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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is using woke (against racism) as a derogatory term any better or worse than "gammon"? Seems to me that it reflects badly on the person using the the word as an insult. Seeing as the right enjoy a good cancelling. What are your opinions on this one?" Not sure if you're agreeing with her or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" Are you using the term woke as an insult ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is using woke (against racism) as a derogatory term any better or worse than "gammon"? Seems to me that it reflects badly on the person using the the word as an insult. Seeing as the right enjoy a good cancelling. What are your opinions on this one? Not sure if you're agreeing with her or not? " I don't watch much TV. Have never seen Luther. Don't read the sun and or daily mail. Don't give a fuck about this non story. The only two interesting points here are. 1. How people get sucked into this kind of click-bait distraction "news". 2. That some people think that calling someone not-racist, is some how derogatory. People didn't like gammon being used because it was deemed to have originated to describe angry right wing white men. Using not-racist as an insult seems way worse to me. To be clear, I don't care too much either way. People who use racist slurs just turn the spotlight on themselves. But I'm interested in the people who felt strongly that "Gammon" shouldn't be used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used." The OP start ‘anti woke ‘ threads all the time, worrying trend | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" Typical BBC identity politics. What is the environment and cultural background of black characters? because I thought we were all individuals Wokery at its worst. Metropolitan elites signalling their virtue and seeking for prejudice and victimhood where it doesn't exist. Like the people that post a black square on their Facebook page while simultaneously doing nothing of substance to actually combat real discrimination | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" Absolute LOL!! Love the BBC. In fact doesn’t BBC stand for..............??  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used." I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful Typical BBC identity politics. What is the environment and cultural background of black characters? because I thought we were all individuals Wokery at its worst. Metropolitan elites signalling their virtue and seeking for prejudice and victimhood where it doesn't exist. Like the people that post a black square on their Facebook page while simultaneously doing nothing of substance to actually combat real discrimination " What is ‘wokery’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion." The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is using woke (against racism) as a derogatory term any better or worse than "gammon"? Seems to me that it reflects badly on the person using the the word as an insult. Seeing as the right enjoy a good cancelling. What are your opinions on this one? Not sure if you're agreeing with her or not? I don't watch much TV. Have never seen Luther. Don't read the sun and or daily mail. Don't give a fuck about this non story. The only two interesting points here are. 1. How people get sucked into this kind of click-bait distraction "news". 2. That some people think that calling someone not-racist, is some how derogatory. People didn't like gammon being used because it was deemed to have originated to describe angry right wing white men. Using not-racist as an insult seems way worse to me. To be clear, I don't care too much either way. People who use racist slurs just turn the spotlight on themselves. But I'm interested in the people who felt strongly that "Gammon" shouldn't be used." Thankyou for putting so much effort into a reply when you claim not to care about the subject lol Preposterous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . " As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is using woke (against racism) as a derogatory term any better or worse than "gammon"? Seems to me that it reflects badly on the person using the the word as an insult. Seeing as the right enjoy a good cancelling. What are your opinions on this one? Not sure if you're agreeing with her or not? I don't watch much TV. Have never seen Luther. Don't read the sun and or daily mail. Don't give a fuck about this non story. The only two interesting points here are. 1. How people get sucked into this kind of click-bait distraction "news". 2. That some people think that calling someone not-racist, is some how derogatory. People didn't like gammon being used because it was deemed to have originated to describe angry right wing white men. Using not-racist as an insult seems way worse to me. To be clear, I don't care too much either way. People who use racist slurs just turn the spotlight on themselves. But I'm interested in the people who felt strongly that "Gammon" shouldn't be used. Thankyou for putting so much effort into a reply when you claim not to care about the subject lol Preposterous " Am I not allowed to have a casual interest? Would you prefer short insults and nonsense, or proper discussion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive " Stop being such a snowflake , what is your motivation here Chris? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP Do what I did and cancel your TV licence and stop contributing to the considerable salaries of these condescending clowns "The BBC will be devastated when they hear this news | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive " "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hopefully the thread will get back on track soon.seems some have gone off topic and made it all about themselves and how they feel" Maybe you could set some parameters for what we can, and can't talk about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term. "Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion: Thomas Sowell (in 2012): Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”"So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”"Is Thomas Sowell ‘anti woke’ ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
Is Thomas Sowell ‘anti woke’ ? "Yep, you're catching on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
Is Thomas Sowell ‘anti woke’ ?
