"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

It’s come full circle. During my uni days and early 20’s I loved posting about random shit I was doing. Now I’m 35 I rarely share anything about my life. There’s certainly a place for social media but I think the way we use it has definitely evolved. Like most things tend to really.

I’ve had a Facebook account for 15 years, in that time I think 0.001% of my posts ever referred to my life personally rather than my opinion on something. Don’t get me wrong people can do what they like, and with some people it’s nice if they are genuinely happy with how their life is going rather than being an attention seeking void trying to get people to ask “what’s up Hun?”

I felt guilty because I found out that a friend of mine who had moved back to Australia had died last year, as hadn’t spoken to her in a few months (that’s life for you)

[Letters]

rather than being an attention seeking void trying to get people to ask “what’s up Hun?”
That sort of shit pisses me off on FB.
I mostly post nonsense on there. Stuff I find amusing and hope will amuse others. There's the occasional serious post but it's rare.
I find it a useful way of keeping up with people who I rarely see or hear from, good to see some of what's going on in their life.
I'll sometimes post stuff I'm doing - places I'm going, evenings out or whatever. Nothing particularly personal though. When I post pictures of the kids it's from the back so their face isn't splashed all over the place.

[HCZ_Reborn]

That sort of shit pisses me off on FB.
I mostly post nonsense on there. Stuff I find amusing and hope will amuse others. There's the occasional serious post but it's rare.
I find it a useful way of keeping up with people who I rarely see or hear from, good to see some of what's going on in their life.
I'll sometimes post stuff I'm doing - places I'm going, evenings out or whatever. Nothing particularly personal though. When I post pictures of the kids it's from the back so their face isn't splashed all over the place.

Yeah I think people need to be careful about splashing pictures of their kids everywhere, what they think is just going to their friends will become nonce fodder very quickly. Horrible world we live in really but no use in pretending otherwise.

[Marc Overmars]

A friend of mine posts her kids near enough every week, find it a bit weird really. Not even about it just being nonce fodder but I’m not really sure those kids will appreciate it when they get older and find themselves plastered on social media.

[Letters]

My niece isn't as bad as she used to be, but she posts her kids on FB way too much IMO.
Another friend had a baby a few months back and posts pictures every sodding day. Dude, no-one cares about your bloody baby. Or not that much.
And another friends - more MrsL's friends than mine, but we're friends on FB - posts some quite personal things about her kids which I don't think they'll thank her for when they get older.
FB is a strange place, really.

[HCZ_Reborn]

A friend of mine posts her kids near enough every week, find it a bit weird really. Not even about it just being nonce fodder but I’m not really sure those kids will appreciate it when they get older and find themselves plastered on social media.

Hmmm hadn’t considered that angle.

[Letters]

In other news, I'm in the Public Sector and this was announced with great fanfare a few weeks back

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-servants-pay-offer-1500-cost-of-living-payment-strikes-unions

Excitedly checked my bank account today.
Noted how much tax they'd taken off of it.
Cancelled the yacht.

<_<

[Mac76]

I resisted Facebook for many years because of the privacy concerns, but given my family live a way away and i don't see them that often, it's good to keep in touch with them that way. To be honest it was my wife telling me constantly what my sister etc were doing that persuaded me to join and find out for myself :lol: It's very much just family and some very close friends though, literally 20 people...

i do enjoy the facebook groups though, i'm on quite a few for various long-standing bands i follow and it's such a great way to keep up with what they're up to, plus exchange stories, memorabilia etc with fellow followers of the band

but one thing that surprises me about the fucntionality in all these platforms, especially facebook, is just how poor it is - it's like using a really early beta version of something

i'm not on insta and while again i resisted twitter for a long time, i'm now on it and there are some very funny things on there tbf

i'd have been happy to give Threads a go if it wasn't tied to insta, again i think that' s really big error and it wouldn't suprise me if they break the link at some point

[Letters]

This deserved a reply but I waited till I had some time to watch the video.


Yeah, and I already informed you that scientific consensus is irrelevant.
Informed :lol:
You asserted it's irrelevant and I responded. It's an incorrect assertion. It is neither irrelevant nor conclusive.


I thought you were an avid BBC viewer?
You thought wrong.


Are you saying you haven't witnessed the overwhelming bias when it comes to who can speak and who can't on platforms that reach a wide target audience?
I don't really know how you assess that. What do you mean by who can and can't speak? I mean, I'm never invited to speak about climate change on the BBC because why would I be? I'm not an expert.
It's not that I "can't", I'm not banned, I'm just not someone they would invite to and why should they? Who are these experts who are prevented from speaking?


On every media platform, in every international forum, everywhere where politics holds sway the debate STARTS from the assumption the science is settled.
Well, that's probably true. Science should obviously always allow for the possibility that it's wrong of course. But right now the evidence is pretty compelling.


Yet studies (which I have little doubt are also biased in favour of the so-called, already debunked, consensus) suggest there is no significant bias in the volume of peer reviewed research once private funding is removed as a factor. Obviously the majority of scientific literature favours the climate agenda because operators of the agenda fund science to find specific outcomes.
Well, you say that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/


The alarmists also have the great advantage of being able to point out the window and scream, "It's a Cerberus heatwave!" (not even a joke), and the average citizen will be able to feel it is hot.
Well, they have the advantage of anyone over 40 who has a memory knowing that the climate has changed in their lifetimes. That's not up for debate.


Same scam as Covid. Nobody was dying in the streets but the fear of it was sufficient.
Why do there have to be piles of bodies in the streets to make it a situation that requires a response?
I told you many times about the conversation I had with an ICU doctor. Someone on the front line. It wasn't a situation he'd ever experienced before.
Why are you so unable to think in anything other than black and white? "Piles of bodies in the street" and "nothing to see here" aren't the only two options.


Sounds to me like you're doing the Covid thing again. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
I was right about Covid. It was a situation which required a response but the government's response was shambolic. Of course it was, they're fuckwits.
This is another example of your black and white thinking. "No response was required" and "The government's response was correct" are not the only two options here.
I was certainly right when I said their response was designed to deal with the situation and not part of a one way slide into the sort of dystopia you prophesied.


It sounds like you are saying you believe nothing will be done (apart from the disintegration of our economies and civil liberties) but you would like to see MUCH MORE done? Like what?
Well this is a good question. I don't know if MUCH MORE should be done, but I think efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are doomed to fail. So probably the effort should be spent on technologies which reduce the impact of the climate changing. Or can mitigate the level of change in other ways.
You surely agree it's changing, no? I imagine you're also of an age where the difference has been noticeable in your lifetime.


Ignore the political bits. Focus on how the models are rigged and the data manipulated. Don't worry about the speaker and focus on the message.
OK. So I did watch this. The trouble is...I just don't know if he's right. I don't have the knowledge or experience. And, frankly, neither do you.
But I would note that he was presenting to this lot:

https://www.desmog.com/european-institute-climate-and-energy/


the group argues that climate policy is a ‘pretense’ for leaders to ‘control the economy and the population’ and to “burden people with taxes",

Which sounds right up your street. And this is the issue with you and your ability to process information. For all of us that ability is affected by our biases and worldview, but yours are quite extreme.
Any videos I've posted in scientific areas which you disagree with you dismiss as propaganda, even if the videos are just by individuals. Who is the propaganda for?
But you're happy to accept what this bloke says which fits in with your worldview that "they" are always up to something. The group he's presenting to have an agenda too, why is it OK if it's an agenda which you like?
I've highlighted many times how that worldview led you to wrong conclusions on Covid. Your failure to acknowledge you were wrong or consider why is a bit weird and makes it difficult to take your proclamations on other subjects seriously.

[IBK]

given the number of exoplanets in the universe it would be unlikely that there isn't some form of evolved life (let's use that term rather than 'intelligent') somewhere

personally i still think it's really naive that we send those probes out with all sorts of information including our location etc, for any old malevolent alien species to pick up and then come and enslave us or just wipe us all out

https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-04/20130115_radio_broadcasts.jpg

This is my favourite contextualisation of the size of the universe. It shows how far radio waves from Earth (travelling almost as fast as light) have travelled since 1895. This is why meeting other 'evolved' life is so unlikely. We need to factor in time as well. Human beings will long since have wiped themselves out in less than the blink of an eye in the timescales of the universe.

[Letters]

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.”
- Douglas Adams

[Mac76]

https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-04/20130115_radio_broadcasts.jpg

This is my favourite contextualisation of the size of the universe. It shows how far radio waves from Earth (travelling almost as fast as light) have travelled since 1895. This is why meeting other 'evolved' life is so unlikely. We need to factor in time as well. Human beings will long since have wiped themselves out in less than the blink of an eye in the timescales of the universe.

yes that is all true, not least the last part

[Mac76]

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.”
- Douglas Adams

:lol:

love that line, along with "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."

[HCZ_Reborn]

How come you don't feel the same about all the footballers that were freed?. You came up with some hocus pocus that they were still guilty despite the courts saying otherwise. Or you just hate people that kick a ball for a living

Mason Greenwood was not exonerated in anyway…the CPS dropped the case because his girlfriend dropped the charges despite their being an audio recording of him threatening her with violence unless she opens her legs.

I commented on David Goodwillie as well who like Trump was found guilty of rape in a civil trial (but not a criminal one) and if you bother to check I took no definitive view as to his innocence or guilt

Thomas Partey? Yeah I think he’s probably guilty. But then I literally said the same thing about Kevin Spacey.

Greenwood is the only one I can say I know is guilty.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don’t know if anyone here with young kids owns a copy of the book “We are going on a Bear Hunt”

Had an interesting conversation with its author just now, and by interesting I mean illuminating and by illuminating I mean illuminating as to what an absolute ghoul the man is.

[Letters]

:lol:

I’m not scared :sulk:

But do go on!

[HCZ_Reborn]

:lol:

I’m not scared :sulk:

But do go on!


Oh ridiculously long story, but along with being an author he’s also one of the scabby far leftists who is mates with people like Corbyn and George Galloway, and turned his gaggle of online supporters loose on someone who ended up killing themselves…the kind, gentle politics of the left on display as usual.

[Letters]

Hector :rose:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66411829

[Letters]

https://i.ibb.co/4TtV6LY/ULEZ.jpg

:d

[WMUG]

Hector :rose:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66411829

I'll miss his terrible, terrible Spanish :rose:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1688265604799574016?s=46&t=n1tnxEg6k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

Is he coming out here?

Let’s be fair if he was, it would be to no one’s surprise

[The Wengerbabies]

https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1688265604799574016?s=46&t=n1tnxEg6k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

Is he coming out here?

Let’s be fair if he was, it would be to no one’s surprise

Is that his boyfriend?

He's definitely a queer.

[Globalgunner]

Is that his boyfriend?

He's definitely a queer.

I was told thats his son. Maybe they both are?

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://news.sky.com/story/two-men-stabbed-in-homophobic-attack-in-clapham-high-street-12939793

If the attacker is neither Muslim or Afro-Caribbean. I will give ten pound to charity

[Letters]

https://news.sky.com/story/two-men-stabbed-in-homophobic-attack-in-clapham-high-street-12939793

If the attacker is neither Muslim or Afro-Caribbean. I will give ten pound to charity

Your money is looking safe :lol:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66526328

[HCZ_Reborn]

Michael Parkinson is dead

Had some decent interviews down the years, remember his one with Muhammad Ali.

Said modern tv all reality shows and cop dramas was mainly shit

[Letters]

Just saw. RIP.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kek1vs6bM2k

[Letters]

Michael Parkinson is dead

Had some decent interviews down the years, remember his one with Muhammad Ali.

Said modern tv all reality shows and cop dramas was mainly shit

Back in the day he did do proper interviews where you got to find out about the person.
Wasn’t it him who interviewed Bob Monkhouse and got him to open up about his disabled son?
Modern chat shows are just fluff and nonsense and people plugging their latest whatever.
Even Parkinson’s later shows were more like that.

[Globalgunner]

Michael Parkinson is dead

Had some decent interviews down the years, remember his one with Muhammad Ali.

Said modern tv all reality shows and cop dramas was mainly shit

Hid did a few with Ali, there was one where I genuinely feared for his life

[Mac76]

Hid did a few with Ali, there was one where I genuinely feared for his life

Wasn't that the Emu one?

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66180606


The last time we had a case like that for anyone old enough was Beverley Allitt. She was also using insulin on babies, but then when the babies went into cardiac arrest she was always first on scene to “save” them, they reckon it was a kind of Munchausens by proxy.

With this individual, she seemed to be obsessed with the grieving parents of the infants she’d murdered. Would send them deepest sympathy cards and would try to locate them on Facebook. Considering the Allit case, the hospital were remarkably slow in doing anything about their suspicions. So there’s bound to be an enquiry into the Trust itself.

[Letters]

Was reading about this earlier. All bloody awful.
She is clearly not well.
And it sounds like the NHS Trust were lamentably slow at joining the dots even when the data was so abnormal and she was on shift every single time.
I guess the only defence for them is that these cases are so rare. It’s not natural to suspect a nurse or doctor because causing harm to their patients is the exact opposite of what they’re supposed to be doing. But there were enough red flags in this case, clearly she should have been stopped sooner.

[The Wengerbabies]

UK's most racist politician at it again

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/19/20/74507689-12424583-image-m-56_1692475113295.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12424583/Sadiq-Khan-plunged-race-row-official-website-publishes-picture-white-family-says-dont-represent-real-Londoners.html

Though tbf to Sadick Khant he's not wrong. In 1991 London was 76% White British in 2021 it was just 37%. His Emir is growing.

Data out this week showed the birth rate for the UK was the lowest for 20 years at 600,000 with 1/3 of that being to foreign mothers. Net migration was 600,000. Can you really say the great replacement is not a thing?

That's not even accounting for the small boat invaders. See how fundamentally the Vikings changed the country in 20-30 years. I wonder what it will look like 30 in 2050?

[Mac76]

The more that narrow-minded ignorant racist Little Englanders are in the minority the happier i'll be

[Niall_Quinn]

The more that narrow-minded ignorant racist Little Englanders are in the minority the happier i'll be

Get the fuck out if you don't like it. Tell me why the English aren't entitled to their own country just like every other nationality is. It's time the England haters were made to pony up.

And, btw, this is probably the most tolerant nation on the planet, closely followed by the other western nations. If you want to see true racism look east and downward to that machete wielding continent.

So sick of listening to shitty little bitches who are so busy putting the place down they can't find the time to just say thank you.

[Letters]

Tell me why the English aren't entitled to their own country

Then…

And, btw, this is probably the most tolerant nation on the planet

:lol:

[Letters]

Letby given a whole life sentence, fairly inevitably.

EDIT: One of those cases which does give me pause about the death sentence. I am generally against but with cases like this it does feel there’s a good argument for it. My main reason for being against is miscarriages of justice, of which there are plenty of examples

[Mac76]

Letby given a whole life sentence, fairly inevitably.

