt I’m doing that in ‘every’ thread." m It’s more his condescending tone that rubs people up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's more that you're aggressively "shouting down" anyone else's comments and telling everyone who posts they're wrong to be honest. I see. I’ll be interested to have it pointed out where I’m aggressively shouting people down. I’ll also be excited when I see any evidence that I’m telling ‘everyone’ that they are wrong. No doubt I’m doing that in ‘every’ thread.m It’s more his condescending tone that rubs people up. " Exactly that! And arrogance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? gosh. that sounds awful. thank goodness u were there to be offended. Things that mean you don't have free speech when you say something 1. The government locking you up for saying it. 2. Someone threatening you with violence if you say it. Things that do not mean you do not have free speech when you say something 1. Someone disagreeing with what you said 2. Someone saying that they find what you say offensive. " . You seen quite sensible though, there's an awful lot of people on here that think it's about name calling, look around we see threats of violence all over universities about speech they don't like and yes the government are locking up (certainty had the threat of it) YouTube comics for bad taste satire, Islamaphobic speech is now seen as hate crime, I literally mean criticism of a religious ideology will get you locked up, just ask Tommy Robinson | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. I these very forums someone has posted that they wish Theresa May would die of cancer, for added effect tge posts is on a RIP thread about someone thst died of cancer - are you telling me that's not offensive? Yes it is offensive and wrong no matter how vile she is,what's your point?" He's the one who said it.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's more that you're aggressively "shouting down" anyone else's comments and telling everyone who posts they're wrong to be honest. I see. I’ll be interested to have it pointed out where I’m aggressively shouting people down. I’ll also be excited when I see any evidence that I’m telling ‘everyone’ that they are wrong. No doubt I’m doing that in ‘every’ thread.m It’s more his condescending tone that rubs people up. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. " But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. " Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. " Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s more his condescending tone that rubs people up. Exactly that! And arrogance" Anyone who knows me in real life knows that there’s nothing remotely arrogant about me. I would, however, find it deliciously ironic if anyone accusing others of being thin-skinned for being offended were then upset by a condescending tone. "If I were to air my veiws on certain subjects on here is get banned and that's freedom of speech in this country "Being banned from a forum is not a suppression of your freedom of speech. You’re welcome to set up your own website and air your views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I were to air my veiws on certain subjects on here is get banned and that's freedom of speech in this country "I've really never understood why people equate forum rules to freedom of speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. " I can give you examples of millions of people who were sent to gulags and concentration camps by socially conservative dictators because their ethnicity or sexuality offended the said dictators. Can you give me one example of a person who has been sent to a concentration camp or gulag because they disagreed with the current orthodoxy re identity politics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. I can give you examples of millions of people who were sent to gulags and concentration camps by socially conservative dictators because their ethnicity or sexuality offended the said dictators. Can you give me one example of a person who has been sent to a concentration camp or gulag because they disagreed with the current orthodoxy re identity politics. " You're arguing against a strawman, nowhere have i said that we have gulags or that i like socially conservative dictators. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. I can give you examples of millions of people who were sent to gulags and concentration camps by socially conservative dictators because their ethnicity or sexuality offended the said dictators. Can you give me one example of a person who has been sent to a concentration camp or gulag because they disagreed with the current orthodoxy re identity politics. You're arguing against a strawman, nowhere have i said that we have gulags or that i like socially conservative dictators. " You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. " No, you're attemping to frame an arguement that you can't lose by misquoting me. You missed the vital 'your' from that quote. Meaning that the Loony Left always try and frame their ideas as progress, when in fact they are regressive. Usually they create a smoke screen of protecting some vulnerable group to help push through the policies. The loony left are not against the principle of racism at all. They just don't like it being done to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. I can give you examples of millions of people who were sent to gulags and concentration camps by socially conservative dictators because their ethnicity or sexuality offended the said dictators. Can you give me one example of a person who has been sent to a concentration camp or gulag because they disagreed with the current orthodoxy re identity politics. You're arguing against a strawman, nowhere have i said that we have gulags or that i like socially conservative dictators. You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. " Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. No, you're attemping to frame an arguement that you can't lose by misquoting me. You missed the vital 'your' from that quote. Meaning that the Loony Left always try and frame their ideas as progress, when in fact they are regressive. Usually they create a smoke screen of protecting some vulnerable group to help push through the policies. The loony left are not against the principle of racism at all. They just don't like it being done to them. " The "your" must refer back to the poster you were responding to. The only "idea of progress" he mentioned was an intolerable of racism and sexism. Thus the natural meaning of your post is that intolerance or racism and sexism leads to the gulag. If you are now trying to frame your argument as meaning that people only pretend to oppose racism and sexism and that actually they are secret Stalinists who really want to set up a gulag archipelago then the argument just becomes even more ludicrous. Virtually everyone today would think the black and white minstrel show was racist. I rather suspect very few of them believe in the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV. "Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished: 1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist? 2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist? 3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. No, you're attemping to frame an arguement that you can't lose by misquoting me. You missed the vital 'your' from that quote. Meaning that the Loony Left always try and frame their ideas as progress, when in fact they are regressive. Usually they create a smoke screen of protecting some vulnerable group to help push through the policies. The loony left are not against the principle of racism at all. They just don't like it being done to them. The "your" must refer back to the poster you were responding to. The only "idea of progress" he mentioned was an intolerable of racism and sexism. Thus the natural meaning of your post is that intolerance or racism and sexism leads to the gulag. If you are now trying to frame your argument as meaning that people only pretend to oppose racism and sexism and that actually they are secret Stalinists who really want to set up a gulag archipelago then the argument just becomes even more ludicrous. Virtually everyone today would think the black and white minstrel show was racist. I rather suspect very few of them believe in the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. " To be specific, the majority of people waving the diversity flag are well intentioned people that haven't thought it through properly. But yes i am definately making the claim that the people leading the charge and organising it are overwhelmingly anti-capitalists. With the minstrel show, it's the scripts that were racists. Not the fucking costumes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV.
Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished:
1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist?
2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist?
3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist? "Stay on topic broken.You wouldn't be trying to frame an argument you think you might get to win would you. You said the type of social progression I pointed out leads to people being thrown in gulags.It doesn't . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. No, you're attemping to frame an arguement that you can't lose by misquoting me. You missed the vital 'your' from that quote. Meaning that the Loony Left always try and frame their ideas as progress, when in fact they are regressive. Usually they create a smoke screen of protecting some vulnerable group to help push through the policies. The loony left are not against the principle of racism at all. They just don't like it being done to them. The "your" must refer back to the poster you were responding to. The only "idea of progress" he mentioned was an intolerable of racism and sexism. Thus the natural meaning of your post is that intolerance or racism and sexism leads to the gulag. If you are now trying to frame your argument as meaning that people only pretend to oppose racism and sexism and that actually they are secret Stalinists who really want to set up a gulag archipelago then the argument just becomes even more ludicrous. Virtually everyone today would think the black and white minstrel show was racist. I rather suspect very few of them believe in the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. To be specific, the majority of people waving the diversity flag are well intentioned people that haven't thought it through properly. But yes i am definately making the claim that the people leading the charge and organising it are overwhelmingly anti-capitalists. " Which of course doesn't mean they want to set up gulags. I believe you are of the view that we can judge the quality of a ideology by what it's adherents do when they have power. Every Communist regime that has ever existed has been socially Conservative on issues of gender, race and sexuality. Only last week the Marxist Chinese government refused to have a Gay singer on their TV. Hence there is no evidence of any connection between Marxism and the sort of politics you are on about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV.
Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished:
1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist?
2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist?
3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist?
Stay on topic broken.You wouldn't be trying to frame an argument you think you might get to win would you.
You said the type of social progression I pointed out leads to people being thrown in gulags.It doesn't . "On what planet are those examples not on topic!? We all agree racism is bad, mkay. What we don't agree on is what racism actually is! Therefore, your statement about progress has no common foundation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I believe you are of the view that we can judge the quality of a ideology by what it's adherents do when they have power. " Absolutely. Because the words you speak are filtered by your conscious mind. Your conscious mind knows that racism is bad, mkay. But your actions betray your sub-conscious beliefs and those are the dominant ones anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV.
Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished:
1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist?
2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist?
3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist?
Stay on topic broken.You wouldn't be trying to frame an argument you think you might get to win would you.
You said the type of social progression I pointed out leads to people being thrown in gulags.It doesn't .