Yep, you're catching on "So he is anti. anti racism? Maybe he shouldn’t be your go to ‘I read a book by a black man so it justifies my agenda ‘ source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?"Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit? "Interesting. What about his work would turn people into racists? And why, in your opinion, would this be a good thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit? "Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Interesting. What about his work would turn people into racists?
And why, in your opinion, would this be a good thing?"Think I was hinting at the "superiority" thing.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Interesting. What about his work would turn people into racists?
And why, in your opinion, would this be a good thing?
Think I was hinting at the "superiority" thing.... "Are you suggesting that anti-anti-racists, like yourself, are superior to anti-racists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Interesting. What about his work would turn people into racists?
And why, in your opinion, would this be a good thing?
Think I was hinting at the "superiority" thing.... "A person who is anti racist is a better and more ‘superior ‘ than a racist, don’t you agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's honestly pathetic that someone can't say 'maybe black characters can have black friends' about a TV show without people wetting their pants about it. If you disagree that it's important, fine. Why the need to portray such discussion as a danger to society? It really, really isn't. " Because it is a threat to their ‘world’ they are scared and confused | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's honestly pathetic that someone can't say 'maybe black characters can have black friends' about a TV show without people wetting their pants about it. If you disagree that it's important, fine. Why the need to portray such discussion as a danger to society? It really, really isn't. " Exactly. It's a none story. The only interesting points here are why the media promote this kind of click bait, how some people get sucked in by it. And why the OP starts so many threads about non-racists being a problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing? "It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you "That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you "This feels like you almost get the point. A person's ethnicity is not a factor with which to judge a person. But the content of their character, the things they say and do. If this professor thinks anti-racism is a bad thing, what's what we judge him on. Not his ethnicity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was"Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread "I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much? "Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it "Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish? "No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it"Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally. I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it"I want you to read the definition from the dictionary. I will ask again, what is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has made you upset? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense"."That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race "What is the English dictionary’s definition of woke? I do agree that having a black character eat Caribbean food is an odd way to define blackness but it isn’t the ‘story’ that is the issue, it is certain people’s reaction to it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days"You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would Idris Elba eat Carribbean food? He's African English. " He wouldn’t, it is strange to suggest he would tbh, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
What is the English dictionary’s definition of woke? I do agree that having a black character eat Caribbean food is an odd way to define blackness but it isn’t the ‘story’ that is the issue, it is certain people’s reaction to it "You know what the definition is. There's really no need to play schoolboy games. I don't agree with what Chris is saying but why can't we discuss the content rather than his own views of interpretation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
What is the English dictionary’s definition of woke? I do agree that having a black character eat Caribbean food is an odd way to define blackness but it isn’t the ‘story’ that is the issue, it is certain people’s reaction to it
You know what the definition is. There's really no need to play schoolboy games.
I don't agree with what Chris is saying but why can't we discuss the content rather than his own views of interpretation "Because I find using the term woke as an insult offensive, just like you find gammon offensive, is that ok? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race "Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used? Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
What is the English dictionary’s definition of woke? I do agree that having a black character eat Caribbean food is an odd way to define blackness but it isn’t the ‘story’ that is the issue, it is certain people’s reaction to it
You know what the definition is. There's really no need to play schoolboy games.
I don't agree with what Chris is saying but why can't we discuss the content rather than his own views of interpretation
Because I find using the term woke as an insult offensive, just like you find gammon offensive, is that ok? "You are within your rights to find it offensive. That doesn't mean you need to make up your own definition. BTW, I don't find the term offensive but people do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?"I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too. The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway. alert to injustice in society, especially racism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
What is the English dictionary’s definition of woke? I do agree that having a black character eat Caribbean food is an odd way to define blackness but it isn’t the ‘story’ that is the issue, it is certain people’s reaction to it
You know what the definition is. There's really no need to play schoolboy games.
I don't agree with what Chris is saying but why can't we discuss the content rather than his own views of interpretation
Because I find using the term woke as an insult offensive, just like you find gammon offensive, is that ok?
