Let's just outlaw the simple act of raising one arm in the air.
The problem is that people are fucking stupid and desperate to be offended.
Printable View
I agree, but those protecting it are perhaps worried that it might not be someone dabbing some letters on it next time. If someone feels strongly enough about it to put themself at risk to protect it, fair play to them. Many of these people are vets, they're not all dickheads singing Ingerland.
The police are guarding the cenotaph and Churchil statues 24/7. No-one else is needed there, certainly not to throw shit at the cops who are there to defend the very same things they claim to be defending themselves lol.
That's what I actually think, they are literally bored football fans who just want something to do, kick off with the police.
But yes, people are offended. If someone looks at a person holding up their arm and thinks "Nazi" then that is a kneejerk emotional reaction, it's deluded outrage.
There were vets, but if the police were doing their job, the vets will go home.
Please try to pull it back from pushing buttons, guys.
It's great that you disagree, but let's remember that our opinions are not our selves; we are more than opinions.
Focus on criticizing ideas, and not people.
Please don't try to characterize each other as "the left" or "the right" as though expressing one opinion classifies a person into an entire category of opinions on a multitude of issues.
Thanks.
Poop thinks the far right = football twats.
I don't doubt a lot of football hooligans are far right, but many of them also don't give a toss about politics, they just like to brawl. Some people on the left like to fight, too. One's political persuasion is not, that I'm aware of, a relevance when joining a firm.
mojo, this isn't an issue. We're playing nice.
I think there's a huge amount of people just saying "the far right" to describe anyone who looks stupid and hard.
So 1620 was a shitfest too?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYhndNMX...g&name=900x900
People vandalise statues - protesters.
People protect statues - national disgrace.
That's the media line.
The BBC have said this...
This is absolutely deliberate. They imply that it's a seig heil without actually saying it, because they know it isn't.Quote:
There were a number of clashes with police in riot gear as crowds - chanting "England" and raising their arms - surged towards lines of officers.
The fucking BBC.
Yeah the same BBC that was bending over backwards to defend Johnson up until about two weeks ago, suspending that woman who made that editorial about Cummings, saying the BBC 'can't be biased'.
Yep, the same BBC. So what's their game? It's definitely not honest journalism.
Getting clicks, I imagine.
You imagine wrong. The BBC don't care about clicks, they don't have advertisers to worry about. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer.
The BBC is UK state tv, funded by the plebs. The fact they occasionally produce world class entertainment is just to ensure people think that's what they're paying for.
They're still being manned by people who consider themselves journalists afaict. So for them getting clicks is probably a form of reward, like a dog getting a treat.
https://twitter.com/BenTheTim/status...68592225746944
"out of all the people who would come and attack us it would be another firm of football."
Wrexham fans turn up in Manchester to fight those protecting memorials. Manc twat suggests Wrexham have links to the IRA, fuck knows if that's true, but not all your football twats are far right nobs.
Oh, and this...
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status...09671100723207
I can't lie, I laughed at this. And today's breakdance winner is...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EabT9_WW...pg&name=medium
Doubling down with the second beat up white person? I'm sure it's a black conspiracy why it's harder to find these examples.
Those videos, just like most other ones like it, could use some more context. Where these white people just minding their business before these incidents? Why were they there? If they were attacked unprovoked, obviously that's fucked up. The videos as they are are hardly proof of systematic widespread racism against whites.
I mean, it's lose lose, isn't it? I either post more clips, and I'm doubling down, or I don't, and I'm refusing to provide evidence.
Yes those clips do need more context, I agree. Like I said to poop, if you were interested, Twitter is at your fingertips.
Earlier today, he posted some fake news. I called him out on it immediately because I actually read the comments. I was interested, so I watched it. I didn't ask him to show me more racist twats singing stupid shit. I took it upon myself to find out the context.
There's a lot of this going on. If you're just following lefties, then you won't get it in your timeline. Stay safe in your echo chamber.
Let me be clear so you can decide how extreme I am.
I certainly have extreme views about the cause of what we're seeing, in that I think it's orchestrated by the elites of the world. Why, I don't know. I could guess, but it's futile.
I would like to see a global anti-racism movement that is inclusive, that campaigns against racism against everyone. Saying "well racism against blacks is a bigger problem" is actually making the problem worse, because you're giving special treatment to one particular race, instead of treating everyone equally. It directly contradicts the entire anti-racist message.
Anyone can be the victim of racism, and those who are should be treated with equal sympathy. Dismissing racism against whites is racism.
If black people and white people unite to fight racism, that sends out a much more powerful message, not only to racists, but to those who seek to divide us.