EDIT: One of those cases which does give me pause about the death sentence. I am generally against but with cases like this it does feel there’s a good argument for it. My main reason for being against is miscarriages of justice, of which there are plenty of examples

It's wrong on principle, no exceptions - as soon as it was introduced it would widen out and we'd back in the land of irreservable miscarraiges of justice

[Letters]

It's wrong on principle, no exceptions - as soon as it was introduced it would widen out and we'd back in the land of irreservable miscarraiges of justice
Overall I agree. There are just occasional cases though, and this is one, which make me briefly waver from that position.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Get the fuck out if you don't like it. Tell me why the English aren't entitled to their own country just like every other nationality is. It's time the England haters were made to pony up.

And, btw, this is probably the most tolerant nation on the planet, closely followed by the other western nations. If you want to see true racism look east and downward to that machete wielding continent.

So sick of listening to shitty little bitches who are so busy putting the place down they can't find the time to just say thank you.


Aren’t you essentially putting down the place by inferring that the prevalence of people with different skin colour and religion is destroying the social fabric of this country.

I genuinely don’t know where you come down on this subject, but ultimately yes I understand the fear of cultural dilution but it is less caused by people of different skin colour than it is the one way street approach of respect for diversity. Cultures change over time, we no longer tie people to stones and stab them through the heart in sacrifice to our different gods…we have adopted the monotheistic religion of Christianity from the Middle East.

The language has changed down the centuries to incorporate Saxon and Latin.

But I suspect the culture you’re worried about losing is the Protestant Christian one that is less than 500 years old. Of course we have a right to have an English culture, and I’m equally dismissive of those who consider that to be English is to be small minded, parochial and have a hatred of others.

But cultures over any period of time are ephemeral, I don’t think we are in danger of becoming more Islamic in culture, but we absolutely need to push back against moronic Islamism. If people take offence at images of the prophet that appear in comedy or even school text books that’s their problem. It should not be allowed for people to live here without learning the language or having contempt for our westernised way of life. If they chose to leave Pakistan for example to come here, If they want to live here they are their descendants need to think of themselves as British first and Pakistani second.

Because in my view a society that regards women as chattel the way they are in Pakistan is inferior (I should note im using Pakistan as a paradigm case)

But mass migration is not just part of Britain, it’s part of the worlds history. Homo Sapiens are naturally itinerant, and whilst we need the sense of identity that is bestowed upon us through nationhood, what that nation is…is rarely left unaltered over time

[Mac76]

Aren’t you essentially putting down the place by inferring that the prevalence of people with different skin colour and religion is destroying the social fabric of this country.

I genuinely don’t know where you come down on this subject, but ultimately yes I understand the fear of cultural dilution but it is less caused by people of different skin colour than it is the one way street approach of respect for diversity. Cultures change over time, we no longer tie people to stones and stab them through the heart in sacrifice to our different gods…we have adopted the monotheistic religion of Christianity from the Middle East.

The language has changed down the centuries to incorporate Saxon and Latin.

But I suspect the culture you’re worried about losing is the Protestant Christian one that is less than 500 years old. Of course we have a right to have an English culture, and I’m equally dismissive of those who consider that to be English is to be small minded, parochial and have a hatred of others.

But cultures over any period of time are ephemeral, I don’t think we are in danger of becoming more Islamic in culture, but we absolutely need to push back against moronic Islamism. If people take offence at images of the prophet that appear in comedy or even school text books that’s their problem. It should not be allowed for people to live here without learning the language or having contempt for our westernised way of life. If they chose to leave Pakistan for example to come here, If they want to live here they are their descendants need to think of themselves as British first and Pakistani second.

Because in my view a society that regards women as chattel the way they are in Pakistan is inferior (I should note im using Pakistan as a paradigm case)

But mass migration is not just part of Britain, it’s part of the worlds history. Homo Sapiens are naturally itinerant, and whilst we need the sense of identity that is bestowed upon us through nationhood, what that nation is…is rarely left unaltered over time

I'm probably in more or less the same place on this

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's wrong on principle, no exceptions - as soon as it was introduced it would widen out and we'd back in the land of irreservable miscarraiges of justice

Wrong on principle I’m not sure. Because then where do you draw the line, are you saying it’s wrong to take a life no matter the context? I’m sure you’re not.

As a matter of principle, i think there are certain crimes that there can be no redemption for. That the perpetrator of which deserves to die for.

But the problem is what is achieved, capital punishment demonstrably has no deterrent effect. Laid bare by the simple truth that almost no one commits a crime expecting to be caught.

There is also as you’ve touched on the risk of the injustice of executing an innocent person, and the one that I don’t think gets considered enough creating a martyr out of dangerous fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in furtherance of their cause.

I personally have no issue with shoot to kill in terms of neutralising active threats, even though it may lead to horrendously unjust outcomes such as Jean Charles De Menezies. In fact the insistence that we should try and capture people alive seems to put more consideration on the life of the suspect rather than those innocents they may target. I had no issue with US special forces taking out Osama Bin Laden either.

But there is something cruel in keeping someone in confinement until an allotted time when you take their life in clinical cold blood. Of course there are people who have faced this fate who deserved it (Ted Bundy and Saddam Hussein for example). I think the War crimes tribunals were right to execute those convicted at Nuremberg as they were implacably evil men.

So I have no sense of compassion for the condemned unless they did not do it. But I don’t think a society should routinely practice cruelty. Japan for example, it’s death penalty system is markedly so because of not only an inordinately high conviction rate which leads to a strong possibility for miscarriage of justice but the fact that the condemned is not notified of their execution until the day it happens. So they awake every morning wondering if it will be their last day on earth This is something that can go on for years, only in the last five years were those responsible for the Tokyo subway Sarin attacks, put to death…and on one hand fuck them what they did was evil and they deserve to die, on the other hand how can Japan signify itself as being less brutal if it engages in effective psychological torture.

[Mac76]

Wrong on principle I’m not sure. Because then where do you draw the line, are you saying it’s wrong to take a life no matter the context? I’m sure you’re not.

As a matter of principle, i think there are certain crimes that there can be no redemption for. That the perpetrator of which deserves to die for.

But the problem is what is achieved, capital punishment demonstrably has no deterrent effect. Laid bare by the simple truth that almost no one commits a crime expecting to be caught.

There is also as you’ve touched on the risk of the injustice of executing an innocent person, and the one that I don’t think gets considered enough creating a martyr out of dangerous fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in furtherance of their cause.

I personally have no issue with shoot to kill in terms of neutralising active threats, even though it may lead to horrendously unjust outcomes such as Jean Charles De Menezies. In fact the insistence that we should try and capture people alive seems to put more consideration on the life of the suspect rather than those innocents they may target. I had no issue with US special forces taking out Osama Bin Laden either.

But there is something cruel in keeping someone in confinement until an allotted time when you take their life in clinical cold blood. Of course there are people who have faced this fate who deserved it (Ted Bundy and Saddam Hussein for example). I think the War crimes tribunals were right to execute those convicted at Nuremberg as they were implacably evil men.

So I have no sense of compassion for the condemned unless they did not do it. But I don’t think a society should routinely practice cruelty. Japan for example, it’s death penalty system is markedly so because of not only an inordinately high conviction rate which leads to a strong possibility for miscarriage of justice but the fact that the condemned is not notified of their execution until the day it happens. So they awake every morning wondering if it will be their last day on earth This is something that can go on for years, only in the last five years were those responsible for the Tokyo subway Sarin attacks, put to death…and on one hand fuck them what they did was evil and they deserve to die, on the other hand how can Japan signify itself as being less brutal if it engages in effective psychological torture.

For me there are at least four big reasons why I'm against it:

1. if a killer knows they will die if they are caught, they are more likely to kill or harm again in order to avoid being caught
2. miscarraiges of justice
3. if, outside situations of war, killing is wrong then the state needs to recognise that in sentencing
4. the martyr/hero point you make

As for the de Menezies murder - for that is what it was - it was appalling and all the officers involved should have gone to jail - likewise the Ian Tomlinson murder (for that was what it was) - i still cannot understand how a cop can be captured on video proactively attacking a member of the public for no apparent reason, causing their death, and get away with it - they should all be doing life

[Niall_Quinn]

Then…


:lol:

Eh? So to be tolerate you have to abandon your culture?

And tolerance is just that. It's not subjugation or submission.

Learn the English language before you start laughing at people.

[Niall_Quinn]

Aren’t you essentially putting down the place by inferring that the prevalence of people with different skin colour and religion is destroying the social fabric of this country.

I genuinely don’t know where you come down on this subject, but ultimately yes I understand the fear of cultural dilution but it is less caused by people of different skin colour than it is the one way street approach of respect for diversity. Cultures change over time, we no longer tie people to stones and stab them through the heart in sacrifice to our different gods…we have adopted the monotheistic religion of Christianity from the Middle East.

The language has changed down the centuries to incorporate Saxon and Latin.

But I suspect the culture you’re worried about losing is the Protestant Christian one that is less than 500 years old. Of course we have a right to have an English culture, and I’m equally dismissive of those who consider that to be English is to be small minded, parochial and have a hatred of others.

But cultures over any period of time are ephemeral, I don’t think we are in danger of becoming more Islamic in culture, but we absolutely need to push back against moronic Islamism. If people take offence at images of the prophet that appear in comedy or even school text books that’s their problem. It should not be allowed for people to live here without learning the language or having contempt for our westernised way of life. If they chose to leave Pakistan for example to come here, If they want to live here they are their descendants need to think of themselves as British first and Pakistani second.

Because in my view a society that regards women as chattel the way they are in Pakistan is inferior (I should note im using Pakistan as a paradigm case)

But mass migration is not just part of Britain, it’s part of the worlds history. Homo Sapiens are naturally itinerant, and whilst we need the sense of identity that is bestowed upon us through nationhood, what that nation is…is rarely left unaltered over time

I didn't mention skin colour btw.

I disagree on Islam being a direct cultural threat to the west. Their most influential imams in this country make no secret of their intentions and often double down when directly confronted with the evidence. And we already have Sharia operating in select areas, in effect if not by codified authority.

I'm not at all against migration. But there needs to be a system in place the ensures it is advantageous to the nation as opposed to detrimental. For many reasons, economic and social. Flooding the place with people who offer nothing except a burden on the rest of us, when we already have self inflicted burdens to bear through our insistence on tolerating government (now that's some real tolerance right there). Want an Indian doctor or nurse to come in and help out the NHS - works for me. Want an Indian beggar to come in and on the dole - no thanks. To a moron that's a racist point of view. In fact any and every question raise about the singularly non-beneficial immigration happening across the west is met by the usual throwaway accusations and a rapid refusal to answer logical requests.

And somebody better step up and fix this because nothing at all good can come of it.

[Letters]

I'm not at all against migration. But there needs to be a system in place the ensures it is advantageous to the nation as opposed to detrimental. For many reasons, economic and social. Flooding the place with people who offer nothing except a burden on the rest of us, when we already have self inflicted burdens to bear through our insistence on tolerating government (now that's some real tolerance right there). Want an Indian doctor or nurse to come in and help out the NHS - works for me. Want an Indian beggar to come in and on the dole - no thanks. To a moron that's a racist point of view.
I don't think it's a racist point of view. The racist point of view is the latter type of immigration is the thing that's "flooding the place".
Or the old adage from Daily Mail reading gammons that asylum seekers come over here and immediately get given a house with butler and chauffer.
The actual reality is that the advantageous type of migration is by far the most common kind, and asylum seekers are not exactly living in luxury.

[Marc Overmars]

Letby given a whole life sentence, fairly inevitably.

EDIT: One of those cases which does give me pause about the death sentence. I am generally against but with cases like this it does feel there’s a good argument for it. My main reason for being against is miscarriages of justice, of which there are plenty of examples

I feel the same but death would also be too kind for that piece of shit.

Let her rot.

[Letters]

I feel the same but death would also be too kind for that piece of shit.

Let her rot.

I suspect she may be a bit “accident prone” in prison

[HCZ_Reborn]

I suspect she may be a bit “accident prone” in prison

She will be kept segregated from general population. Otherwise every child murderer and nonce in prison would be dead inside of 72 hours

[Letters]

She will be kept segregated from general population. Otherwise every child murderer and nonce in prison would be dead inside of 72 hours

:good:

And that, to answer your question, is what capital punishment achieves.
This woman will be kept alive, housed, fed and protected, for the rest of her life. Which is likely to be 50 years or more. It does feel like a massive waste of resources. But overall the miscarriage of justice thing tips the balance against for me.

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-small-boats-braverman-b2396623.html

This is embarrassing the boats could be stopped in a day. We have a navy, us it, sink the boats. They'll soon stop.

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-small-boats-braverman-b2396623.html

This is embarrassing the boats could be stopped in a day. We have a navy, us it, sink the boats. They'll soon stop.



Well I suppose someone who thinks someone fainting from heat exhaustion is actually another victim of the Covid vaccine would think that we could just use our navy to fire on dinghies in the Chanel. Certainly wouldn’t land us in the dock of the ICC, certainly wouldn’t have an issue of military personnel refusing to fire on unarmed individuals who can’t defend themselves.

Why don’t we mine the Chanel whilst we are at it, any fishing boats English or otherwise that get sunk….oh well just collateral damage.

That’ll definitely help immigration levels of which these individuals represent a small percentage of the overall amount.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well I suppose someone who thinks someone fainting from heat exhaustion is actually another victim of the Covid vaccine would think that we could just use our navy to fire on dinghies in the Chanel. Certainly wouldn’t land us in the dock of the ICC, certainly wouldn’t have an issue of military personnel refusing to fire on unarmed individuals who can’t defend themselves.

Why don’t we mine the Chanel whilst we are at it, any fishing boats English or otherwise that get sunk….oh well just collateral damage.

That’ll definitely help immigration levels of which these individuals represent a small percentage of the overall amount.

I agree. We should only do shit like that in places like Iraq. Not in our own backyard.

I wonder though, if Nazis were coming over on boats in some echoey callback to Operation Sealion, would we then sink the boats? Answer is no, because they landed safely and are wandering around every town in Britain.

It's hard work figuring out the good guys and the bad.

[The Wengerbabies]

Well I suppose someone who thinks someone fainting from heat exhaustion is actually another victim of the Covid vaccine would think that we could just use our navy to fire on dinghies in the Chanel. Certainly wouldn’t land us in the dock of the ICC, certainly wouldn’t have an issue of military personnel refusing to fire on unarmed individuals who can’t defend themselves.

Why don’t we mine the Chanel whilst we are at it, any fishing boats English or otherwise that get sunk….oh well just collateral damage.

That’ll definitely help immigration levels of which these individuals represent a small percentage of the overall amount.


You have a boat full of military age males entering your waters without permission. You warn them, tell them to turn around and if they don't they will be fired upon.

Fuck the ICC we need to show strength, you do not invade our waters without repercussions, if other nations feel so badly boo hoo we are not a "safe" country anymore so they should provide asylum.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think it's a racist point of view. The racist point of view is the latter type of immigration is the thing that's "flooding the place".
Or the old adage from Daily Mail reading gammons that asylum seekers come over here and immediately get given a house with butler and chauffer.
The actual reality is that the advantageous type of migration is by far the most common kind, and asylum seekers are not exactly living in luxury.