You are within your rights to find it offensive. That doesn't mean you need to make up your own definition.
BTW, I don't find the term offensive but people do."I haven’t made up my own definition, ‘alert to injustice in society, especially racism’ I can’t think of any circumstances where this can be used as an insult , can you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism."Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism. Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism."If your not ‘woke’ then what are you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
If your not ‘woke’ then what are you ? "Maybe your asleep. There's plenty who are asleep | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism.
Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types?"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
If your not ‘woke’ then what are you ?
Maybe your asleep. There's plenty who are asleep "I agree with that, some of them are in coma | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism.
Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types?
I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used.
In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate"I agree, unfortunately the OP uses it all the time , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism.
Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types?
I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used.
In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate
I agree, unfortunately the OP uses it all the time , "Did you just agree with me, twice?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My upset is my licence fee being used to pay for this nonsense. I didn't really want the thread to descend into yet another daft "definition of Woke" discussion" Stop using your daft definition of woke then. If you are unhappy with the BBC then write an email, speak to your local MP, start a protest, or is that to much trouble ? Alternatively you can get angry and upset about some minor stories you have been actively looking for online . The choice is yours Chris  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism.
Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types?
I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used.
In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate
I agree, unfortunately the OP uses it all the time ,
Did you just agree with me, twice?
"Yes, it won’t happen again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know you've been waiting for me to comment
The definition of woke is not: anti anti-racist. This is fact regardless of how many times you say it is.
This BBC chief isn't what I would describe as woke. Not by the comments she has made anyway.
I see this is the opposite in fact, she said he needs 'more black friends and should eat caribbean food'. Talk about stereotyping your own race
Weren't you arguing hard for the dictionary definition of "gammon" to be used?
Why not for "woke" which is explicitly people who are alert to injustice and racism?
I am arguing for the dictionary definition of woke to be used too.
The definition is not 'anti anti-racist', it is as you say above as close enough anyway.
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Okay so it's not a far stretch to suggest that people who are alert to injustice and racism as being against racism.
Just not sure why using woke as an insult is fine. Why do some people have such a huge problem with people wanting to consider the issue of race and racism. Of course some mistakes will be made. But isn't it better to have a crack at it instead of just posting thread after thread about all these non-racist woke types?
I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used.
In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate
I agree, unfortunately the OP uses it all the time ,
Did you just agree with me, twice?
Yes, it won’t happen again "Cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My upset is my licence fee being used to pay for this nonsense. I didn't really want the thread to descend into yet another daft "definition of Woke" discussion" Then try to articulate your point without using cheap insults and without bringing in your personal grievances with people who aren't racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate" I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't." It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" How black do I have to be god ......O dam..... err am not Idris ,just forget I've said anything...... infact I've got to go ....am on set in a few minutes  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. " While I agree, which media outlet is reporting it? Futhermore, do you think most people give a damn after handing this government a record majority? “Slow news day” is just my way of saying that it’s not really newsworthy but I’m willing to give my input on other issues being highlighted by the OP. This isn’t a thread about corruption. Feel free to start one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. " That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on." If you want people on these forums to take notice of these other subjects then start threads. It's quite simple, you can't on one hand moan about threads you don't want and on the other hand not post threads you do want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on. If you want people on these forums to take notice of these other subjects then start threads. It's quite simple, you can't on one hand moan about threads you don't want and on the other hand not post threads you do want." I would argue that some posters here are potentially clickbait for the said newspapers, and posting rebuttals to their shite is a worthwhile contribution on the same thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on. If you want people on these forums to take notice of these other subjects then start threads. It's quite simple, you can't on one hand moan about threads you don't want and on the other hand not post threads you do want." I'm not moaning. It's a discussion point that I find interesting. I'm more interested in the media, their role in providing information to the people and how people respond to it. Besides, you ever started a thread here that is even vaguely critical of government policy? You get hounded with insults, PMs telling you to "fuck off out of our country" etc etc. It's zero craic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on. If you want people on these forums to take notice of these other subjects then start threads. It's quite simple, you can't on one hand moan about threads you don't want and on the other hand not post