This massive social division is exactly what the elites want. You guys probably don't even think the elites are a thing, it's just conspiracy nonsense. I wish I lived in that bubble.
This is like a game of "spot the cunt".
I've found three. Guy with the cap is probably a cunt but he's not proving it here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaaNUU4X...jpg&name=small
The problem is that some racist black people feel empowered by this BLM movement.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eaa5sxrX...jpg&name=large
If a white guy is jumped by black guys and he beats them up, is he racist? Asking for a friend.
It's funny how certain movements like BLM are considered divisive by some because they focus on the most oppressed group.
This is like saying unemployment payouts are divisive because they only go to people who lost their jobs.
Or that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is divisive because it doesn't address cruelty to plants.
And Ong, we obviously have different ideas about what is considered 'socially acceptable'. To me, when white cops murder black people with little repercussion, there's an implicit statement there that this kind of act is socially acceptable.
To you, it seems that when there's a few videos of black guys beating up a white guy with little context, that means everyone is saying it's ok for that to happen because they don't stop shouting about the cops committing murder to shout about the guys giving someone a beating.
Is there evidence these beatings were shown to police and they decided not to press charges? If so, then I'd say we have a problem. If not, then I think you need to reconsider your idea of what 'socially acceptable' means.
It's not about the focus on just one group. It's also about the tactics.
Fun game - type in "WWII leaders" into google and note the images at the top. What do you notice?
As for what's "socially acceptable", it's not what you personally think "I'm ok with that", that's what you find personally acceptable. Socially acceptable means society turns a blind eye.
It's not though. Very few people are turning a blind eye. Nobody is pretending it's not happening, or that it's ok.Quote:
To me, when white cops murder black people with little repercussion, there's an implicit statement there that this kind of act is socially acceptable.
No, it's when people imply that racism against blacks is worse than racism against whites because of history. That's burying one's head in the sand.Quote:
To you, it seems that when there's a few videos of black guys beating up a white guy with little context, that means everyone is saying it's ok for that to happen because they don't stop shouting about the cops committing murder to shout about the guys giving someone a beating.
Not only do the perpetrators need to be charged, but charged with a hate crime in the same way a group of white people would if they were beating a black man. Is that happening? I don't think so, but I don't know this. We're still seeing a distinct lack of outrage, the outrage comes from white people who are then accused of racism. Go figure.Quote:
Is there evidence these beatings were shown to police and they decided not to press charges? If so, then I'd say we have a problem. If not, then I think you need to reconsider your idea of what 'socially acceptable' means.
Did you google "WWII leaders" yet?
That perfectly proves my point, thank you. Society effectively turned a blind eye to police racism for decades. It's only in the last few years it's finally reached a flash point.
"Nobody" is a big statement. But fine, I'll grant you that people finally got fed up with this.
The key word here is "imply" which is another way of saying "this is how I read others' actions, without any direct evidence."
Well first, so far you've mostly shown pictures where there's one black man visible in them. So 'group' seems a bit overstated.
Second, to be charged with a hate crime you have to prove the attack was racially motivated. Still no evidence that's happened in any of those photos. Sure it's possible, but unless you have some kind of context you're going to have a hard time proving it, guv.
I saw a picture of a white guy punching a black guy in London yesterday. I'm sure there's more. Should they be charged with hate crimes too then?
All you have to do is apply the law equally and it's all good. But, a hate crime is a serious charge, you can't just assume every crime is based on the race of the victim.
Has society been turning a blind eye though? It's only in the last few years that normal people have such amplified voices.Quote:
That perfectly proves my point, thank you. Society effectively turned a blind eye to police racism for decades. It's only in the last few years it's finally reached a flash point.
Ok, nobody worth listening to. Did you only just get fed up with it? Is that why you think this is only just becoming a problem that everyone is aware of?Quote:
"Nobody" is a big statement. But fine, I'll grant you that people finally got fed up with this.
People imply it by treating it differently to other forms of racism.Quote:
The key word here is "imply" which is another way of saying "this is how I read others' actions, without any direct evidence."
Of course you need evidence that it's racially motivated. You're not going to get that from photos. Good job one of the vids I posted has audio of them shouting "slavery" as they kicked a white guy in the head.Quote:
Second, to be charged with a hate crime you have to prove the attack was racially motivated. Still no evidence that's happened in any of those photos. Sure it's possible, but unless you have some kind of context you're going to have a hard time proving it, guv.
Sure, if there's evidence they were being racist.Quote:
I saw a picture of a white guy punching a black guy in London yesterday. I'm sure there's more. Should they be charged with hate crimes too then?