So we can't criticise people who cross border after border to land here and drain the coffers for nothing in return? Because that would be racist. But we can throw out racist comments about sections of our own society based on skin colour and reading habits, because THEY are racist.

Got it.

You don't even know what you are saying sometimes, do you?

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's hard work figuring out the good guys and the bad.

Not for you with all the certainty you exude, I suppose if we were all drink addled conspiracy theorists who clings on to the notion of libertarianism, yet as a complete coincidence espouses every populist right talking point going….it would be much more clarifying.

I being more simple minded get confused between British and American service personnel and radical insurgents who blow up the mosques of the wrong type of Muslim.

[HCZ_Reborn]

You have a boat full of military age males entering your waters without permission. You warn them, tell them to turn around and if they don't they will be fired upon.

Fuck the ICC we need to show strength, you do not invade our waters without repercussions, if other nations feel so badly boo hoo we are not a "safe" country anymore so they should provide asylum.


Maybe let adults do the talking and stay in the background playing with your Optimus prime action figure

[Niall_Quinn]

Not for you with all the certainty you exude, I suppose if we were all drink addled conspiracy theorists who clings on to the notion of libertarianism, yet as a complete coincidence espouses every populist right talking point going….it would be much more clarifying.

I being more simple minded get confused between British and American service personnel and radical insurgents who blow up the mosques of the wrong type of Muslim.

Well I can help you with that. I have a mate called Julian who... no wait, he's in jail for being certain about the good guys too.

[Niall_Quinn]

Maybe let adults do the talking and stay in the background playing with your Optimus prime action figure

Well at least he's got the balls to own his own mind.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well at least he's got the balls to own his own mind.


So genuine question here, do you work under the presumption that we all just agree with you but are too frightened to admit it because of what that would signify?

[The Wengerbabies]

Maybe let adults do the talking and stay in the background playing with your Optimus prime action figure

Yeah the "adults" are doing a great job.

[Niall_Quinn]

So genuine question here, do you work under the presumption that we all just agree with you but are too frightened to admit it because of what that would signify?

Why would I think that? No, the thought never crossed my mind. You haven't got the knowledge-base to agree or disagree in any meaningful way. I think you are brainwashed by propaganda and habit, certainly regardless of me. You observe from the ground up and only within the line of sight and you can only perceive one object at a time so can never relate several. Which is normal for most.

Your analysis of the Trump situation is one example. So I'm sure you believe in what you are saying because your brain has been wired in a way that makes you immune to recognising even the most basic realities.

[Mac76]

drink addled conspiracy theorists who clings on to the notion of libertarianism, yet as a complete coincidence espouses every populist right talking point going

probably the best description of NQ i've read so far :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Yeah the "adults" are doing a great job.

No they aren’t. Because like many politicians they make promises they have no way of keeping. Of course it’s not desirable for people to be making this crossing, but treating them as the scout party of an invasion force is as daft as treating them all like they are vulnerable human beings escaping persecution.

We wang on about the people traffickers, but what do we actually do to target them…surely you’d hope that some undercover police work as a result of Anglo-French cooperation would bring them to their knees…now of course if such an operation was underway we wouldn’t know about it for many years.


We are just giving the French money rather than setting up payment in escrow, where they can claim back money from our government for people they’ve prevented from crossing. We haven’t set up a migrant agreement where by we process those who feel they want to come here due to language or family for their suitability and eligibility in France. Because clearly we aren’t processing them quickly enough in the UK, and all the new law does is make them perpetual nowhere people, we can’t send them back to their country of origin, nor is Rwanda a solution because they don’t have the resources to deal with the number.

Ideally we do want to choose who we let in because we want people of certain skills and people of certain values amenable to our own. But Ultimately you’re paying whether we keep them here or keep them away from here….that’s ineluctable.

[Niall_Quinn]

probably the best description of NQ i've read so far :lol:

I always have the option of sobering up. But there's nowhere you can go.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Why would I think that? No, the thought never crossed my mind. You haven't got the knowledge-base to agree or disagree in any meaningful way. I think you are brainwashed by propaganda and habit, certainly regardless of me. You observe from the ground up and only within the line of sight and you can only perceive one object at a time so can never relate several. Which is normal for most.

Your analysis of the Trump situation is one example. So I'm sure you believe in what you are saying because your brain has been wired in a way that makes you immune to recognising even the most basic realities.


Fair enough really. ultimately anything I do to refute it will only act as a form of confirmation to you.

Conversely I think because you’ve told me that you consider conspiracy the common place, the norm. That every conspiracy no matter how implausible no matter how the person espousing it has zero credibility is likely to be true because government is a tool for obfuscation and inflicting human misery. As you said the other day your mind is made up re Trump.

For me the Trump thing is the balance between has he committed crimes and are the charges politically motivated. And my answer to both is yes…because one does not negate the other. Nixon committed crimes but it was politically expedient to pardon him. If Trump had got bored of it all, and decided not to run again I’ve no doubt that these indictments wouldn’t be happening…I’ve said as much.

But because I won’t exonerate him for attempting to overturn an election that he knew he’d lost, I’m meant to be suffering from TDS. And somehow won’t look at the crimes of Clinton (even though I’ve repeatedly stated her and her husband are a pair of low lives and crooks) and Biden (I don’t know too many people can’t make their mind up about him, is he a criminal mastermind or is his mind completely addled…maybe it’s both, maybe like Mayor Adam West it’s all a pretence)

[Niall_Quinn]

No they aren’t. Because like many politicians they make promises they have no way of keeping. Of course it’s not desirable for people to be making this crossing, but treating them as the scout party of an invasion force is as daft as treating them all like they are vulnerable human beings escaping persecution.

We wang on about the people traffickers, but what do we actually do to target them…surely you’d hope that some undercover police work as a result of Anglo-French cooperation would bring them to their knees…now of course if such an operation was underway we wouldn’t know about it for many years.


We are just giving the French money rather than setting up payment in escrow, where they can claim back money from our government for people they’ve prevented from crossing. We haven’t set up a migrant agreement where by we process those who feel they want to come here due to language or family for their suitability and eligibility in France. Because clearly we aren’t processing them quickly enough in the UK, and all the new law does is make them perpetual nowhere people, we can’t send them back to their country of origin, nor is Rwanda a solution because they don’t have the resources to deal with the number.

Ideally we do want to choose who we let in because we want people of certain skills and people of certain values amenable to our own. But Ultimately you’re paying whether we keep them here or keep them away from here….that’s ineluctable.

Oh please. How many excuses and for how long? It's always the incompetence theory withe the revolving door political class, isn't it? So convenient. When the Pakistani is openly gloating about having transformed that capital city, is it not even possible all of this is by design?

No. Thought not. All accidental. Certainly nothing worth getting heated about and definitely nothing worth defending. Modern world. No such thing as Britain. Things change (always in one direction, but still). Go along to get along. What's on TV? Did you see that thing in the news?

I get it. So much easier to suck it up than stand up. Which is why we get what we get and why so many people pretend it's normal.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Oh please. How many excuses and for how long? It's always the incompetence theory withe the revolving door political class, isn't it? So convenient. When the Pakistani is openly gloating about having transformed that capital city, is it not even possible all of this is by design?

No. Thought not. All accidental. Certainly nothing worth getting heated about and definitely nothing worth defending. Modern world. No such thing as Britain. Things change (always in one direction, but still). Go along to get along. What's on TV? Did you see that thing in the news?

I get it. So much easier to suck it up than stand up. Which is why we get what we get and why so many people pretend it's normal.

:lol: the reason people are even animated about the crossers is because it’s in the news. Maybe the “Pakistani” as you call him decided to ban Al Quds day gatherings in London to lull us into a false sense of security?.

And you’re right, I just lack the faith in humanity that you have, that certain people are scheming geniuses with brilliantly convoluted interconnected plans and my 40 years of knowledge of human short sightedness, incompetence, laziness and stubborn intractability is blinding me.

[Letters]

You don't even know what you are saying sometimes, do you?
I know what I'm saying. You don't.
We've covered your ability to understand and interpret what you read elsewhere.

[Letters]

Well at least he's got the balls to own his own mind.

:lol:

"Im An InDePeNdEnT tHiNkEr"

It's funny how people who say that all believe the same things... :coffee:

[Mac76]

:lol:

"Im An InDePeNdEnT tHiNkEr"

It's funny how people who say that all believe the same things... :coffee:

"Yes, we are all individuals"

[Letters]

Email du jour


We're getting in touch because your domain name Domain: goonersweb.co.uk is due for renewal within 30 days.

Ah well, we had a good run :wave:

[WMUG]

Is there a gofundme?

[Letters]

:lol: There should be. It usually auto-renews but I do need to update my card details.

Letters :bow:

[Mac76]

Letters :bow:

Agreed :clap:

[Letters]

Well. If I can remember my password to the portal I need to use to renew :unsure:

[Mac76]

Well. If I can remember my password to the portal I need to use to renew :unsure:

I (kind of) admire you actually pay to get regularly abused by NQ :lol:

[Letters]

:lol:

It's not just for that. I get abused by the rest of you too <_<

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580

Holy shit, they did it!

India :bow:

[Marc Overmars]

Impressive tbf.

I’m absolutely fascinated by space but also very aware there’s a strong possibility there’s fuck all else out there. :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580

Holy shit, they did it!

India :bow:


The moon is going to have its first post office

[HCZ_Reborn]

Impressive tbf.

I’m absolutely fascinated by space but also very aware there’s a strong possibility there’s fuck all else out there. :lol:


There is something else out there. The odds on us being the only intelligent life out there (using intelligent in a relative sense) but space is so ridiculously large we will never come into contact with them. Which is just as well as visitors from another world should be regarded with the utmost hostility and suspicion. I’m up for mining the edges of our solar system to keep them out (just to be on the safe side)

[Mac76]

There is something else out there. The odds on us being the only intelligent life out there (using intelligent in a relative sense) but space is so ridiculously large we will never come into contact with them. Which is just as well as visitors from another world should be regarded with the utmost hostility and suspicion. I’m up for mining the edges of our solar system to keep them out (just to be on the safe side)

That would take a LOT of mines...

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733

These guys sure are accident prone :unsure:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733

These guys sure are accident prone :unsure:

Surprised he lasted as long as he did

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://youtu.be/rurhk1hadp8?si=cP790oMCQGOtYSEv


Footage of what happened

[HCZ_Reborn]

Putin was not happy at all when he heard the news. Immediately contacted the chief of police and said “Everyone is going to think I did this. So I want nothing swept under the rug. I want your most honest, scrupulous detective investigating this”

Police chief says “I can’t do that”

Putin responds “why the hell not”

Police chief replies “Man you are after was one of the passengers”

[The Wengerbabies]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-not-ruling-out-using-electronic-tagging-to-control-migrants-suella-braverman-12949515

ItS JuSt a ConSPIraCy...

While I agree with tagging these illegal invaders how long until we all have to have one?

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-not-ruling-out-using-electronic-tagging-to-control-migrants-suella-braverman-12949515

ItS JuSt a ConSPIraCy...

While I agree with tagging these illegal invaders how long until we all have to have one?


Is there anything which isn’t a slippery slope for you?

[Letters]

Is there anything which isn’t a slippery slope for you?

:lol: It’s genuinely bizarre.
During the pandemic Diet NQ was all “ThE lOcKdOwNs WiLl NeVeR eNd”.
I literally quoted the posts where he said that recently.
And then when they ended - because of course they did, they were always going to - he’s just on to the next thing. Not a flicker of reflection, introspection or consideration that he might have been wrong. Bonkers.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Because that would mean having to challenge the absolutism of his beliefs. I wouldn’t mind, we all know that governments rarely govern in the best or most effective way because the incentives aren’t right….there is evidence of corruption and conspiracy, cronyism, nepotism and pay offs. And I do think there’s an argument to be made that we let it go too often and allow systemic dysfunction because it feels too much effort to clean it up.

I largely ignore him because of his through the looking glass tendency of black is white and white is black because it negates any of the nuance he accuses us of lacking.

In regards to the story above about tagging migrants, it’s another example of pointless gesture politics because there isn’t the money to tag every single individual who comes here. Not to mention that the boats are a small percentage of our overall migration and the majority in the last year have been Hong Kong Chinese, Ukranians and international students.

I do think the boats are far from sub optimal, but either way whatever decision we take is going to cost us money and yes that may seem unfair, but ultimately a government should level with people about it. There’s no cheap solution.

[The Wengerbabies]

:lol: It’s genuinely bizarre.
During the pandemic Diet NQ was all “ThE lOcKdOwNs WiLl NeVeR eNd”.
I literally quoted the posts where he said that recently.
And then when they ended - because of course they did, they were always going to - he’s just on to the next thing. Not a flicker of reflection, introspection or consideration that he might have been wrong. Bonkers.

Funny I should see this today as the Pakistani's ULEZ policy comes into effect.

Get ready for pay-per-mile.

Get ready for 15 minute cities.

Get ready for climate lockdowns.

Get ready for CBDC, too much carbon use this month no more money for travel for you.

Covid lockdowns were the precursor, seeing what they could get away with and conditioning you to stay home when told.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Funny I should see this today as the Pakistani's ULEZ policy comes into effect.

Get ready for pay-per-mile.

Get ready for 15 minute cities.

Get ready for climate lockdowns.

Get ready for CBDC, too much carbon use this month no more money for travel for you.

Covid lockdowns were the precursor, seeing what they could get away with and conditioning you to stay home when told.

The Pakistani? Are you NQ’s sock puppet account?

[WMUG]

15 minute cities already exist you fruitcake.

It just means having everything you need within a 15 minute walk of where you live. If you have that, you already live in one.

It's a benign urban planning term that got co-opted by the far right climate change denying crowd to sound as scary as possible.

As for your other predictions, go on. Give us a timeline for when they'll be introduced, and commit to admitting you were wrong if they don't happen within that timeline. I'll give you a year's leeway, even.

[Letters]

The Pakistani? Are you NQ’s sock puppet account?

He's a very poor NQ tribute act.
NQ does at least have some wit and intelligence.

PS: You're on thin ice, having called the Brighton manager a "wop" :lol:

[Letters]

Funny I should see this today as <racism and hysterical bullshit redacted>.

Well. You did previously say


Ireland reimposing restrictions despite 93% vaccination, still think this is going to end?

And then it ended.


So you're not exactly Mystic Meg. Well, you are of course because she was a fraud too.

[Mac76]

Funny I should see this today as the Pakistani's ULEZ policy comes into effect.

Get ready for pay-per-mile.

Get ready for 15 minute cities.

Get ready for climate lockdowns.

Get ready for CBDC, too much carbon use this month no more money for travel for you.

Covid lockdowns were the precursor, seeing what they could get away with and conditioning you to stay home when told.

People like you just don't know when you're winning do you?

don't worry, Sunak doesn't give a toss about the environment and Starmer's planning to build on the green belt so have no fear, our national government will continue to trash the country :good:

[HCZ_Reborn]

He's a very poor NQ tribute act.
NQ does at least have some wit and intelligence.