On what planet are those examples not on topic!? We all agree racism is bad, mkay. What we don't agree on is what racism actually is! Therefore, your statement about progress has no common foundation. "Today is better than the 70s ask any minority.Thats progress brother.There is of course still work to do. I don't think we are all in agreement.Youve labeled me loony left and Marxist and now anti capitalists.We aren't in agreement because I am none of those things.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our society and culture is evolving with the zeitgeist.The television shows of the 70s were sexist and had elements of racism. We no longer have the black and white minstrel shows because our culture has evolved . Not all people move along with the changes some get left behind and feel victims of a changing world. Your idea of progress has historically ended up with gulags. I'd say society is currently regressing back into tribalism. I have never understood that argument. Identify politics has been pushed most strongly in the staunchly capitalist USA and Britain. Meanwhile Communist countries have been notorious for their social conservatism. Homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin and asserting any national, racial or ethnic identity would indeed send you to a gulag. But it isn't the capitalists pushing those ideas. It's the looney left who happen to live in a capitalist country. Saying that ones personal identity is the most important thing in the world is liberalism taken to extremes, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. For obvious reasons, the sort of dictators who send people to gulags and concentration camps are utterly intolerant of diversity in the personal and family sphere. Hence, whether they say they are left wing or right wing, they are always social conservatives. Nice try. Profiling people into arbitrary groups of supposed power and victim status, based on historical injustices is Marx 101. Diversity is just a buzzword that marxist use to beat people over the head with, they aren't remotely interested in true diversity. What they mean is breaking up dominant power groups (that they define) and diversifying the power sharing. They have absolute zero interest in libertarian principles of diversity of opinions. I can give you examples of millions of people who were sent to gulags and concentration camps by socially conservative dictators because their ethnicity or sexuality offended the said dictators. Can you give me one example of a person who has been sent to a concentration camp or gulag because they disagreed with the current orthodoxy re identity politics. You're arguing against a strawman, nowhere have i said that we have gulags or that i like socially conservative dictators. You said that the "idea of progress had historically ended in the gulag". The idea of progress to which you referred was an intolerance of racism and sexual. I repeat no one has been sent to a gulag for disagreeing with that idea of progress. . Plenty of people have been sent to gulags on racist grounds. Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV. "I must have missed the bit in the communist Manifesto where Marx said. "Trans people of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your cis identity" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV.
Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished:
1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist?
2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist?
3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist?
Stay on topic broken.You wouldn't be trying to frame an argument you think you might get to win would you.
You said the type of social progression I pointed out leads to people being thrown in gulags.It doesn't .
On what planet are those examples not on topic!? We all agree racism is bad, mkay. What we don't agree on is what racism actually is! Therefore, your statement about progress has no common foundation.
Today is better than the 70s ask any minority.Thats progress brother.There is of course still work to do.
I don't think we are all in agreement.Youve labeled me loony left and Marxist and now anti capitalists.We aren't in agreement because I am none of those things.. "Well goodness yes, if you pick a shitty enough baseline then you can always draw a graph that looks like progress! Hence why the government likes 3 month trends of GDP! What i object to is the idea that (culturally) things are moving in a nice, linear upwards trend. When Blade came out, i don't remember anyone giving a fuck that Wesley Snipes was black. It was just a good film. But black panther comes out and it's a big race event. That's regression my man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social progression is Marxism these days.I didn't even know the black and white minstrels were sent down the salt mines at the end of the 7os .That's the loony left for you.Neo cons would have them back on prime Saturday night TV.
Let's try a game of "racist or not racist" and you can assume the racist behaviour needs to be stopped or punished:
1. White girl keziah daum wears a chinese dress to her prom - racist or not racist?
2. 9 year old boy puts on black face to look like his favourite AFL player nic naitanui - racist or not racist?
3. Mark Meechan trains a dog to raise its paw to look like a nazi salute, upon command. Racist or not racist?
Stay on topic broken.You wouldn't be trying to frame an argument you think you might get to win would you.
You said the type of social progression I pointed out leads to people being thrown in gulags.It doesn't .
On what planet are those examples not on topic!? We all agree racism is bad, mkay. What we don't agree on is what racism actually is! Therefore, your statement about progress has no common foundation.
Today is better than the 70s ask any minority.Thats progress brother.There is of course still work to do.
I don't think we are all in agreement.Youve labeled me loony left and Marxist and now anti capitalists.We aren't in agreement because I am none of those things..
Well goodness yes, if you pick a shitty enough baseline then you can always draw a graph that looks like progress! Hence why the government likes 3 month trends of GDP! What i object to is the idea that (culturally) things are moving in a nice, linear upwards trend. When Blade came out, i don't remember anyone giving a fuck that Wesley Snipes was black. It was just a good film. But black panther comes out and it's a big race event. That's regression my man. "Black panther is progressive because hes a black super hero.A positive image for young black kids.My son loves him he's a mixed race kid who now has a black super hero poster on his wall.You know that movie wouldn't have been made in the 70s.Where most black actor's were villians. Blade on the other hand is a vampire.A negative thing. You'll get it one day man | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Black panther is progressive because hes a black super hero.A positive image for young black kids.My son loves him he's a mixed race kid who now has a black super hero poster on his wall.You know that movie wouldn't have been made in the 70s.Where most black actor's were villians. Blade on the other hand is a vampire.A negative thing. You'll get it one day man "No blade is not a vampire, he is a dhampir, he kills vampires to protect humans. A good thing. You'll get it one day man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"freedom of speech noun the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. "the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region" But what would happen if someone's freedom of speech, is inciting others to incite harm?" Good question. It has to be a spectrum doesn't it. But nuance is something the current mood does not deal well with. I don't see anyone arguing that free speech means you get to go around encouraging people to blow up buses. It might mean that people get emotionally upset by what you say though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive? It's a fairly sexist assumption that the trans members of fab are all male to female and have a proclivity for skirts. There will be some, I'm sure, that are female to male and would prefer to wear trousers. .