threads you do want. I'm not moaning. It's a discussion point that I find interesting. I'm more interested in the media, their role in providing information to the people and how people respond to it. Besides, you ever started a thread here that is even vaguely critical of government policy? You get hounded with insults, PMs telling you to "fuck off out of our country" etc etc. It's zero craic." Then show people outlets that provide the information you find interesting. Have I received abuse for being critical of governement policy? No, I don't think I have. I have however received abuse for backing policies. I'm sure most of us on both sides of the house have received abuse for our political leanings at some point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never said using the word as an insult is fine. The same as the word gammon, if people find it offensive then it shouldn't be used. In all honestly, I don't and won't use either of the words. They are both nonsense which are used as slurs against people who others don't agree with. It does nothing for debate I agree. As you can see from this thread, it brings nothing to the debate. Going back to OP, my understanding is Ms Wayland simply wants more cultural references in the shows we watch which is not a bad thing. The danger is the very fine line between between authenticity and stereotyping. Another danger is placing black people in one homogenous group when we have different interests, tastes and attitudes. So I'm all for exploring cultural differences but not something so basic as "not black enough." Overall, a slow news day. Though exploring the different cultures that call the UK home is welcomed. Race has nothing to do with that and it shouldn't. It's not a slow news day though. (more) Huge government corruption is being uncovered and shite like this is being used as a distraction. If a casting director wants his character to eat jollof rice instead of chips for authenticity then who gives a shit? I'm more concerned about a home secretary that would deport her own parents and a chancellor that would rather help an ex boss make £60m than feed hungry kids. That's the interesting discussion point. The Daily Mail, Sun etc pump out the kind of non-story that enrages morons. And it's effective too. The average reader of those papers eats up all these click bait "outrage" stories. And doesn't know or care about what's actually going on. If you want people on these forums to take notice of these other subjects then start threads. It's quite simple, you can't on one hand moan about threads you don't want and on the other hand not post threads you do want. I'm not moaning. It's a discussion point that I find interesting. I'm more interested in the media, their role in providing information to the people and how people respond to it. Besides, you ever started a thread here that is even vaguely critical of government policy? You get hounded with insults, PMs telling you to "fuck off out of our country" etc etc. It's zero craic. Then show people outlets that provide the information you find interesting. Have I received abuse for being critical of governement policy? No, I don't think I have. I have however received abuse for backing policies. I'm sure most of us on both sides of the house have received abuse for our political leanings at some point." Why, most people don't care. They're more interested in this outrage nonsense. Besides, I can still maintain an interest in the media, how people react to it and how it plays a part shaping the political landscape without posting threads about other stories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ? "So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange "It's a silly thing to say. But it's hardly a top story. Do you think this kind out outrage journalism serves any kind of purpose? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" Ms Wayland is a Black Woman . Why is a Black Woman Salaried by the BBC Disgraceful ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful Ms Wayland is a Black Woman . Why is a Black Woman Salaried by the BBC Disgraceful ?" Do you agree with her comments? Do you think she’s doing a useful job that you’re happy to pay her salary for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful Ms Wayland is a Black Woman . Why is a Black Woman Salaried by the BBC Disgraceful ? Do you agree with her comments? Do you think she’s doing a useful job that you’re happy to pay her salary for?" Im not Black so i cant answer her points without knowledge of a full carribean diet . I did love Oxtail Rice & Peas when ive been lucky enough to eat it . Are you as a White Person claiming You know more about a black persons Potential diet better than a Black woman employed by the bbc . Is it the bbc you dont like or the black person employed by them . Something for you to ponder while riding about on your kiddie bike . Must attract some attention that !! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange "No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry? "I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap"The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap
The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it. "Then your friend should take it up with the OP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap"Triggered then , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap
The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it. "It is a combination of confusion & fear that causes the anger | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap
The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it.
Then your friend should take it up with the OP"I don't know anyone who posts on the forum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap
The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it.
Then your friend should take it up with the OP
I don't know anyone who posts on the forum."Well for what it's worth you seem like a nice enough a guy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither of the words " gammon" or "woke" have any place in reasonable political debate, they are only used as a insult or slur to other person and they are only used by people that have already lost the argument. In my opinion neither word has a place on this forum in the manner that they are used. I would agree. As soon as someone starts using these and similar insults, it becomes pointless trying to have any reasonable discussion. The agenda behind these threads is sinister and worrying . As a left hander I find your use of the term sinister offensive "Sinister" is offensive to you, yet you're happy to use woke (non-racist) as an insult and derogatory term.