PS: You're on thin ice, having called the Brighton manager a "wop" :lol:


I don’t really see the objection to race based names I mean who really cares….it’s the sentiment behind it rather than the word that is surely the problem. For sure I get that you shouldn’t call someone a p*ki because of the historical context that goes with it. However for me it’s just a quick way of identifying someone…and proper racism is where you consider someone inferior to yourself based on their race. And I’d never do that…there’s far better criteria on which to justify the belief that someone is inferior rather than something arbitrary like skin colour or racial background.

[Letters]

there’s far better criteria on which to justify the belief that someone is inferior rather than something arbitrary like skin colour or racial background.
Like whether they still support Arteta or not? :unsure:

[Mac76]

I don’t really see the objection to race based names I mean who really cares….it’s the sentiment behind it rather than the word that is surely the problem. For sure I get that you shouldn’t call someone a p*ki because of the historical context that goes with it. However for me it’s just a quick way of identifying someone…and proper racism is where you consider someone inferior to yourself based on their race. And I’d never do that…there’s far better criteria on which to justify the belief that someone is inferior rather than something arbitrary like skin colour or racial background.

Nice try but you'd said he was the Brighton manager so the racist term was entirely superflous

[HCZ_Reborn]

Nice try but you'd said he was the Brighton manager so the racist term was entirely superflous

But given that I’ve suggested he would be a potential candidate to replace Captain Black at Arsenal, do you think me calling him a wop denotes that I consider him contemptuously or see him as inferior. So congratulations you’ve proved that the term was superfluous but in actuality nothing else.

[Mac76]

But given that I’ve suggested he would be a potential candidate to replace Captain Black at Arsenal, do you think me calling him a wop denotes that I consider him contemptuously or see him as inferior. So congratulations you’ve proved that the term was superfluous but in actuality nothing else.

The test would be whether you'd call De Zerbi (for it is he) a wop to his face - I think we all know you wouldn't which suggests you know it's offensive to the people about whom it is used and that's because it's racist

[HCZ_Reborn]

The test would be whether you'd call De Zerbi (for it is he) a wop to his face - I think we all know you wouldn't which suggests you know it's offensive to the people about whom it is used and that's because it's racist

That’s far more to do with the emotional association we make with words, which is very irrational.

Like I say it’s about the difference between understanding what society deems offensive which is often arbitrary and accepting that it’s offensive (which I dispute, and even if it is so what? I’m offended by that should mean fuck all…it’s a form of emotional manipulation)

If I was in France and I was being referred to as Le Rosbif, I wouldn’t give a solitary fuck.

[Mac76]

That’s far more to do with the emotional association we make with words, which is very irrational.

Like I say it’s about the difference between understanding what society deems offensive which is often arbitrary and accepting that it’s offensive (which I dispute, and even if it is so what? I’m offended by that should mean fuck all…it’s a form of emotional manipulation)

If I was in France and I was being referred to as Le Rosbif, I wouldn’t give a solitary fuck.

Again nice try but Rosbif is more a national stereotype and fairly innocuous whereas wop is racist and much more offensive

[HCZ_Reborn]

Again nice try but Rosbif is more a national stereotype and fairly innocuous whereas wop is racist and much more offensive

No it’s exactly the same. Wop is based on a national stereotype taken from the Latin word Guappa to swagger. The idea that Italians, men especially project outward confidence. But nice try to you, in your crusade to be offended by everything

[Mac76]

No it’s exactly the same. Wop is based on a national stereotype taken from the Latin word Guappa to swagger. The idea that Italians, men especially project outward confidence. But nice try to you, in your crusade to be offended by everything

Ha Wikipedia to the rescue :haha: although even they describe it as a 'slur' meaning it's offensive

So it's still an offensive term which is worse than Rosbif and that's why you wouldn't say it to his face

[HCZ_Reborn]

Ha Wikipedia to the rescue :haha: although even they describe it as a 'slur' meaning it's offensive

So it's still an offensive term which is worse than Rosbif and that's why you wouldn't say it to his face


No I knew that for years, I actually have some intellectual curiosity into etymology rather than simply accept words as verboten.

It’s no more a slur than Rosbifs is, it’s certainly not a complimentary term…anymore than Frog is (based on their gastronomic tastes)

[Letters]

I don't think the etymology (something I'm also interested in) actually matters. Words are offensive if enough people think they are.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don't think the etymology (something I'm also interested in) actually matters. Words are offensive if enough people think they are.

Read back that sentence out loud and you’ll get an idea of how ridiculous it sounds

[Mac76]

No I knew that for years, I actually have some intellectual curiosity into etymology rather than simply accept words as verboten.

It’s no more a slur than Rosbifs is, it’s certainly not a complimentary term…anymore than Frog is (based on their gastronomic tastes)

Well wikipedia describes it as a slur whereas it doesn't describe Rosbif as such

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well wikipedia describes it as a slur whereas it doesn't describe Rosbif as such

But you accept you have no idea why?

[Mac76]

I don't think the etymology (something I'm also interested in) actually matters. Words are offensive if enough people think they are.

I was going to say the same but the trouble nowadays is that some people take offense to the pettiest things

However wop specifically is without doubt offensive, HCZ knows it is and that's why he wouldn't dare use it to De Zerbi or any other Italian, so his arguments ring hollow

[Mac76]

But you accept you have no idea why?

No

[HCZ_Reborn]

I was going to say the same but the trouble nowadays is that some people take offense to the pettiest things

However wop specifically is without doubt offensive, HCZ knows it is and that's why he wouldn't dare use it to De Zerbi or any other Italian, so his arguments ring hollow


My argument rings hollow?

Your argument is totally circular. I accept that it’s seen as offensive, your argument is it’s offensive because people think it’s offensive. Which is a nonsense argument and you know it is.

I wouldn’t use the P word as I said at the beginning because of the clear connotation of it being synonymous with seeing south Asian people as inferior.

I acknowledge that there are social ideas that are arbitrary and make no sense.

[Mac76]

your argument is it’s offensive because people think it’s offensive. Which is a nonsense argument and you know it is.

actually no, that was more Letter's argument although I think it can be fair comment to say the meaning of language changes over time - think about the word 'gay' and how it is used in old books and films in a way that virtually no one would use now because it has gained a new meaning

in the same way, whatever its origins, the accepted meaning of wop is as an offensive one - if you don't want to accept me saying that, try the OED: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/wop_n2?tab=factsheet#14311269

But you know that because you wouldn't use it to an Italian's face

[Letters]

Read back that sentence out loud and you’ll get an idea of how ridiculous it sounds

Care to elaborate?

There's no objective measure of how offensive something is. Offence is subjective.
Ergo if most people find something offensive then ipso facto it's offensive by dint of it being commonly thought so. What other measure is there?

If you rank swear words in order of offence pretty much everyone would have "the f word" second and "the c word" top of the pile.
There's a shared understanding of that. So those are the most offensive swear word by consensus.

With things like "wop" I don't even know. I mean, I don't ever hear them used these days because it's not the 1970's.
But I imagine the fact they're not used is in part because they were thought offensive so people stopped using them.
Because why would you go out of your way to be a dick and be offensive?

[HCZ_Reborn]

actually no, that was more Letter's argument although I think it can be fair comment to say the meaning of language changes over time - think about the word 'gay' and how it is used in old books and films in a way that virtually no one would use now because it has gained a new meaning

in the same way, whatever its origins, the accepted meaning of wop is as an offensive one - if you don't want to accept me saying that, try the OED: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/wop_n2?tab=factsheet#14311269

But you know that because you wouldn't use it to an Italian's face

It’s exactly the same argument. I love the fact that you’re denying that even though I do think you’re no where near as smart as you’ve deluded yourself into thinking, you clearly have enough going on to see that.

No you’re right I wouldn’t say it, but it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no logical reason why it would be offensive which makes it totally arbitrary. Certain online dictionaries have defined the word female as anyone who identifies as female so that’s not going to help you win a logic and common sense debate.

It comes down to the fact that it’s offensive, because it’s been labelled as such. There’s no actual substantive reason to believe that though.

But I’ll give you one more chance, tell me why it’s offensive other than “that’s what it says here” and “people find it offensive”

[Letters]

I was going to say the same but the trouble nowadays is that some people take offense to the pettiest things
Well sure, which is why in my reply above I've talked about consensus. Although I did kinda say that in my first message.
If most people find a slur offensive then it is by definition. You say something, it offends most people who hear it so it's offensive.
If only one random person finds something offensive then OK, we can agree they're being silly. But if it's most people then what other measure of offensiveness is there?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Care to elaborate?

There's no objective measure of how offensive something is. Offence is subjective.
Ergo if most people find something offensive then ipso facto it's offensive by dint of it being commonly thought so. What other measure is there?

If you rank swear words in order of offence pretty much everyone would have "the f word" second and "the c word" top of the pile.
There's a shared understanding of that. So those are the most offensive swear word by consensus.

With things like "wop" I don't even know. I mean, I don't ever hear them used these days because it's not the 1970's.
But I imagine the fact they're not used is in part because they were thought offensive so people stopped using them.
Because why would you go out of your way to be a dick and be offensive?


Correct first time, offence is subjective.

But there are words that objectively are intended to cause offence. However whether the intent is there or not, it’s not the word that causes harm…it’s someone else’s reaction to it.

The N Word didn’t cause harm to black people, it was Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, legal injustice etc

And as I’ve explained countless times to Hurty Mac76 Feelies…there is no objective difference between Le rosbifs and Wop. And to be expected to respect arbitrary designations is not for me

[Mac76]

Well sure, which is why in my reply above I've talked about consensus. Although I did kinda say that in my first message.
If most people find a slur offensive then it is by definition. You say something, it offends most people who hear it so it's offensive.
If only one random person finds something offensive then OK, we can agree they're being silly. But if it's most people then what other measure of offensiveness is there?

yes fair enough

[Mac76]

Correct first time, offence is subjective.

But there are words that objectively are intended to cause offence. However whether the intent is there or not, it’s not the word that causes harm…it’s someone else’s reaction to it.

The N Word didn’t cause harm to black people, it was Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, legal injustice etc

And as I’ve explained countless times to Hurty Mac76 Feelies…there is no objective difference between Le rosbifs and Wop. And to be expected to respect arbitrary designations is not for me

Ultimately you're trying to justify using a word which you konw causes offence - it's kind of irrelevant whether you think it should cause offence, the fact is that it it does and rather than not use it you're trying to justify it

and your attempts to characterise my posts as emotional are so wide of the mark it's untrue, it wasn't even me who pulled you up on the wop thing in the first place, i was just interested in your attempts to justify it

anyway that's it from me on this subject...

[HCZ_Reborn]

Ultimately you're trying to justify using a word which you konw causes offence - it's kind of irrelevant whether you think it should cause offence, the fact is that it it does and rather than not use it you're trying to justify it

and your attempts to characterise my posts as emotional are so wide of the mark it's untrue, it wasn't even me who pulled you up on the wop thing in the first place, i was just interested in your attempts to justify it

anyway that's it from me on this subject...


I refer you to your post where you claimed objectively that Wop was an offensive term where Rosbif was not. I proved you wrong and you just took to “the dictionary says it’s a slur so it must be”


The point I made from the outset was who gives a fuck if it’s offensive to other people. If someone tells you a word is offensive and they can’t tell you why, then they should be ignored.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Like whether they still support Arteta or not? :unsure:

Support for any manager is a sign of inferiority unless it’s qualified and ephemeral

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

No it’s exactly the same. Wop is based on a national stereotype taken from the Latin word Guappa to swagger. The idea that Italians, men especially project outward confidence. But nice try to you, in your crusade to be offended by everything

Is their a reason you left out the mafioso association with the word Wop (or should I say guappo)?? I ask because that was the main way the term became offensive and what it was meant to connote when it jumped into English initially.

Also the fact that a word has an "innocent-like" latin ancestry doesn't in anyway stop it from evolving just like the N word has.

Humans are largely logical, words don't become offensive because we don't like the sound of them, theirs usually history to it, which you've all pointed out anyway.

Knowing or not knowing the appropriate history of the word isn't really an excuse once you know the more important fact, which is the word causes "real" (not imagined) offence once mentioned.

[Letters]

The point I made from the outset was who gives a fuck if it’s offensive to other people.
This is a strange stance to take.
I mean, I’d agree that some people go out of their way to be terminally offended these days, but do we really need to go out of our way to be offensive? If we know a word is offensive to people then why would we use it? Unless we are trying to be offensive.

And sure, of course words aren’t inherently offensive. To Kill A Mockingbird uses “the n word” liberally and is a very powerful anti-racism message. So context is important. But given that there’s no objective measure of how offensive a word is, the only measure is how offensive people find them on average.
I’d also suggest that we have more right to declare a word inoffensive if we are the target. I don’t care if the French call us rosbif. But I can’t tell them how offensive is calling them frogs is, surely that’s for them to tell us.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Is their a reason you left out the mafioso association with the word Wop?? I ask because that was the main way the term became offensive and what it was meant to connote when it jumped into English intially.

Also the fact that a word has an "innocent-like" latin ancestry doesn't in anyway stop it from evolving just like the N word has.

Humans are largely logical, words don't become offensive because we don't like the sound of them, theirs usually history to it, which you've all pointed out anyway.

Knowing or not knowing the appropriate history of the word isn't really an excuse once you know the more important fact, which is the word causes "real" (not imagined) offence once mentioned.


Wop isn’t even used that much in America, it tends to be more Guinea that gets used in reference to Italians


Who are you kidding about humans being logical, if we were we wouldn’t get upset over words to begin with


Most of the upset comes from association. And in that sense it’s no different from Muslim fanatics salivating like Pavlovian dogs when they are offended by images of Mohammed.

[HCZ_Reborn]

This is a strange stance to take.
I mean, I’d agree that some people go out of their way to be terminally offended these days, but do we really need to go out of our way to be offensive? If we know a word is offensive to people then why would we use it? Unless we are trying to be offensive.

And sure, of course words aren’t inherently offensive. To Kill A Mockingbird uses “the n word” liberally and is a very powerful anti-racism message. So context is important. But given that there’s no objective measure of how offensive a word is, the only measure is how offensive people find them on average.
I’d also suggest that we have more right to declare a word inoffensive if we are the target. I don’t care if the French call us rosbif. But I can’t tell them how offensive is calling them frogs is, surely that’s for them to tell us.


If someone tells you a word is offensive and they can’t tell you why, then they should be ignored.[/QUOTE]



If someone tells me I’ve hurt their feelings, the only possible response is “what’s your point”

If you go out of your way to offend someone that might make you a bit of a dick, but the point still stands…you haven’t done anything to that person…they’ve chosen to be offended.

Unless GW is home to those of Italian descent, anyone who claims to be offended by the word Wop not only deserves to be ignored, they deserve to be laughed at. If they are Italians, maybe the best tact I could take is “I’m sorry if you’re offended by that”

There’s no intention on my part to offend, you’d know full well if there was.