It's not a sexist assumption because I was directly replying to a man wearing a kilt as an argument about being offended, if you couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, that's your problem not mine "It wasn't your post I was responding to. Chill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find men in skirts (kilts, there's little difference) offensive, will you remove your avatar to save me being offended Not sure of the point you are trying to make or how my profile pic is relevant to a discussion of free speech but I'm sure the trans members of fab will be curious why you find their sexual identify offensive? It's a fairly sexist assumption that the trans members of fab are all male to female and have a proclivity for skirts. There will be some, I'm sure, that are female to male and would prefer to wear trousers. .
It's not a sexist assumption because I was directly replying to a man wearing a kilt as an argument about being offended, if you couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, that's your problem not mine
It wasn't your post I was responding to. Chill.". Ah I see now, I got confused replying to everybody who'd highlighted the post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Black panther is progressive because hes a black super hero.A positive image for young black kids.My son loves him he's a mixed race kid who now has a black super hero poster on his wall.You know that movie wouldn't have been made in the 70s.Where most black actor's were villians. Blade on the other hand is a vampire.A negative thing. You'll get it one day man
No blade is not a vampire, he is a dhampir, he kills vampires to protect humans. A good thing. You'll get it one day man. "I forgive you ignorance.You didn't experience the 70s.Your a child of a different time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whens the Chinese superheroes film scheduled for?. How do the Chinese manage to get by in life while there stereotypical image is fast food and Kung Fu baddies. Here's an idea, why don't we all just forget about what colour we are and concentrate on being human, if we make it that far we can start worrying about what colour the James bond baddies are "People will lose their shit if idris Elba ever becomes bond.Like they lost their shit when they saw a black storm trooper.You would of thought Samuel L Jackson smashed that glass ceiling when he was a black Jedi.You live and learn.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Oh and Black Panther was an absolutely huge hit for both people of colour and all the same white people who don't get all alt-right snowflakey about such things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. " Well said.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blade was an 18 cert, with a majority white cast, that was about vampires. Black Panther, a 12A with a majority black cast, portraying Africa culture, set in Africa, also covering aspects of black life in America. But yeah, they're exactly the same because the lead character in both is black.
Oh and Black Panther was an absolutely huge hit for both people of colour and all the same white people who don't get all alt-right snowflakey about such things."Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. The snowflakes are the ones who need to stop pretending that white audiences have an aversion to black lead characters or films portraying "black life in america" such as coach carter, another 90's classic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue? People who air their prejudices and then call for freedom of speech because it pisses people off. " A vocal minority are pissed off by facts and biology these days. Facts aren't prejudices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue? People who air their prejudices and then call for freedom of speech because it pisses people off. A vocal minority are pissed off by facts and biology these days. Facts aren't prejudices. " I’m not talking about facts. Thanks for your input though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If nothing else the Fab forums are a great way to express your opinions to an audience who don’t give a fuck about them !" Nice ass | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If nothing else the Fab forums are a great way to express your opinions to an audience who don’t give a fuck about them ! Nice ass " It wouldn’t hurt you to say it more often! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade." Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument." I must say, you could make a lot of money with your amazing talent of reading people's minds, and making factual statements about what they meant to say! Superb ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument." He can’t help himself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I were to air my veiws on certain subjects on here is get banned and that's freedom of speech in this country "My God man! You can't compare rules on here to freedom of speech. The ignorance on here astounds me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. " Nice chest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest " Thanks in advance X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its well over the top cant say black board for example absolutely ridiculous if its a black bag or a black pair of shoes or you need some black paint . I spy a Daily Mail reader. This is one of the common myths perpetuated by that nasty rag and its ilk. There is nothing saying that you can’t say ‘blackboard’. It was pounced upon by those who wanted a starting point to defend their racism. Which nicely leads us on to... And as for robinsons jam, why on earth cant we collect the goli badges. no way were the jam company being racist by giving away collectable badges Giving away collectible badges, per se, not racist. Giving away badges based on racist stereotypes and perpetuating those racist stereotypes; yes, that is a problem. world gone mad nothing said about banning C word for example ,or different names for a vagina or tits for example , anything involving the black guttering for your house and you have to re