I couldn't agree more. Are you satisfied that the Irish lad getting a kicking was the victim of a hate crime?Quote:
All you have to do is apply the law equally and it's all good. But, a hate crime is a serious charge, you can't just assume every crime is based on the race of the victim.
Not all of society, but enough that it kept on happening over and over.
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.
Everyone was aware of it before, but it didn't change. That's the evidence it was considered socially acceptable.
Again, waiting to see the evidence on this.
I didn't hear that, but yeah that would qualify as a hate crime in my book. I'd have no problem with them being charged.
To be clear, you can't hold all white people responsible for racial inequality. Nor can you hold any of them responsible for the sins of their fathers. So yeah, if that's what is happening those guys are twats and should go to prison.
That's the problem I was pointing out. You can't assume racism by default because one guy is one colour and the other guy is another colour.
I'm suspicious, but without context I don't think it's proven to anywhere near a legal standard. See above.
The Irish guy was the one getting beaten by people saying "slavery".Quote:
I'm suspicious, but without context I don't think it's proven to anywhere near a legal standard. See above.
I mean, even when I actually link you vids, you don't pay attention. I can't be bothered to engage with you anymore poop, you're not even close to good faith. You can't even be bothered to spend ten seconds typing something in to google.
It's too late now anyway, google fixed it, obviously surprised by the backlash. I'm not even going to tell you what they did. You could find out if you wanted, it's why DuckDuckGo is trending on Twitter.
Picture of the day...
Man in bra with pissy shorts, Britain spelt wrong on flag.
Very probably photoshopped, by still worth a laugh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaeXSjRW...g&name=900x900
Oh ok didnt have the sound on first time. I heard "[unintelligble, something] slavery". Can you translate that dialect for us?
And how do you know the white guy didn't say something to them about slavery that set them off?
Context.
Was it "stupid." and "four hundred years of slavery." he was saying?
And if so, what was that in response to? I find it hard to believe the guy was just walking along and someone jumped him to say "hey you're stupid cause you don't know about four hundred years of slavery."
Sounds more like there was some beaking off going on back and forth and the white guy said something stupid like "What are you protesting for?"
Dunno for sure though. But if you're gonna fill in the blanks, then I might as well too.
Poop is willing to blindly believe that someone singing "Ingerland" while holding an arm in the air is doing a Nazi salute, but needs more context when a black guy is kicking a white guy in the head while saying "something something slavery".
They weren't singing that, and there were a bunch of them holding their palms up. You say it's some Ingerland salute (whatever that is), which is good enough for me.
And you assume it was unprovoked, which is pretty telling.
For a guy who claims to be against racism you sure seem to be in a hurry to see it in black people but not whites.
We're talking about this, right?
https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/statu...55011777794048
They are singing "Ingerland". It might be mumbled fucking garbage, but that's what they're singing. And this raised hand isn't a salute or anything, many people will hold both arms up in the air, it's just some people are holding beer. It's a complete nothing.
You assume I assume it was unprovoked.Quote:
And you assume it was unprovoked, which is pretty telling.
You seem keen to ignore the many times I've said this is a problem for everyone.Quote:
For a guy who claims to be against racism you sure seem to be in a hurry to see it in black people but not whites.
Watching that back, there looks like there *might* be one seig heil at the front. Maybe. The arm that goes up quickly and then straight back down, that's a bit fishy.
Actually, no I take that back. He does it twice, while looking around. Not a seig heil.
Ok, whatever you say.
Well, if it's provoked that changes things doesn't it? That's why we keep talking about 'context'. But, you posted it as evidence that black violence against whites was a) increasing; and b) socially acceptable.
My view is even if it's provoked it's still not acceptable, but it certainly is asking for it.
You say that, but in the next post you try to argue the above about how it's socially acceptable for blacks to beat up whites and nobody thinks that's a problem. Then you try to post all the evidence you can of blacks hitting whites. So really you seem to be saying you wish black people would stop being racist, while trying your best to downplay all the instances of whites being racist - saying instead that they're just bored football fans lol.
If I get provoked by a black man, and I kick him in the head while saying "that's for the cenotaph", is that ok? He provoked me, I'm perfectly justified in launching a viscous racist assault.Quote:
Well, if it's provoked that changes things doesn't it? That's why we keep talking about 'context'. But, you posted it as evidence that black violence against whites was a) increasing; and b) socially acceptable.
No it doesn't change it.
The vast majority of what we see on social media is lacking in context. That doesn't stop you from forming opinions based on fake news and deluded belief that a raised arm is a seig heil. Yet here you are using "context" as an excuse to dismiss footage of what I'm sure you agree is very probably a racist attack on a white man. There's enough context there to say that much. It should certainly give you cause for concern.