Gosh can’t we all just been nice to each other is largely just a justification for making words forbidden and that’s a total absurdity in my view, because it’s doubling down on the premise that words cause harm. They don’t, and they never will

[HCZ_Reborn]

But let me precis this for you all, I don’t have to justify using the word…you have to justify why you’re offended.


And I’m not going to entertain much short of “my name has a vowel at the end of it, and it’s a word I got called frequently at school before having the shit kicked out of me”


Even then the response is likely to be “sorry if you were offended by that” cos it’s still on you

[The Wengerbabies]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/19/20/74507689-12424583-image-m-56_1692475113295.jpg



https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/16/74839031-12457685-image-a-31_1693323210265.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74845031-12457685-image-a-4_1693333907454.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74845033-12457685-image-a-5_1693333958621.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/16/74839033-12457685-image-a-41_1693323375735.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74830979-12457685-Chaotic_scenes_at_Notting_Hill_Carnival_on_Monday_ pictured_aroun-a-9_1693334340073.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74828231-12457685-A_boy_holding_what_appears_to_be_a_machete_runs_do wn_the_street_-a-10_1693334425725.jpg

Emir Khan's London

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12457685/Moment-knife-thugs-armed-huge-machetes-brawl-street-crowds-revellers-Notting-Hill-carnival-final-day-marred-violence-eight-stabbed-police-officer-sexually-assaulted.html

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/19/20/74507689-12424583-image-m-56_1692475113295.jpg



https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/16/74839031-12457685-image-a-31_1693323210265.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74845031-12457685-image-a-4_1693333907454.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74845033-12457685-image-a-5_1693333958621.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/16/74839033-12457685-image-a-41_1693323375735.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74830979-12457685-Chaotic_scenes_at_Notting_Hill_Carnival_on_Monday_ pictured_aroun-a-9_1693334340073.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/29/19/74828231-12457685-A_boy_holding_what_appears_to_be_a_machete_runs_do wn_the_street_-a-10_1693334425725.jpg

Emir Khan's London


Is that you Ian Miles Cheong ?

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

Well I have to say your last post on this sounds like that from someone who has never lived as a persecuted or stereotyped minority. That's obviously not your fault (if that is your "truth"), neither is it the fault of the other half that they find it annoying and irritating that they can't share your childlike "sticks and stones may break my bones but words won't never hurt me" universe.

TBH, on the richter scale of slurs, yours wasn't that terrible IMO, but like Letters pointed out, that's really not the point. BTW I didn't think anyone was trying to actively police you on it either (though I may be wrong on that).

Oh, and for the record, I definitely first heard the word through American literature and media. I think in the past they used it more than anyone due to their history. Obviously its a "cancelled" term now.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well I have to say your last post on this sounds like that from someone who has never lived as a persecuted or stereotyped minority. That's obviously not your fault (if that is your "truth"), neither is it the fault of the other half that they find it annoying and irritating that they can't share your childlike "sticks and stones may break my bones but words won't never hurt me" universe.

TBH, on the richter scale of slurs, yours wasn't that terrible IMO, but like Letters pointed out, that's really not the point. BTW I didn't think anyone was trying to actively police you on it either (though I may be wrong on that).

Oh, and for the record, I definitely first heard the word through American literature and media. I think in the past they used it more than anyone due to their history. Obviously its a "cancelled" term now.


The point is that the word is not the persecutor, it’s the actual treatment they’ve received. Being traumatised by a word is a form of singular or collective PTSD.

This is the point I’m trying to get across, no I don’t think anyone was trying to actively police me but I wanted to know why others deemed it was offensive. If you’re offended on behalf of someone else that’s pathetic


And there is no real justification for my using that word, because in my mind there doesn’t need to be. The idea that a word should be taboo/forbidden is a dangerous one, and one that we humans need to grow up out of.

[Letters]

But let me precis this for you all, I don’t have to justify using the word…you have to justify why you’re offended.
This is bullshit, as is the assertion that people "choose" to be offended. As we've said, offense is subjective. It's an emotional response, you can't control how you feel about something (you can control your response of course).
Words aren't just collections of letters or sounds. They have meaning, and that meaning can evoke feelings.
The old "sticks and stones" thing we tell kids is patently bollocks. Of course words can hurt and offend people.
Were that not true, if words couldn't evoke emotions, then you wouldn't have novels which make you laugh or cry or angry or whatever.
Some words are offensive and, because it's subjective, the only metric of that is how people feel about them. But if you were to make a list of most offensive swear words in order I'd suggest it would be pretty similar to my list, there is a shared understanding of these things.

Some words are intended to be offensive to a particular racial group or nationality. And the point is you don't get to declare those words offensive or benign unless you're part of that group.
It's like punching someone in the face, them going "Ow!" and you saying "Pff! That was barely a tap, that didn't hurt".
I don't even hear people using the word you used, I guess that in itself should tell you that it is generally thought offensive so people don't use it. I'm not saying we should ban words, but why go out of our way to be a dick and use words we know offend people? If you were going for humour then ok, I'll admit it, it made me chuckle. But only because it was pretty crass and that in itself is pretty amusing. To me at least. But humour is another subjective thing.

[HCZ_Reborn]

This is bullshit, as is the assertion that people "choose" to be offended. As we've said, offense is subjective. It's an emotional response, you can't control how you feel about something (you can control your response of course).
Words aren't just collections of letters or sounds. They have meaning, and that meaning can evoke feelings.
The old "sticks and stones" thing we tell kids is patently bollocks. Of course words can hurt and offend people.
Were that not true, if words couldn't evoke emotions, then you wouldn't have novels which make you laugh or cry or angry or whatever.
Some words are offensive and, because it's subjective, the only metric of that is how people feel about them. But if you were to make a list of most offensive swear words in order I'd suggest it would be pretty similar to my list, there is a shared understanding of these things.

Some words are intended to be offensive to a particular racial group or nationality. And the point is you don't get to declare those words offensive or benign unless you're part of that group.
It's like punching someone in the face, them going "Ow!" and you saying "Pff! That was barely a tap, that didn't hurt".
I don't even hear people using the word you used, I guess that in itself should tell you that it is generally thought offensive so people don't use it. I'm not saying we should ban words, but why go out of our way to be a dick and use words we know offend people? If you were going for humour then ok, I'll admit it, it made me chuckle. But only because it was pretty crass and that in itself is pretty amusing. To me at least. But humour is another subjective thing.


No, it’s like this…you don’t choose whether or not you sneeze but you do choose whether to put your hand over your mouth, blow your nose afterwards.

The word might immediately cause you to react negatively in terms of thoughts and feelings, but if you’re telling me you don’t choose your outward response that’s ridiculous.

I often feel exasperated by a lot of the nonsense I read on here, but ultimately no one makes me respond to it.

As I say me saying the word doesn’t cause someone distress, it’s how their brain processes it and how they’ve created meaning. I’m not responsible for that, they are. People often make completely illogical associations with words, people find the word moist viscerally unpleasant but that’s down to the associations they make.

People have the choice to change their behaviours, what happened to “sticks and stones”. Ultimately negative reactions are less about actual trauma and more a reflection on what the person thinks about themselves.

Read a case study recently about a black woman who wanted to quit her job as a medical receptionist because her clientele were mainly white and she often felt condescended to and made to feel stupid by white people. Now no-one is devaluing that experience but ultimately move past the racial aspect, and the fear is of being thought of as stupid…and therefore you’d ask that person if they think they are stupid, what evidence they have for such a belief etc. Because ultimately you have no control of what other people think of you, but usually when people worry it’s a projection of what they think of themselves.

Simply Accepting what other people feel is a pathway towards creating a society of emotional invalids, and cause people to believe that hearing a word will inflict great harm on them.

I ignored your comparison to hitting someone and saying that didn’t hurt, because it’s moronic and believing that it’s in anyway relevant suggests you believe words can cause harm in the same way as physical violence can

[Letters]

if you’re telling me you don’t choose your outward response that’s ridiculous.
Which part of "you can control your response of course" didn't you understand?


I often feel exasperated by a lot of the nonsense I read on here, but ultimately no one makes me respond to it.
Well, sure. And this is the difference between the initial emotional response, which you can't control, and your response which you can. And it's easier to control that response online of course because there's plenty of time between clicking "reply with quote" and "post quick reply". In real life a response may be more kneejerk.


As I say me saying the word doesn’t cause someone distress
Yes, you keep saying that and you keep being incorrect. Well, let me expand on that. If you said to a person of colour who is near a fruit bowl "can you pass me a banana" and they think "hang on...banana...monkey...what a racist bastard!" and yell at you then I'd very much agree that they are being ridiculous and have a big old chip on their shoulder. If you called them "the n word" and they took offense then you can't sensibly say "well how was I supposed to know that would upset them? That's not on me, that's just how their brain processes what I said". Everyone knows the history and meaning of that word.


People have the choice to change their behaviours, what happened to “sticks and stones”.
I dealt with that. Sticks and stones is bullshit. Words can and do hurt people.


Simply Accepting what other people feel is a pathway towards creating a society of emotional invalids, and cause people to believe that hearing a word will inflict great harm on them.
Well, I'd make a distinction between pandering to people who have chips on their shoulder and going out of your way to use language which you know many people find offensive.
The lady in your case study, it sounds like she was being ridiculous. She might have felt condescended to but that's probably more about her. Or maybe it was more about her position rather than her race.
But if people regularly came in and called her the "n word" then, as above, you couldn't sensibly say she's being ridiculous being offended by that.


I ignored your comparison to hitting someone and saying that didn’t hurt, because it’s moronic
Well, I'm deeply offended by that and demand you retract that forthwith :sulk:
There is a difference between physical and emotional pain, but I don't think it's as stark as you're making out. As I said, sticks and stones is bullshit. Words can and do hurt people. And again, there's a difference between using innocuous language and someone with a chip on their shoulder feeling offended, and you using racial slurs which you know people find offensive. Why would you do the latter? It's like when NQ and his tribute act called Khan a "Pakistani". I mean, that isn't even a racial slur, it's literally the nationality of his parents (although not of him, I'd note). Why bring it up at all? What purpose does it serve other than to have some racist undertone?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Which part of "you can control your response of course" didn't you understand?


Well, sure. And this is the difference between the initial emotional response, which you can't control, and your response which you can. And it's easier to control that response online of course because there's plenty of time between clicking "reply with quote" and "post quick reply". In real life a response may be more kneejerk.


Yes, you keep saying that and you keep being incorrect. Well, let me expand on that. If you said to a person of colour who is near a fruit bowl "can you pass me a banana" and they think "hang on...banana...monkey...what a racist bastard!" and yell at you then I'd very much agree that they are being ridiculous and have a big old chip on their shoulder. If you called them "the n word" and they took offense then you can't sensibly say "well how was I supposed to know that would upset them? That's not on me, that's just how their brain processes what I said". Everyone knows the history and meaning of that word.


I dealt with that. Sticks and stones is bullshit. Words can and do hurt people.


Well, I'd make a distinction between pandering to people who have chips on their shoulder and going out of your way to use language which you know many people find offensive.
The lady in your case study, it sounds like she was being ridiculous. She might have felt condescended to but that's probably more about her. Or maybe it was more about her position rather than her race.
But if people regularly came in and called her the "n word" then, as above, you couldn't sensibly say she's being ridiculous being offended by that.


Well, I'm deeply offended by that and demand you retract that forthwith :sulk:
There is a difference between physical and emotional pain, but I don't think it's as stark as you're making out. As I said, sticks and stones is bullshit. Words can and do hurt people. And again, there's a difference between using innocuous language and someone with a chip on their shoulder feeling offended, and you using racial slurs which you know people find offensive. Why would you do the latter? It's like when NQ and his tribute act called Khan a "Pakistani". I mean, that isn't even a racial slur, it's literally the nationality of his parents (although not of him, I'd note). Why bring it up at all? What purpose does it serve other than to have some racist undertone?


No I’m sorry words do not cause you harm, if I went up to someone who was black and called them the N word, what harm am I doing them?. I’m not suggesting I would or recommending that anyone does but how am I causing them harm just by calling them that word. Every thought and reaction that happens in their brain is a result of their own thought process. If I have not threatened him, I have no weapons on me…I am just there on my own and I’ve shouted it from across the street…what harm have I caused?
It’s only his own thought processes that are harming him, because the only logical conclusion is “some stupid rude piece of shit is yelling that at me to get a reaction, well I don’t know him…he’s obviously a sad idiot…what reaction do I need to give”

It’s the brains threat sensor that blows it out of proportion…am I going to get called that name loads by white people now, are my white neighbours going to call me it or throw things through my window or attack me?. Search for the evidence for that kind of thinking being realistic and it’s pretty sparse.

It’s why I mentioned PTSD, it’s informed by the past but it involves a sense of current or future threat.

And your argument boils down to why is it necessary? It’s not. But are your replies to me necessary? No…if we boiled everything down to what’s necessary, we wouldn’t do a lot of things.

It’s social niceties that mean we don’t use ethnic slurs, it’s as simple as that. The belief that a word can cause you harm is as irrational as the belief that if you don’t say the Lord’s Prayer thirteen times before you go to bed….you’ll die in your sleep.

Humans beings are full of irrational beliefs, and that’s fine…we are emotional creatures. But to claim that words do harm as objective reality I not only consider nonsense but dangerous nonsense…in the same league as men can become women.

I accept that there are words best not to be used in polite company (that’s just socialisation) but this is not polite company…this is the Mos Eisley cantina bar a wretched hive of scum. But I can guarantee that no one on here has said anything that has objectively ever caused someone else harm, because that’s not possible.

[IBK]

Care to elaborate?

There's no objective measure of how offensive something is. Offence is subjective.
Ergo if most people find something offensive then ipso facto it's offensive by dint of it being commonly thought so. What other measure is there?

If you rank swear words in order of offence pretty much everyone would have "the f word" second and "the c word" top of the pile.
There's a shared understanding of that. So those are the most offensive swear word by consensus.

With things like "wop" I don't even know. I mean, I don't ever hear them used these days because it's not the 1970's.
But I imagine the fact they're not used is in part because they were thought offensive so people stopped using them.
Because why would you go out of your way to be a dick and be offensive?

Plus the C word was not regarded as hugely offensive a few centuries ago...

[Mac76]

No I’m sorry words do not cause you harm

They can cause great mental distress.

Are you seriously saying you've never had any kind of negative feeling when someone has said something offensive to you or someone you care about?

If that's the case then you clearly have some kind of condition

If so, so be it, but that's not how most people work and you should respect that

[HCZ_Reborn]

They can cause great mental distress.

Are you seriously saying you've never had any kind of negative feeling when someone has said something offensive to you or someone you care about?

If that's the case then you clearly have some kind of condition

If so, so be it, but that's not how most people work and you should respect that


No they can’t cause mental distress, the individuals own cognitive distortions do that. And we are essentially creating a society of people who are going to have glass like psyches if we maintain the pretence that words cause harm.

The distress you allude to is all self caused. Insults cause distress when we have a filter that only allows negative thoughts about ourselves through.