word it lol There are lots of circumstances where you can’t say the ‘c’ word. And, no, if you want black guttering, call it black guttering. You don’t have to re-word it. You don’t seem to have a sound grasp of this topic at all. im moving to tenerife for sure, sun all year round ,beer 2 euro , fags 2 euro , if im allowed to say fags lol , house 100 grand ,quality of life [free Yes, you can use the word ‘fags’ to describe your cigarettes. Oatcake you seem to be posting on every single Thread at the moment and all you ever do is try to correct what others have said or to tell them they are wrong the idea of the forums is that we all have our say and not to be continually contradicted by you it's becoming a little tiresome" No its not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I must say, you could make a lot of money with your amazing talent of reading people's minds, and making factual statements about what they meant to say! Superb !" I’m sorry, but how is that anything to do with mind-reading? Brokenbrilliance tried to cite a poor example in support of their argument. Thetalkingstove highlighted why it was a poor example. Brokenbrilliance deflected. That’s not mind-reading, it doesn’t involve intuition; it’s right there on the screen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X" Eddie Mitchel X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. " As a callow youth I became embroiled in an argument with a BNP supporter who was getting pissed with his family in the local pub, he became increasingly irate because he wasnt free to use certain types of language to describe me as the 'PC Brigade' might be offended by it..being worse for wear I turned round and called his mother a 'cunt'. His transition along the Road to Damascus was complete as his colourful response confirmed a new member to the brigade. A jaunty scrap ensued. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X" Francoise Hardy X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. As a callow youth I became embroiled in an argument with a BNP supporter who was getting pissed with his family in the local pub, he became increasingly irate because he wasnt free to use certain types of language to describe me as the 'PC Brigade' might be offended by it..being worse for wear I turned round and called his mother a 'cunt'. His transition along the Road to Damascus was complete as his colourful response confirmed a new member to the brigade. A jaunty scrap ensued." I like the word ‘jaunty’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument." I didn't at all but you are skilled at seeing what you want to see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X" Serge Gainsbourg. X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X " Jane Birkin X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X" Gilles Lellouche. X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X " Marcel Proust X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech. Marvellous thing. But it appears we want to quash it these days. Say anything controversial about race, immigration, sexuality etc and you're immediately outed and lynched publically. Surely it's better to allow such talk so that reasoning and debate can persuade another mindset? So what's your controversial view that you keep quiet for fear of judgement "I definitely won’t sleep with Martians or squids....call it prejudice if you want. I see it as a preference! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X" Honoré de Balzac X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X " Jean-Paul Satre | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre" X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre" You forgot the X ! I am offended ! Brigitte Macron X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre X" Forgot what I said above ! Brigitte Macron * X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre You forgot the X ! I am offended ! Brigitte Macron X " Sincere apologies in advance X Emile Zola X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre You forgot the X ! I am offended ! Brigitte Macron X Sincere apologies in advance X Emile Zola X" Charles Baudelaire X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre You forgot the X ! I am offended ! Brigitte Macron X Sincere apologies in advance X Emile Zola X Charles Baudelaire X" Edouard Manet X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black panther was a good film, i liked it a lot and recommend it. But so was blade. Way to ignore the stuff that pointed out why your example did not support your argument. He can’t help himself. Nice chest Thanks in advance X Eddie Mitchel X Francoise Hardy X Serge Gainsbourg. X Jane Birkin X Gilles Lellouche. X Marcel Proust X Honoré de Balzac X Jean-Paul Satre You forgot the X ! I am offended ! Brigitte Macron X Sincere apologies in advance X Emile Zola X Charles Baudelaire X Edouard Manet X" Jean Piaget X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I didn't at all but you are skilled at seeing what you want to see. " Really? Show me where in your post you dealt with the reasons why Black Panther is a more significant moment in the history of pop-culture’s representation of people of colour than Blade was? That was, after all, the reason you brought up Blade. Instead, you deflected into the reception of such films with white audiences. Will you admit that the example you provided does not support your argument? Or will you deflect again? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no such thing as offence, there's just people who pretend to be offended because it suits there agenda!. As a callow youth I became embroiled in an argument with a BNP supporter who was getting pissed with his family in the local pub, he became increasingly irate because he wasnt free to use certain types of language to describe me as the 'PC Brigade' might be offended by it..being worse for wear I turned round and called his mother a 'cunt'. His transition along the Road to Damascus was complete as his colourful response confirmed a new member to the brigade. A jaunty scrap ensued." Brilliant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