This is wrong. I wish everyone would stop being racist. And the people I said look like bored football lads, there is no evidence they were being racist. You imagined seig heils and even though you say you accept it's a nothing, you still assume these people are racist. I don't assume that. They could just be twats. Based on the footage we are discussing, I cannot conclude they are racist, not even probably.Quote:
So really you seem to be saying you wish black people would stop being racist, while trying your best to downplay all the instances of whites being racist - saying instead that they're just bored football fans lol.
The guy who looks like a Nazi, he's probably racist. I wouldn't refer to him as a "bored football twat".
Ong, you have to realize yourself that your position is really weak. You have some pictures and videos with no context and you're trying to construct a story around them that fits your narrative. Meanwhile on the side of BLM protests there are hundreds separate instances of police brutality, very few of which are lacking context or leave much room for interpretation.
I'm not saying there aren't ever any instances where there's prejudice against a majority, but if you can't even come up with a single instance that meets at least some standard of proof, then maybe you should concede that it's not a systemic problem.
Of course it makes a difference. If someone is walking by and you jump them for being white, that's an unprovoked attack and wholly indefensible. If that same person walks by, gives you a few sieg heils, and asks you what your problem is while calling you the n-word, that's a different matter.
Still doesn't make it ok to beat him up, but even the law considers such a distinction between provoked and unprovoked attacks.
Your little twitter hate crime trial is a sham and you know it.
Moreover, you still haven't shown b-on-w violence is either a) increasing or b) socially acceptable. So you can argue all you want about what happened in the video you posted; it still doesn't prove anything.
I literally just told you those football fans have done nothing to prove they are racist, and yet you still call them racist.
You are deeply insincere.
Like I say, insincere. You know full well that my "bored football twats" comment was aimed at the dickheads singing "Ingerland". Is Boris specifically calling these guys "racist" thugs? No he's not. And you know it. You know exactly why you're being insincere.
Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you were only talking about a certain picture where you somehow know that theyre all football fans, which presumably precludes them from also being racist.
It appears everything needs to be slowly explained to you. I'm sorry this wasn't obvious to you...
The "Ingerland" chant is most commonly associated with football fans.
Being a football fan doesn't preclude someone from being racist, nor does it make someone racist. I'm sure some of those guys are racist, I'm also sure some are not. The footage in question does not tell us anything about racism. That's why it's highly insincere to keep calling them racists.
I've made it clear on several occasions that my "bored football twats" referred to those at the Cenotaph, so you're either fos or more stoned than I am.
You both keep pretending that anyone is not racist, and that's probably the biggest problem in this whole thing.
Literally everyone is racist. It's only through deep internal dialogue and cross-racial conversations and activities that anyone can hope to be less racist... but no one is non-racist.
The language is terrible. No one wants to accept that they are a biased human meat-sack with flawed perceptions and understandings. No one wants to accept that we all do accidental things which promote racism. Promoting racism is racist.
The assertion that anyone is non-racist doesn't hold up to any level of psychological observation.
So let's move away from treating the word racism like a boogeyman that no one wants to believe about themself. Lets move away from throwing the word racism around like it's an insult or a mark of a bad person.
We need to move toward being able to recognize unintended consequences of our assumptions. We need to move toward hearing each other's thoughts and letting those thoughts move us to growth.
Is it a pipe dream? Probably. On the widest scales, people are not like that.
But we, here, are not "people" at large. We're intelligent people who are trying to be better.
Let's be able to talk about racism without treating it like a condemnation of character.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say and allude to when talking about it a page or 2 earlier, you summed it up far more eloquently. :clap:
We started at the point that Ong claims b-on-w racism is both increasing, and is socially acceptable. The rest of the convo is just him trying to change the subject to make me seem like the one making claims without evidence about a single video (which I admitted to already), or telling me to go research his claim for him.
So yeah, it's pretty pointless.
We're not all racist. You're overdefining racism. Not everyone thinks their race is superior, not everyone discriminates against others based on race. That's what racism is.
I have racial biases. That's not necessarily racism.
I think the Japanese are superior. That's a racial bias but it's not racism.
If you know what I'm saying and you argue with the words I chose to adequately speak my meanings to you,
then I could care less.
https://xkcd.com/1576/
Not everyone wears capes or swastikas, or thinks other races are worthless, those are extreme positions. A more moderate position would be that some colors are genetically less intelligent, and an even less severe position would be that some colors are better at maths. It's a spectrum, all part of the same issue. Just because someone doesn't hold extreme beliefs doesn't mean their position doesn't negatively affect someone, and on a societal level even moderate positions turn into systemic racism.