Having a negative feeling is not harm. And in most cases the negative feeling has little or no evidentiary value

Honestly if I only ever achieve one thing in my life , it would be to break people of this foolish idea that you can hurt other people with words.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don’t have to respect anything. If I react adversely to what someone says, it’s on me.

If someone calls me stupid, it’s only hurtful if I deep down think I’m stupid

I’m not disputing that people do react adversely to words, I’m saying that’s on them…and people should take more responsibility for their own reactions. If you call me a thick ugly cunt, and I hit you…there’s no one to blame but me. You calling me those words didn’t make me do anything, we’ve got to grow up and get rid of this indulgent “look what you made me do” mentality.

I own my behaviour, no one made me call De Zerbi a wop. It was a conscious choice on my part.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Plus the C word was not regarded as hugely offensive a few centuries ago...

Which makes it even more arbitrary. The distinction between good and bad words is based on the values we as a society have at the time. A hundred or so years ago the worst words we could use are god damn because taking the lords name in vain was considered terrible. Anything blasphemous was also considered beyond the pale. Most people would consider that nonsense.

Now in western society, after being a Nonce a racist is the worst thing you can be. I don’t consider that true, I think it’s one of the most stupid things you can be because the actual differences physiologically between human beings is nominal and therefore for you to believe yourself superior to someone based on skin colour is as moronic as to believe eye colour makes you superior.

Most differences are cultural, and culture is the arbitrary rules and stories we tell ourselves and over generations make emotional attachments to. Because we are not that far evolved from the tribal apes that needed a sense of belonging as well as an outsider to hate.

Now I respect that there are things that are best not to do, don’t address someone using ethnic slurs (because it’s rude and although that’s also arbitrary we live in a rules based society).

Don’t tell someone who could be suicidal to kill themselves, because even if you are not responsible for their death. If they do kill themselves you could be legally liable, it’s also just not a very nice thing to say. And if someone is deeply depressed/suicidal they won’t be in the rational mindset to dismiss such a suggestion.

But it’s actions and not words that cause harm.

[Letters]

No I’m sorry words do not cause you harm
My initial reaction was to dispute that but I looked up harm and the definition of "harm" and it talked about physical injury.
So in that sense you are correct, but in a completely pointless way. Harming someone physically it not the only way of hurting them.


It’s social niceties that mean we don’t use ethnic slurs, it’s as simple as that.
Well, sure. Like we don't fart loudly in crowded lifts and wear clothes. But we live in a society, why go out of our way to be a dick to people.
And, again, there's a difference between someone taking offence at something innocuous and you going out of your way to use a slur which you know offends people.
Why be a dick?

But I do accept that this place isn't that civilised and I speak in a way here that I wouldn't at church. I probably shouldn't tbh, but I accept the general point that in different social situations people talk and behave in different ways.

[HCZ_Reborn]

My initial reaction was to dispute that but I looked up harm and the definition of "harm" and it talked about physical injury.
So in that sense you are correct, but in a completely pointless way. Harming someone physically it not the only way of hurting them.


Well, sure. Like we don't fart loudly in crowded lifts and wear clothes. But we live in a society, why go out of our way to be a dick to people.
And, again, there's a difference between someone taking offence at something innocuous and you going out of your way to use a slur which you know offends people.
Why be a dick?

But I do accept that this place isn't that civilised and I speak in a way here that I wouldn't at church. I probably shouldn't tbh, but I accept the general point that in different social situations people talk and behave in different ways.


Why be a dick?

Well my attitude is that’s a question one needs to ask themselves not other people. Police your own words and don’t obsess over what other people say.

Of course saying insulting things to people makes you a dick, but it doesn’t mean you’re harming someone. If they are distressed it’s the way they processed it.


Words cause Harm is my red flag, I immediately have to go through interminable lectures…because that’s my own internal processes at play. Ultimately it’s my choice though to put so serious an emphasis on something I could dismiss as stupid, equally in using the word I used that started off this argument I could have foreseen that other people would have reacted the way they did even if I don’t have any direct responsibility for those reactions.


And the way anyone behaves is dependent on the circumstances they find themselves in. There’s simply no way I’d be having such a charges discussion if this was somewhere anyone save a dozen people frequented…it’s just not worth the hassle

[HCZ_Reborn]

My preference is that we as human beings get to the point where racial slurs lose any power. Because in reality they don’t have any power and it’s only the power we ascribe to them which makes as much sense as attributing harm to juju or evil spirits. I sincerely believe that until we get to such a point, we will be stuck in a loop making no progress.

I say preference because i can’t demand that for other people. I can only say, as in racism so as with everything else. It’s the attitudes, the behaviour and mistreatment rather than the words that cause harm.


Do I acknowledge that given that human beings aren’t evolved enough to reason like this, that there are times when one either out of self interest or just not being a dick should refrain from using certain words…of course. But never will I agree that the words themselves cause harm because that’s moronic…but yet we as a Society have created the perception of that being objectively true. And have created a system of laws where someone can be punished for using certain words, rather than using those words in furtherance of actual offences such as harassment, assault, criminal damage etc.

[IBK]

That’s far more to do with the emotional association we make with words, which is very irrational.

Like I say it’s about the difference between understanding what society deems offensive which is often arbitrary and accepting that it’s offensive (which I dispute, and even if it is so what? I’m offended by that should mean fuck all…it’s a form of emotional manipulation)

If I was in France and I was being referred to as Le Rosbif, I wouldn’t give a solitary fuck.

I disagree with you that words cannot cause harm.


I rarely personalise things on here, but I have to inform you that as the recipient of racial slurs - the 'n' word etc - as a child this did cause harm in the sense of acute mental distress, and even as an adult I cannot pretend that its easy to simply brush off and intellectualise comments that are intended to belittle or insult you. Unless you have experienced this type of thing, it is difficult to understand the effect of certain offensive - personalised - slurs. As a child they make you feel that there is something wrong with, or not good enough about yourself - it does not matter that objectively you know that this is not the case - the feelings run deep. As an adult, certain insults have the ability to make you feel poweless and embarrased. I had an experience a few years ago when some Neanderthol shouted racial slurs at me when I was with a group of friends and the involuntary sense of embarrassment - both for myself and them - as well as for the perpertator was unmistakable. This from a successful adult who has never (in his adult life) felt remotely inferior to anyone.


In my experience context is everything. The same words that could cause distress as well as insult when used as a slur can have no effect at all when used in a different context. I am a person who is very disinclined to react to every word or even action that might be regarded as offensive by someone more sensitive, but that does not mean that words can never cause harm or distress. And it is not my reaction when it does that is the problem.


The other way that racial; homophobic/transphobic; misogynistic or disablist comments - however flippant - can cause harm is when they inform general perceptions about a group of people. Habits are ingrained, and doing down certain minorities can be a symptom of societal prejudice, and/or perpetuate damaging stereotypes. You take a Sun/Katie Hopkins approach to 'cockroach' immigrants and this undoubtedly informs general opinions - in fact attitudes (and words) to describe immigrants was a powerful encourager of the Brexit vote. Edward Bulwer-Lytton's famous phrase that 'the pen is mightier than the sword' is a truism in many ways - and refers to words, not acts.


I am the first to acknowledge that today's societal tendency to take offence at every little thing (snowflake) is both tiresome; empty-headed and ultimately damaging (devisive). But words can harm - whether or not it is a subjective reaction.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well I’m genuinely sorry you went through that, but what I’m saying isn’t a matter of disagreement it’s a matter of fact. The word itself doesn’t harm you, it’s the association your brain makes between the word and the treatment you received. Now I’m not belittling that treatment, but I think it’s very important to be clear on that matter.

“They make you feel” well I’m sorry to contradict you once again but no one can make you feel anyway, the electro-chemical responses in your brain do that. And what you’re telling me is a contradiction, you can’t tell me I don’t feel stupid or inadequate but it didn’t make any difference because that’s how they made you feel. What you’re saying is the way you internalised the way they treated you led you to believe you were stupid or inadequate.

And for sure if everyone around you treats you as inadequate, you’re bound to feel that way because you don’t have anything to counteract that and it has the effect of wearing you down. And i think people who do that are scum, but at the risk of saying you’re wrong…it’s not the word that does that, it’s the behaviour and the attitudes of others.

You’re right everything is in context, and if those people use the n word that’s your brain flagging up danger. But if somebody you don’t know uses the word from a distance, it’s your brains threat alarm giving you a false warning of danger as well as reminding you of a time when you were mistreated. But it’s still your mental processing causing the “harm”


As for the rest of what you’ve said, I disagree in the strongest possible way. Words aren’t the problem, people are the problem and it’s the emotionally charged meaning we give words that we give them the power over us.


And if you think I’m being insensitive well with the greatest of respect to you, because I don’t mean you any disrespect because I find you to be a completely honest actor….tough. I can’t negotiate on this anymore than I can that biological males can become women.

It is not the external stimuli that causes mental distress it’s the biased way we process it. So the nearest thing I can accept is “certain words cause me to process things in a way that brings up traumatic memories, and this is exacerbated if I choose to indulge this rather than taking steps to remove this words power over me”

It’s not as easy as that for sure….but I’d rather be callous than ever accept something that is factually incorrect to make people feel better

[HCZ_Reborn]

I do think I’m immensely privileged in that I haven’t experienced racial abuse or been mistreated with racism as the motivation. Because my mind isn’t clouded by personalising, I’d like to say I would be clear headed enough to think the way I do anyway but I imagine that’s patronising to people who can’t take an objective view

[Letters]

Talking of racism…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66654965

Ali Bongo? Really? :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Talking of racism…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66654965

Ali Bongo? Really? :lol:


The election was as free and fair as you’d expect from a tinpot banana republic, but given the military have decided the fairest way to deal with it is a coup d’etat and establishing a junta rather than re-running the election doesn’t really seem that they are invested in a fair outcome

In such countries, coups happen when the man in power is late getting the brown envelopes out to the right people. Mugabe was deposed in Zimbabwe because he wanted to make his wife his successor as head of Zanu PF and whilst she’s just as much a horrible person as she was, they were worried that her expensive tastes which rivalled Imelda Marcos might mean the end of the gravy train.

[Letters]

The name made me laugh because of this bloke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHCFSB4N9s

That was before racism was bad, to be fair.

[HCZ_Reborn]

The name made me laugh because of this bloke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHCFSB4N9s

That was before racism was bad, to be fair.

I’d say it’s more racial stereotyping rather than outright racism, it’s not like he’s blacking up or anything. It wouldn’t fly now, but was a family entertainer at the time

[Letters]

FFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66665682

Our politicians may be incompetent and self-serving, but at least they're not in such a state that they clearly should be in a home.

[HCZ_Reborn]

FFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66665682

Our politicians may be incompetent and self-serving, but at least they're not in such a state that they clearly should be in a home.

Ah Senator Bernie Lomax

Yep America is a gerontocracy, next election most likely to be between two elderly men once again


One who is losing his marbles, and one who never had any to begin with

[The Wengerbabies]

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1697003725531779096

Meanwhile India goes to the moon, while most of the population still shits on the streets.

Foreign aid :bow:

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/small-boat-crossings-20-000-this-year/

costing the taxpayer £6 million a day


Sink them!

I was a refugee before so I'm not some heartless bastard but I sought refuge LEGALLY (and paid my own way).

[LDG]

I’d like some of my money back at some point

[Letters]

So that's where NQ's been

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1808137/sadiq-khan-ulez-zone-hundreds-cameras-smashed-stolen

[Niall_Quinn]

So that's where NQ's been

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1808137/sadiq-khan-ulez-zone-hundreds-cameras-smashed-stolen

How many times now?

I live in your head. Rent free.

[Niall_Quinn]

And it's round 8 in 10, 9 in 10 in south London. And if I lived there, you bet, that would be me. And if YOU live there and it's not you then - SHAME. The fucking shame. The cowardice. The FEAR. The subservience. The boot-licking. Presenting your arse, in public, without shame. Please site - may I have another?

And then, with your bleeding anus, you point up at somebody who maintained their dignity and bray like. donkey. Look at them, look at them, their arsehole isn't even bleeding. Har, har, har!

[Letters]

How many times now?
How many times what? Will you have a catastrophic sense of humour failure at the gentles ribbing? I've lost count tbh :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12474737/amp/White-supremacists-march-Orlando-waving-swastika-flags-raising-Heil-Hitler-salutes-just-days-racist-Dollar-General-store-attack-Jacksonville-left-three-dead.html


My brother is in Orlando currently, I’ve just text him saying…you told me you were going out there for a holiday :lol:

[Letters]

Right. I've renewed the domain for another 2 years.
Me :bow:

So none of you leave this place till 2025 :threaten:

[Mac76]

Right. I've renewed the domain for another 2 years.
Me :bow:

So none of you leave this place till 2025 :threaten:

Haha, wouldn't dream of it, I enjoy the arguments too much ;)

Thanks :clap:

[WMUG]

:woohoo:

[WMUG]

I went away for a week, meaning the newbie at work was the only person working from my team. Was a little worried as she's only been on for 2 weeks, and I struggled a bit when I was on my own with a year's experience with this client.

Came back, turns out she did an absolutely brilliant job and everything was fine.

Shit.

[Letters]

:lol: Luckily there's not much competence around my way.
I got an "exceeds expectations" on my performance review but I think that says a lot more about the organisation and my line manager's expectations than it does me.

[Mac76]

only just seen it but Mike Yarwood RIP

not to everyone's taste but he made a really good impression on me :rimshot:

[Letters]

I saw that.
I didn’t know he was still alive tbh.
Well, he isn’t. But you know what I mean!

[Mac76]

yeah likewise, it's hard to keep up nowadays :oldboy:

[Letters]

Corporate videos :bow:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCk9yBBOUo

[Mac76]

err, sorry, what was that she said again ...?

[HCZ_Reborn]

err, sorry, what was that she said again ...?

You silly Billy

[Letters]

Reference for the kids, there :lol:

[GP]

Big tits

[HCZ_Reborn]

Big tits

Cupid Stunt

[Marc Overmars]

Anyone been to the Lake District?

Never been one for staycations but it seems nice by most accounts.

[Letters]

Went there years ago. It's alright. Not loads to do but I guess if you like walking and lakes and hills and sheep it's alright. It is all quite beautiful.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Anyone been to the Lake District?

Never been one for staycations but it seems nice by most accounts.


Depends what you’re looking for. It’s as Letters has said very picturesque. So your options are to do a bit of hiking or sit around and admire the view.

The best service station in the country is in the Lake District it’s called Tebay and it’s a good place to stop if you’re on your way to Scotland, however since you’re not doing that makes it a tad redundant.

Long drive also, you’d be looking at five hours from London without stopping on a really good day traffic wise

[WMUG]

Could also get the train, depending on what you want to do. There's a few stops on the West Coast mainline so you can get there direct from Euston.

Obviously you'd need to hire a car/bike at the other end to get to the more out of the way spots if you wanted to, so that's something to consider too.

