By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Obviously he is a bellend, but if anything defines privilege, it is that he was given a platform to perform on a national TV show when he has precisely nil musical talent. Nothing about his appearance is about talent, nothing whatsoever.
I should add, it is worth a listen to his performance to marvel at just how bad it is. It isn't even mediocre, its utterly awful.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:05 - Jan 21 by DanTheMan
"Self righteousness is a trait of virtue signalling."
No it's not. Virtue signalling was supposed to be about people exclaiming to be outraged by things even when they aren't. Nothing to do with self-righteousness.
As others have said, it's just become a buzzword to dismiss views.
You are wrong, tribal think and self righteousness are key ingredients of virtue signalling, in fact we all are guilty of it at times, the OP is virtue signalling, why was the child abuse cover up in Manchester not his chosen subject?
1
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:18 - Jan 21 with 2010 views
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 08:42 - Jan 21 by itfcjoe
Question Time just isn't worth watching, I don't really think there was much wrong with what he said but yet he is now a pariah/martyr depending on which side of the platform you sit on.
Yep, it's not fact checked and they let the likes of Nigel and Wetherspoons Tim on every other week to spout lies about immigration or fish. I'm all for a range of opinions but they need to be factually correct.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:12 - Jan 21 by GaryCooper
You are wrong, tribal think and self righteousness are key ingredients of virtue signalling, in fact we all are guilty of it at times, the OP is virtue signalling, why was the child abuse cover up in Manchester not his chosen subject?
Because they didn't want to talk about that. It's a forum, people post topics on things they'd like to discuss.
You're welcome to post a topic on the Manchester child abuse if you would like.
It's still not virtue signalling wanting to discuss things, it's just an ad hominem attack to dismiss people's views.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:12 - Jan 21 by GaryCooper
You are wrong, tribal think and self righteousness are key ingredients of virtue signalling, in fact we all are guilty of it at times, the OP is virtue signalling, why was the child abuse cover up in Manchester not his chosen subject?
And 'tell it like it is' people like you are the flip side of the same coin, constantly 'signalling' your aversion to PC gorn mad.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:18 - Jan 21 by tractordownsouth
Yep, it's not fact checked and they let the likes of Nigel and Wetherspoons Tim on every other week to spout lies about immigration or fish. I'm all for a range of opinions but they need to be factually correct.
The same as your non fact checked statement with regard to the problems of recent immigrants to Ipswich?
0
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:43 - Jan 21 with 1962 views
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:46 - Jan 21 by DanTheMan
Could you perhaps list the topics people are allowed to discuss without it being virtue signalling?
This is tiresome, do you think toe OP was in fact subconsciously virtue signalling? Is virtue signalling commonplace within this thread? Do you understand the questions?
Yes is the answer to all.
0
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:58 - Jan 21 with 1926 views
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 10:55 - Jan 21 by GaryCooper
This is tiresome, do you think toe OP was in fact subconsciously virtue signalling? Is virtue signalling commonplace within this thread? Do you understand the questions?
Yes is the answer to all.
No. No. Yes.
I think you're just throwing around a buzzword in all honesty.
People have different views, not all of those views need to be dismissed with a label.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 21:14 - Jan 20 by LankHenners
An unsurprisingly selective and reductive take on the matter.
He didn’t agree that Britain was a systemically racist country and that Meghan was criticised as a result of racism. When the questioner said he was “a white privileged male” he reasonably said she was being racist herself.
He was then asked who he would like to see as a the new labour leader and he said Starmer. He was asked “why not any of the women”. He then said he’d tried to answer the question, but find, “all the women” then.
-1
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 12:28 - Jan 21 with 1821 views
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 09:59 - Jan 21 by GaryCooper
Self righteousness is a trait of virtue signalling.
Calling out someone as white privileged is a generic term with no fact checking of that persons background, the fact that colour is defined in the descriptor indicates racism.
There's no self righteousness in that comment, just agreement with a particular position.
It's not racist to say someone is white when they are white, it's also not racist to say someone is black when they are black. Laurence Fox is white and he is from a position of privilege in terms of both wealth and status. I'm not sure why you think that's a racist or bigoted thing to say.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 12:39 - Jan 21 by Herbivore
There's no self righteousness in that comment, just agreement with a particular position.
It's not racist to say someone is white when they are white, it's also not racist to say someone is black when they are black. Laurence Fox is white and he is from a position of privilege in terms of both wealth and status. I'm not sure why you think that's a racist or bigoted thing to say.
But that’s not the context and context is everything.
The point made to him was that he couldn’t hold a view (that Britain isn’t a racist country) because of his own colour and gender and the context was therefore that these traits made him less able to have a valid opinion.
0
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 12:42 - Jan 21 with 1793 views
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 12:42 - Jan 21 by Oxford_Blue
But that’s not the context and context is everything.
The point made to him was that he couldn’t hold a view (that Britain isn’t a racist country) because of his own colour and gender and the context was therefore that these traits made him less able to have a valid opinion.
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 07:53 - Jan 21 by hampstead_blue
He is a bell end.
The problem was that the lady calling him a 'white privileged male' was wrong. If he'd called her a black geek (she is a researcher and academic) he would have been hammered.
Both were stupid.
That lady was an obvious BBC plant. QT uses them all the time.
0
Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 19:12 - Jan 21 with 1681 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