Ive been reading quite a lot by Professor Thomas Sowell recently, his views as a black man are relevant to this discussion:
Thomas Sowell (in 2012):
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”
So you use this as a justification for using non-racist as an insult? Or to justify being offended at "sinister"?
Maybe take a couple of days to read some of his work, maybe it'll shift your perspective a bit?
Why would I read a book by a person who thinks being anti racist is a bad thing?
It might teach you to stop seeing people just by the colour of their skin in the way you clearly do. Or do you not like it when black people have an opinion on racism that doesn't suit you
That isn’t what I said, I don’t believe for one minute that Thomas Sowell is anti racist, I was questioning Chris’s assumption that he was
Get yourself on YouTube lad and watch a few of his videos or better still buy one of his books. Then I would suggest changing your profile name to 'The anti racist' and save your thumbs from having to type it about yourself on every thread
I don’t need to, your obviously very confused about what the word woke means, if you get chance look it up in the dictionary . Why does this Luther ‘story’ upset you so much?
Your loss I guess. And poor old Thomas will never get to teach you where you're just going so wrong without you even realizing it
Did you get chance to read the definition of the word Woke? It might help with your confusion. What is it about this Luther ‘story’ that has caused you anguish?
No confusion. Some people use it to describe themselves (quite often in your case) as being on the side social justice. Other's use it to describe those same people as pretending to be on the side of social justice (and this is always done on public platforms of course) while in reality doing absolutely nothing for the cause except professing their allegiance to it
Thank you for a proper reply. While I disagree. It's nice to be able to discuss rationally.
I don't agree that there is much, if any of your definition of woke going on. The Mail/Sun etc love to whip up a fever with their readers pretending it's one of the big issues of the day. I believe, one of their primary reasons for this is so when they get criticism for printing hate pieces about immigration or the trans community etc, they can just brush it off as "woke nonsense".
That's ok, we don't have to agree, its just my understanding of it. Unfortunately rationality seems to get lost when a bunch of mostly white straight folk descend into an argument about who's the most or least racist/homophobic/transphobic etc and I honestly find it an incredibly sad sight to see. Hence I rarely make an appearance on the forums these days
You still can’t answer a simple question, why had this ‘story’ upset you ?
So the BBC chief of diversity saying that the character isn't black enough because he doesn't eat Caribbean food doesn't bother you? Hmm strange
No, it doesn’t ‘bother’ me, why is it making you so angry?
I dont think anyone is angry are they? Most of us are just having an adult conversation. You can join in any time you feel like it chap
The Daily Mail (where this was copied and pasted from) and the OP seem pretty upset and angry about it.
Then your friend should take it up with the OP
I don't know anyone who posts on the forum.
Well for what it's worth you seem like a nice enough a guy "Well shucks. To be honest 90% of the people on here, I'd go for a beer with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful" The worlds a crazy place Why does Detective Luther need to eat Caribbean food due to being black. Not every black person eats Caribbean food , some enjoy African cuisine. Also in the series he's never once pointed out his background. He could be a black Caribbean or African. She has hit the shot wide with this one! The right voices need to be heard in times likes this and unfortunately she wasn't the right one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woke madness again: "BBC diversity chief says Idris Elba's TV detective Luther 'isn't black enough to be real' because 'he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food'" "Ms Wayland told the MIPTV conference this week that to achieve true representation, TV chiefs must ensure black characters have an environment and culture built around them that is completely reflective of their background." Your licence fee pays her salary BTW... Disgraceful The worlds a crazy place Why does Detective Luther need to eat Caribbean food due to being black. Not every black person eats Caribbean food , some enjoy African cuisine. Also in the series he's never once pointed out his background. He could be a black Caribbean or African. She has hit the shot wide with this one! The right voices need to be heard in times likes this and unfortunately she wasn't the right one."
Well said. Nothing like being stereotyped. What on earth was going through her mind when thinking this up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