[Marc Overmars]

Just looking for something serene really. I’m an outdoorsy person and so is the wife. My parents have offered to take the kids for a few nights so I snapped that up immediately.

We did think about going abroad but it’s only 3 nights and I’d rather just save that money for something far flung next year. I’ve always been a bit of a snob about staycations but the Lake District does seem pretty nice. The drive doesn’t bother me as I love driving anyway.

[Mac76]

Just looking for something serene really. I’m an outdoorsy person and so is the wife. My parents have offered to take the kids for a few nights so I snapped that up immediately.

We did think about going abroad but it’s only 3 nights and I’d rather just save that money for something far flung next year. I’ve always been a bit of a snob about staycations but the Lake District does seem pretty nice. The drive doesn’t bother me as I love driving anyway.

Well it really is all about walking and admiring the scenery, also has some really nice cosy pubs.

There's loads of info about different walks you can do and how easy/hard they are to suit what you can handle - you juat need to be ready for the weather to change quite rapidly so always be prepared

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-66784272

Buttock enlargement!

RIP and all that, :rose:

But...buttock enlargement?! :lol:

[Marc Overmars]

I went to Istanbul last year and it felt like half of flight back had work done. Scabby heads and bandages everywhere.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well it really is all about walking and admiring the scenery, also has some really nice cosy pubs.

There's loads of info about different walks you can do and how easy/hard they are to suit what you can handle - you juat need to be ready for the weather to change quite rapidly so always be prepared

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtPnS9IWkAESPxi.jpg

[IBK]

Anyone been to the Lake District?

Never been one for staycations but it seems nice by most accounts.

You might want to think about the Peak District (Hope Valley in particular), or the Brecon Beacons/Black mountains in South Wales. Stunning mountains; fewer people and maybe closer to you?

[Mac76]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtPnS9IWkAESPxi.jpg

:gp:

[The Wengerbabies]

Seems Russel Brand is about to be massively cancelled.

Strange how the Matrix works, randomly a few days ago some of his videos started popping up on my feeds I watched some and was amazed at how much he's changed, seemed to be very enlightened these days.

Now this.

I'm sure there is a lot of truth to the allegations, the guy is a well known drug abusing sex addict. Does seem rather convenient though that these historical allegations are coming out now he has pivoted to an anti-establishment podcaster, Hollywood is full of degenerates and they seem to be happy to cover for them as long as they toe the line.

[Letters]

Cancelled :haha:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Seems Russel Brand is about to be massively cancelled.

Strange how the Matrix works, randomly a few days ago some of his videos started popping up on my feeds I watched some and was amazed at how much he's changed, seemed to be very enlightened these days.

Now this.

I'm sure there is a lot of truth to the allegations, the guy is a well known drug abusing sex addict. Does seem rather convenient though that these historical allegations are coming out now he has pivoted to an anti-establishment podcaster, Hollywood is full of degenerates and they seem to be happy to cover for them as long as they toe the line.


“I think the allegations are true but must actually make it about my binary establishment/anti establishment world view” - :lol:

In what fucking world is Russell Brand anti establishment anyhow. It reminds me of that line from The Young Ones “you’re about as alternative as channel 4”


I don’t think the so called vested interests have lost any sleep over a nitwit with verbal diarrhoea.

[WMUG]

Played football this morning.

3-1 up and cruising at half time.

Captain made a load of changes to get people game time.

Ended up losing 5-4 in the last minute.

Been pissed off all day <_<

Me :pal:

[Letters]

Seems Russel Brand is about to be massively cancelled.
No. He's been accused of some quite serious things. By multiple people. That's not what being cancelled is. This is not a response to anything he has said


randomly a few days ago some of his videos started popping up on my feeds I watched some and was amazed at how much he's changed, seemed to be very enlightened these days.
It's not random. He's fallen down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. You're very deep down there too so with all the other shit you no doubt watch it's not at all surprising or random that his videos would be promoted to you by the algorithm. And obviously by "enlightened" you mean he believes all the same shit you believe, we've discussed how those beliefs have led you to utter nonsense conclusions like how the Covid lockdowns would never end.


Now this.
You think there's some causation between some of his videos appearing on your feed and these allegations? :lol:
He's been posting this shit for absolutely ages. Well over a year. If this was to "cancel" him then it makes zero sense to let him spout this nonsense for over a year and then suddenly the allegations are made.
None of his videos have been removed so in what way has he been "cancelled"? He literally did a live show on his tour over the weekend.


I'm sure there is a lot of truth to the allegations, the guy is a well known drug abusing sex addict. Does seem rather convenient though that these historical allegations are coming out now he has pivoted to an anti-establishment podcaster.
Which would make sense if he'd only just made that pivot, but he hasn't.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Slow work day again Letters?

[Letters]

Slow work day again Letters?

:lol: Actually no. This morning is a mess of meetings, but I'm "multi-tasking" (yes, I do mean not really listening in the meetings.)

[Marc Overmars]

Became a landlord today. I feel powerful.

[Letters]

You have a property empire? :o

[Marc Overmars]

If owning a 2 bed flat means empire then sure! :lol:

Tbh it was a long term goal of ours to save enough to buy a properly to rent out. The market in Milton Keynes is so good and we fancied a slice of that. Something to pass down to the kids one day too I guess.

[Letters]

Aye. My in-laws place (4 bed detached place on the poets estate in Newport Pagnell) is way cheaper than our place here (3 bed terraced on the outskirts of London).

But we did order new carpets for my office, the stairs up into the loft conversion and our bedroom, so that's something!

[The Wengerbabies]

No. He's been accused of some quite serious things. By multiple people. That's not what being cancelled is. This is not a response to anything he has said


Yes but this is how they cancel you by character assasination.



It's not random. He's fallen down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. You're very deep down there too so with all the other shit you no doubt watch it's not at all surprising or random that his videos would be promoted to you by the algorithm. And obviously by "enlightened" you mean he believes all the same shit you believe, we've discussed how those beliefs have led you to utter nonsense conclusions like how the Covid lockdowns would never end.



But here's the thing I always browse incognito and regularly change VPN server. My feeds are always refreshed with the defaults, it's why I constantly see that insufferable punchable face of Mr. Beast. Yet a few days ago Russell Brand started popping up on the YT homepage.



You think there's some causation between some of his videos appearing on your feed and these allegations? :lol:
He's been posting this shit for absolutely ages. Well over a year. If this was to "cancel" him then it makes zero sense to let him spout this nonsense for over a year and then suddenly the allegations are made.
None of his videos have been removed so in what way has he been "cancelled"? He literally did a live show on his tour over the weekend.


Which would make sense if he'd only just made that pivot, but he hasn't.

He's not been cancelled yet, he's in the process of being cancelled. I guess it's happening now because he;s gotten too much traction, like Alex Jones was on YT etc. for years before being totally deplatformed. Russell Brand has more subscribers thatn BBC and CNN, he has a bigger reach than the MSM this scares them time for him to be shut up.

I don't really care either way and I'm not really following the story I'm just noting the convenience of it all.

Let's just say Brand is some sort of prolific rapey ****

That would mean that the establishment (again) knowingly covered for someone so long as he was "on their side" and only now sell him out because he's no longer "on their side"

If he's not a rapey **** at all then its an establishment hit job on someone speaking out.

Either way the real problem here is obvious, Brand is pretty insignificant.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Brand is insignificant, and that’s why your falsely coy “this could be an establishment smear” is bollocks, because you know it is. I’m glad you compared him to Alex Jones because that’s another individual who is a conscious grifter. Alex Jones was on YT for years, he was also platformed on various mainstream media outlets. But when you start claiming that people who’s children were murdered are lying about it, leading to those people being harassed and sent death threats…it’s likely these same outlets don’t want to be tarnished by being seen to support you.

It’s a totally self-serving, arse covering exercise but the idea that he was de-platformed for getting too close to the truth? I mean I might not have a bridge to sell you but Alex Jones definitely has shit to sell you (like a water purifier after claiming chemicals were being put in water to turn frogs gay)

You really need to stop with this us and them binary. The whole documentary if you’d bothered watching it actually makes the point that Brand was allowed to carry on with impunity by channel 4 and bbc, it does not make either network look particularly good. Apart from non thinking identitarians, no one is deciding someone’s guilt based on whether they fall into this grossly simplistic establishment/non establishment box.

I think on balance it’s more likely to be true than not because there are several complainants who’s stories are all the same, so either they’ve all been coached with leaves the Times, Channel 4 and other media outlets wide open to defamation and libel lawsuits…or that they’ve done their research and there’s some truth to it.

The issue is more about why this is front and centre, and other more important news stories are not. And the answer to that is simple…news is a form of entertainment and it’s a story more likely to gain attention than floods in Libya.

[Marc Overmars]

The only thing that’s surprising about this is how long it’s taken for it to come out. He’s definitely someone you would have put your house on being a deviant.

[Letters]

Yes but this is how they cancel you by character assasination.
Usually based on something you've said or done. This isn't any response to anything Brand has said, he's just been accused of a load of historic stuff - stuff which you've already agreed he probably did. He's been spouting conspiracy anti-establishment bullshit for years, there's no indication that these allegations are in any way timed to be a response to anything in particular.


it's why I constantly see that insufferable punchable face of Mr. Beast. Yet a few days ago Russell Brand started popping up on the YT homepage.
YT moves in mysterious ways.
Agreed about Mr Beast by the way. God alone knows why he's famous in the YouTube world. All his videos are him pratting around spunking money everywhere.


He's not been cancelled yet, he's in the process of being cancelled.
No. He's in the process of dealing with these serious allegations, ones which come from multiple people and which you've agreed are plausible.
Rolf Harris wasn't "cancelled", his historic misdeeds simply caught up with him. The same could be about to happen to Brand. If he is guilty of what he's been accused of then that should catch up with him.


I guess it's happening now because he;s gotten too much traction
:lol: Dude. Just look at his YouTube channel. He was averaging more views a year ago than he is now. In the last month only 2 of his videos have a million views, a year ago a lot of his videos did.
If anything his popularity is waning. For context - Tom Scott, a YouTuber I rather like but who I'm guessing you haven't heard of, gets significantly more views than Brand does.


Russell Brand has more subscribers thatn BBC and CNN, he has a bigger reach than the MSM this scares them time for him to be shut up.
:lol:

BBC News 14.7 million
BBC 13.8 million
CNN 15.5 million

Russell Brand 6.6 million
So no. No he doesn't. His videos do admittedly get more views than those MSM news channels, but obviously YT isn't the BBC's only place you can see their content.

Compare and contrast, see if you can see who has the "bigger reach"

https://www.similarweb.com/website/russellbrand.com/#overview
https://www.similarweb.com/website/bbc.co.uk/#overview


I don't really care either way and I'm not really following the story I'm just noting the convenience of it all.
No, you're just mixing up correlation and causation and you're fucking that up.



Let's just say Brand is some sort of prolific rapey ****
That would mean that the establishment (again) knowingly covered for someone so long as he was "on their side" and only now sell him out because he's no longer "on their side"
No it wouldn't.
In order to claim that you'd have to establish that "they" knew what he was up to but ignored or even suppressed it.
Do you have any evidence to that effect?


If he's not a rapey **** at all then its an establishment hit job on someone speaking out.

Again, no. To evidence that you'd have to show that his accusers are being in some way encouraged by "them" to make false allegations. Do you have any evidence to that effect?


Either way the real problem here is obvious, Brand is pretty insignificant.

:blink:

You literally just claimed that this is because "they" are worried about him because he has a wider reach than the MSM which scares them :lol:
Now you're saying he's insignificant.
:shrug:

[IBK]

Brand is insignificant, and that’s why your falsely coy “this could be an establishment smear” is bollocks, because you know it is. I’m glad you compared him to Alex Jones because that’s another individual who is a conscious grifter. Alex Jones was on YT for years, he was also platformed on various mainstream media outlets. But when you start claiming that people who’s children were murdered are lying about it, leading to those people being harassed and sent death threats…it’s likely these same outlets don’t want to be tarnished by being seen to support you.

It’s a totally self-serving, arse covering exercise but the idea that he was de-platformed for getting too close to the truth? I mean I might not have a bridge to sell you but Alex Jones definitely has shit to sell you (like a water purifier after claiming chemicals were being put in water to turn frogs gay)

You really need to stop with this us and them binary. The whole documentary if you’d bothered watching it actually makes the point that Brand was allowed to carry on with impunity by channel 4 and bbc, it does not make either network look particularly good. Apart from non thinking identitarians, no one is deciding someone’s guilt based on whether they fall into this grossly simplistic establishment/non establishment box.

I think on balance it’s more likely to be true than not because there are several complainants who’s stories are all the same, so either they’ve all been coached with leaves the Times, Channel 4 and other media outlets wide open to defamation and libel lawsuits…or that they’ve done their research and there’s some truth to it.

The issue is more about why this is front and centre, and other more important news stories are not. And the answer to that is simple…news is a form of entertainment and it’s a story more likely to gain attention than floods in Libya.

Good point.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Good point.

I can’t claim to be high minded on this because I’ve had far more to say on the Brand stuff than floods in Libya, not much you can say about the floods other than it’s made worse by the fact that the country is in a state of civil war over a decade on from Gaddafi getting a bayonet shoved up his rectum.

[IBK]

I can’t claim to be high minded on this because I’ve had far more to say on the Brand stuff than floods in Libya, not much you can say about the floods other than it’s made worse by the fact that the country is in a state of civil war over a decade on from Gaddafi getting a bayonet shoved up his rectum.

It always intrigues me what items are deemed 'newsworthy'. There is the traditional 1 x British death = 5 x deaths in Western Countries = 20 in Eastern europe = 500 in Africa type of thing, but like you say, headline news now is often more about clickbait than objective significance. Also, I get frustrated that things that dominate the news for a brief time might as well never have happened after a week has passed. The Turkey Syria earthquake is a good example - or the Hawaii fires...or Morocco - even Ukraine is no longer on most peoples' daily radar. Sleaze always gets top billing though.

I can't deal with 24 hour news any more. I listen to it in the morning and the try to avoid it for the rest of the day.

[Letters]

Roger Whittaker :rose:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66843162

What do you mean "who?" :sulk:

Fair enough, not exactly a household name but reasonably famous back in the day. I mostly know him because he did an album of kids' songs which I used to enjoy as a child.
No need to thank me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIUK3UP3gc&list=PLPdp90_7S1hrHN4ucyRY6_bua_8WPQC6y

[The Wengerbabies]

Parliament literally trying to cancel Russel Brand https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Good response by Rumble.

[Letters]

Parliament literally trying to cancel Russel Brand https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Good response by Rumble.
As much as I think you are mostly full of shit, I must admit I raised an eyebrow at YouTube demonetising his videos. I mean, it doesn’t look good for Brand but at the moment he’s only been accused of stuff. Social media is once again being judge, jury and executioner.

[HCZ_Reborn]

As much as I think you are mostly full of shit, I must admit I raised an eyebrow at YouTube demonetising his videos. I mean, it doesn’t look good for Brand but at the moment he’s only been accused of stuff. Social media is once again being judge, jury and executioner.


Politicians are essentially stupid people pleasers, they will do whatever it takes to make it seem like they are in touch with the masses. The Brand thing is trending, therefore a couple of brain dead fools in a culture select committee decided “something must be done”

It’s entirely up to the platform whether they want to keep Brand on or not. You tube doesn’t surprise me, because it’s incredibly prohibitive….even certain words are verboten and can end in demonetisation devoid of context. So if you use the word rape even just to say “rape is a terrible crime” the algorithm will find against you. It’s far easier than looking at each case individually which might take time and effort

[Letters]

It’s far easier than looking at each case individually which might take time and effort
Well sure, and to be fair there are too many content creators for them to look at every case. They obviously use AI and automation to deal with that.
But the Brand decision is clearly targeted because of the accusations and the media and social media pile on.
My gut feel is he is guilty, but I am a fan of innocent until proven guilty.

[Marc Overmars]

Bit weird how all these women are crawling out of the woodwork and retrospectively showing casing clips and telling stories of Brand being provocative and over stepping the mark. I mean, that was always his shtick and everyone used to lap up that kind of comedy back in the day. I get that attitudes change and people speak up for themselves a lot more now but I just find it a little odd how things that were once heartily laughed off are now being used to enforce these allegations.

I mean, I think he’s probably guilty of most of the things he’s been accused of but I would also question the sincerity of some of the people who’ve piled on.

[Mac76]

It's a classic story of the media building someone up and ignoring their bad side, I never liked the guy he always seemed like a rampant misogynist to me

[HCZ_Reborn]

Bit weird how all these women are crawling out of the woodwork and retrospectively showing casing clips and telling stories of Brand being provocative and over stepping the mark. I mean, that was always his shtick and everyone used to lap up that kind of comedy back in the day. I get that attitudes change and people speak up for themselves a lot more now but I just find it a little odd how things that were once heartily laughed off are now being used to enforce these allegations.

I mean, I think he’s probably guilty of most of the things he’s been accused of but I would also question the sincerity of some of the people who’ve piled on.


I’m no fan of Toby Young (an utter Wally) but I think he coined a very useful phrase outrage archaeology


And I agree I find it utterly revolting that stuff that people laughed about fifteen plus years ago is now evidence of toxic behaviour.

I never found him funny because he wasn’t funny to me. I’ve always said about him that he’s under the illusion that he’s intelligent and profound because he swallowed a thesaurus.


But I equally hate this inference that only a rapist would make rape jokes, only a misogynist would make jokes about women. It’s as bad as this punching up/punching down mentality. No something is funny or it’s not, there isn’t a subject matter that’s off limits for humour. If you’re doing it just for shock value like Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr it shows and it often falls flat.

Telling people you find something offensive is an injunction towards censorship. And ultimately people need to take themselves less seriously, or actually show some awareness of their triggers and avoid listening to certain things they might find offensive rather than telling the rest of us we shouldn’t listen to it or find it funny.

Not only is it pathetic it’s unhealthy

[Letters]

As much as I think Friends is a bit crap and massively over-rated, I do think retrospective hand-wringing about how white/homophobic/fat-shaming it was is ridiculous.
Judging every historic piece of comedy by current standards and being retrospectively offended is a bit silly

[HCZ_Reborn]

As much as I think Friends is a bit crap and massively over-rated, I do think retrospective hand-wringing about how white/homophobic/fat-shaming it was is ridiculous.
Judging every historic piece of comedy by current standards and being retrospectively offended is a bit silly

Homophobic?


https://youtu.be/P0dWo31hwpI?si=QJH2OIoZ3vXrq-Qr

[Letters]

:lol:

And yes, apparently :handbags:

https://www.out.com/television/2019/10/01/heres-your-reminder-friends-was-really-really-homophobic

[Mac76]

well, that's a bit silly - and a bit suspect I think...

[WMUG]

Is it safe to go in AFC Debate yet? :unsure:

[Letters]

These are the first 2 lines of a post this morning:


Now I have had time to calm down I can be more reasonable with my response.

DOGSHIT.

So no, not really.

[WMUG]

:doh:

I'll give it til the next game, then.

[HCZ_Reborn]

In fairness I don’t think there’s any major blow ups. Probably because I lack the desire to be quite as antagonistic currently

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66921563

He probably didn't think they'd check, mate.

[Mac76]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66921563

He probably didn't think they'd check, mate.

well he clearly likes some pawn

[HCZ_Reborn]

well he clearly likes some pawn

Judging by the picture, he was clearly getting more out of it than coded messages

[Letters]

https://careers.arsenal.com/jobs/3186518-technical-product-manager

Worth a punt :cool:

[Mac76]

https://careers.arsenal.com/jobs/3186518-technical-product-manager

Worth a punt :cool:

Go for it :good: just remember what good friends we are if you get it :)

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67071668

I think I speak for everyone when I say “oh”.

[Marc Overmars]

Shame. Always enjoyed having that MILF on TV in the background during my working from home days.

[Letters]

:lol:

There’s always Alison Hammond :unsure:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67071668

I think I speak for everyone when I say “oh”.


Probably trying to avoid being targeted again by terrorist cells run by the grotesquely obese

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67073446

EVs :bow:

[Mac76]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67071668

I think I speak for everyone when I say “oh”.

That's appalling...

It should of course be "my family and me" :sulk:

[Letters]

That's appalling...

It should of course be "my family and me" :sulk:

:lol:

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67073446

EVs :bow:

Where in that article does it mention EVs? :unsure:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Where in that article does it mention EVs? :unsure:

Silly question. When has he ever needed evidence to push an agenda

[The Wengerbabies]

Is it that much of a stretch. Lithium batteries are known to self combust, there's a reason you're not allowed to put them in checked baggage on a plane.

[Letters]

Is it that much of a stretch. Lithium batteries are known to self combust, there's a reason you're not allowed to put them in checked baggage on a plane.

You're not allowed to carry cans of petrol on a plane either...


Globally, EV FireSafe found about 0.0012% of electric passenger vehicles caught fire from 2010 to 2023. While it was difficult to find similar global statistics for petrol and diesel vehicles, EV Firesafe used a range of country reports and found a much higher 0.1% risk of catching fire. That’s more than 80 times the rate EV Firesafe found for electric vehicles.

https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher-213468#:~:text=Globally%2C%20EV%20FireSafe%20found %20about,0.1%25%20risk%20of%20catching%20fire.

[HCZ_Reborn]

You're not allowed to carry cans of petrol on a plane either...


Really? Elf and Safety gone mad

Next you won’t be able to carry on box cutters to use as knives

[HCZ_Reborn]

Is it that much of a stretch. Lithium batteries are known to self combust, there's a reason you're not allowed to put them in checked baggage on a plane.

Diesel car that started the fire. You’ll have to find something else to plug your contrarian worldview into

[Letters]

And this is Wengerbabies' problem. His conspiratorial mindset renders him unable to process data properly
He thinks EV vehicles are bad because reasons - probably connected with some conspiracy bullshit about climate change but whatever.
So any report about an EV vehicle catching fire is filed away as evidence that they're death traps. He doesn't bother to look at any data to assess what the risk actually is. It feeds into his narrative so is accepted without question.

Then there's a bloody great fire and because EV bad and EV are death traps which burst into flames the minute you look at them, he leaps, with no evidence, to the conclusion that it must have been an EV responsible for the fire.

Except, as it took me 2 minutes to find out, EV fires are exceptionally rare. Much more rare than fires in regular cars. Because of course they are. Regular cars are filled with something which is literally explosive. His comment about lithium batteries on planes is a complete red herring because
a) As I noted, you can't take cans filled with petrol on planes either - for obvious reasons there are more restrictions on those than on batteries and
b) Airlines, for equally obvious reasons, are pretty risk adverse.

And as HCZ has noted, he's not even right. The indications are it was a diesel car which started it. But it's been another fascinating insight into his brain.

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67084850

I can't begin to imagine why she hasn't met anyone :unsure:

[The Wengerbabies]

And this is Wengerbabies' problem. His conspiratorial mindset renders him unable to process data properly
He thinks EV vehicles are bad because reasons - probably connected with some conspiracy bullshit about climate change but whatever.
So any report about an EV vehicle catching fire is filed away as evidence that they're death traps. He doesn't bother to look at any data to assess what the risk actually is. It feeds into his narrative so is accepted without question.

Then there's a bloody great fire and because EV bad and EV are death traps which burst into flames the minute you look at them, he leaps, with no evidence, to the conclusion that it must have been an EV responsible for the fire.

Except, as it took me 2 minutes to find out, EV fires are exceptionally rare. Much more rare than fires in regular cars. Because of course they are. Regular cars are filled with something which is literally explosive. His comment about lithium batteries on planes is a complete red herring because
a) As I noted, you can't take cans filled with petrol on planes either - for obvious reasons there are more restrictions on those than on batteries and
b) Airlines, for equally obvious reasons, are pretty risk adverse.

And as HCZ has noted, he's not even right. The indications are it was a diesel car which started it. But it's been another fascinating insight into his brain.

A diesel Range Rover which would be a hybrid but they leave this part out, and that's if you choose to believe them. They're doing damage control as they push their EV agenda.

I don't necessarily think EVs are bad. They're more polluting then ICE vehicles and there is a tonne of child slave labour involved in the procurement of materials for the batteries, don't something I particularly care about but the virtue signallers seem to ignore these facts.

I do however think they are impractical and don't want them forced on us, if you want one fine I'm all about personal choice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HneqfZGsM

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptI6BRVC1Kw

[The Wengerbabies]

https://news.sky.com/story/captain-toms-daughter-says-he-wanted-to-her-to-keep-book-profits-despite-readers-being-told-they-were-going-to-charity-12982847

I am shocked

[Letters]

A diesel Range Rover which would be a hybrid but they leave this part out, and that's if you choose to believe them. They're doing damage control as they push their EV agenda.
Who are "they"?
Is this the same "they" that weren't going ever going to end lockdowns?

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://news.sky.com/story/captain-toms-daughter-says-he-wanted-to-her-to-keep-book-profits-despite-readers-being-told-they-were-going-to-charity-12982847

I am shocked


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0OOMEdWYAEg_8v?format=jpg&name=large

[Mac76]

Not a comment on the importance of the issue itself, but all this solidarity police stuff is getting a bit silly now...

https://www.reuters.com/sports/no-israeli-palestinian-flags-allowed-wembley-england-games-fa-2023-10-12/

[HCZ_Reborn]

Not a comment on the importance of the issue itself, but all this solidarity police stuff is getting a bit silly now...

https://www.reuters.com/sports/no-israeli-palestinian-flags-allowed-wembley-england-games-fa-2023-10-12/


No it’s about consistency

Turkish earthquakes ? It lights up

Terrorist attacks in Belgium and France? It lights up

Russian invasion of Ukraine? It lights up


The mass murder including Middle Aged barbarity against the only Jewish state in existence? Oh I don’t know we don’t want to offend certain communities


It’s bullshit especially when the police do fuck all when people in London celebrate these murders like it’s a victory for their football team, when Jewish schools in london have closed in response to Hamas declaring it a day of Jihad.


People who celebrated that shit should be on a terrorist watchlist. And people can spare me their moral equivocations about why Israel has cut off the power and water to Gaza. Maybe ask Hamas why it dug up water pipes laid for it to turn into rocket launchers (40% of the rockets launched from Gaza misfire and land in Gaza). Ask why all aid sent to Gaza from abroad either from Iran or from well meaning charities all gets siphoned off to be spent either on weapons on making certain people rich.

Ask why it’s beaches are flowing with raw sewage, why only a third of the Aid trucks supplied by Israel are ever let through the blockade by Hamas, or why the same children they use to elicit the sympathies of credulous people are sent down to dig holes for them.

I apologise if I’m jumping down your throat here because you haven’t made any of the arguments im refuting, but fuck me the last six days have made me sick to my stomach and I’m not even a Jew. The way idiots bend over backwards to pander to the ancient tribal prejudices of Muslims that long predate the formation of the state of Israel.

How the cause of this incident wasn’t about Israeli settlers in the West Bank where they don’t belong or some bullshit about Gaza being an open air prison (only open air prison I know of which can get weapons delivered to it). It’s about Iran shitting itself about its increased isolation because of the trade deals being struck between Israel and Sunni Arab countries.

It’s not an unfair proposition to people to ask them if they condemn Hamas/Hezbollah when the head of the latter states “I hope that all Jews convene in Israel…..will save us having to scour the earth to hunt them down”

There’s no need to think Netanyahu is a good guy…he isn’t, in fact he and his government take a lot of the responsibility for what happened when even Egypt warned them there was something big being planned by Hamas.

But it’s about there shouldn’t be the need to worry about upsetting Cunts by recognising the basic humanity of the people who were murdered, without whataboutery. But of course we cannot ever dare risk upsetting those from the religion of peace.

Again further disclaimer, not aimed at you. But I am quite massively fucked off with the institutions in our country

[Mac76]

maybe it's one or both of two things -

one, they don't want it to be a terrorist target

two, I largely agree with what you say regarding the situation, who's responsibile etc but I think the nastiness - as much in what they are saying as what they are doing - of Israel's response means it's once again making itself hard to feel ununequivocal sympathy for

and at the end of the day we're talking about a football stadium ffs - if they don't want to light it up the Governmetn can go fuck itself tbh

[HCZ_Reborn]

maybe it's one or both of two things -

one, they don't want it to be a terrorist target

two, I largely agree with what you say regarding the situation, who's responsibile etc but I think the nastiness - as much in what they are saying as what they are doing - of Israel's response means it's once again making itself hard to feel ununequivocal sympathy for

and at the end of the day we're talking about a football stadium ffs - if they don't want to light it up the Governmetn can go fuck itself tbh

If you’re scared that the colours of the Israeli flag makes you a terror target, I think you have to then ask what kind of people we are harbouring in this country. And why we are not being more proactive in rooting them out

I think a) the response is proportional and those think otherwise frankly don’t know what they are talking about….if Gaza insist on using their own people as human shields, it shouldn’t be inclement on Israel to say “you know what we aren’t going to hunt you down for what you’ve done” just as people proposing a ground assault, have no fucking idea what kind of quagmire that would involve. Also Hamas might need to answer why it’s not allowing people to flee south when they’ve been given prior warning by Israel

b) The FA can do what it likes, just as I can call them a bunch of cunts who have proven they care more about not upsetting Muslims than showing Israel the same sense of solidarity it’s prepared to show other people. It’s this kind of behaviour that sews resentment and mistrust of institutions. Like the BBC refusing to call Hamas terrorists, it’s all fuel that gives influence to right wing vandals who want to destroy said institutions.

[HCZ_Reborn]

And it’s kind of ironic in this time when people go on about Anti Racism, that the oldest racism in the world is turned a blind eye to. BLM showed their true fucking colours by Producing Tweets with images of silhouettes of the paragliding Cunts in approval. Yet everyone who knew that, that organisation was a bunch of grifting charlatans and that England shouldn’t adopt their symbol of knee taking were called racists by tribal cretins.