| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? 19:34 - Jan 20 with 30149 views | Dubtractor |
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.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/video-lawrence-fox-performing-je [Post edited 20 Jan 2020 19:58]
|  |
| |  |
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 22:31 - Jan 22 with 1066 views | jeera |
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 22:28 - Jan 22 by Enigma_Blue |
You don't actually have to read or watch MSM to find out what has been portrayed by the MSM. There are independent sources that analyse & dissect what has been portrayed in the news. Thats the beauty of the internet these days. |
Of course there's a trillion different sources, but that doesn't mean they're all reliable.
Most will get their news from the same sources themselves or invent alternative sh1t to appease a few loons who refuse to believe anything that may seem a bit too normal to be true.
The truth is usually a bit dull and thrill seekers will look elsewhere for their own facts.
That's not to say much of the msm isn't biased either. I'm the first to complain about that. |  |
| |
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 22:35 - Jan 22 with 1064 views | Enigma_Blue |
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 22:26 - Jan 22 by jeera |
That's absolute nonsense.
There's plenty of everyday news on msm that is perfectly accurate.
If I see a news report on BBC1 showing a robbery of a jewelers all captured on cctv, I'm not going to claim it's made up and staged.
"Today, Sainsburys put the price up of petrol at the pumps". I'm not going to scream it's a lie until I've studied another source.
When you watch this stuff you need to be specific otherwise you're just generalsing for the sake of it. |
Yes you are quite right, I should be more specific. I mean more in terms of ita coverage of politics & also the sensational news stories. Obviously i am not stating that every news story portrayed in the MSM is complete fabrication. |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:53 - Jan 22 with 1031 views | eireblue |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:14 - Jan 22 by Enigma_Blue |
She is entitled to her view but it is the way she said it that grates with me & a lot of other people.
'let's call this what it clearly & obviously is, it's racism ' like it is fact. Eh no it might be, it might not. Lawrence was no better stating 'it's not racism '
If she wanted to say 'in my opinion it i believe it is racism ' and then give her reason then fine. Then Laurence could give his.
What she said to Laurence about him was being a WPM was not really racist but the way the term gets bandied about so easily these days he probably is justified in saying that it was.
Why did she even need to mention that he is WPM, we can all see he is white & that he is a man, why did she need to make a point about it? Or is she providing audio description for the blind!
As for him being privileged why it was relevant to whatever she was going to say, only she will know. I mean Meghan is privileged, & was before she married Harry & is even more privileged now.
Oh and he didn't decide he was bored of racism. What he actually said was ' were the most tolerant & lovely country in Europe. It's so easy to throw the card of racism at everybody & it's getting really getting boring now.'
The race card is being thrown around too easily these days, what that does is cheapen & diminish it's meaning which will have a negative effect when calling ot racism that is blatant and obvious. [Post edited 22 Jan 2020 22:50]
|
I haven’t actually expressed much of an opinion on the actual Meghan issue
But here goes.
There are racist and prejudiced people. Racist attitudes have changed and improved in the UK. The trend in research is this is generally generational and immigration related. Younger, better educated people, with more exposure to different people tend to be less racist. That is a trend.
I would respectfully ask you to look at the link that Herbivore posted, i.e. the comparison between the coverage of Meghan and Kate.
Then I would respectfully ask you to consider this.
If those papers said the same things about Kate, would they sell more or less papers to an older demographic with a traditional view of the monarchy?
If there is a slow news day, will they sell more papers by saying bad things about Kate and an avocado?
Is there the slightest chance that they may understand their demographic, and know perfectly well that the difference in their coverage of Kate and Meghan will maximise sales.
Do you think if all those stories were reversed, they would sell more?
In my opinion, the negative content of the media coverage of Meghan was not motivated by a single thing she actually has done. E.g. not wear a hat.
Do you really think a certain demographic would read a paper that continuously criticised Kate, for doing things like simply not wearing a hat.
So that is why in my opinion, even though you will not find a single racist thing in those stories, this is what could be considered.
The continuous negative coverage of Meghan, when doing the exact same thing as Kate, is motivated by selling papers to maximise sales.
In doing so they didn’t cover what Meghan did, they used the differences between herself and Kate, knowing precisely what they were trying to achieve.
Being bias, nasty, unkind, negative about a person, not because of what they do, but who they inherently are, is simply prejudice.
You may or may not agree with some or any of the above.
Blatant and obvious racism is slowly decreasing, although hate crimes could be increasing. I suspect a smaller minority is getting angrier.
But that is no reason not to also point out possible subtle and less obvious racism. |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 23:47 - Jan 22 with 1012 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:53 - Jan 22 by eireblue |
I haven’t actually expressed much of an opinion on the actual Meghan issue
But here goes.
There are racist and prejudiced people. Racist attitudes have changed and improved in the UK. The trend in research is this is generally generational and immigration related. Younger, better educated people, with more exposure to different people tend to be less racist. That is a trend.
I would respectfully ask you to look at the link that Herbivore posted, i.e. the comparison between the coverage of Meghan and Kate.
Then I would respectfully ask you to consider this.
If those papers said the same things about Kate, would they sell more or less papers to an older demographic with a traditional view of the monarchy?
If there is a slow news day, will they sell more papers by saying bad things about Kate and an avocado?
Is there the slightest chance that they may understand their demographic, and know perfectly well that the difference in their coverage of Kate and Meghan will maximise sales.
Do you think if all those stories were reversed, they would sell more?
In my opinion, the negative content of the media coverage of Meghan was not motivated by a single thing she actually has done. E.g. not wear a hat.
Do you really think a certain demographic would read a paper that continuously criticised Kate, for doing things like simply not wearing a hat.
So that is why in my opinion, even though you will not find a single racist thing in those stories, this is what could be considered.
The continuous negative coverage of Meghan, when doing the exact same thing as Kate, is motivated by selling papers to maximise sales.
In doing so they didn’t cover what Meghan did, they used the differences between herself and Kate, knowing precisely what they were trying to achieve.
Being bias, nasty, unkind, negative about a person, not because of what they do, but who they inherently are, is simply prejudice.
You may or may not agree with some or any of the above.
Blatant and obvious racism is slowly decreasing, although hate crimes could be increasing. I suspect a smaller minority is getting angrier.
But that is no reason not to also point out possible subtle and less obvious racism. |
Outright racist abuse has decreased over the years, though there seems to be a bit of a change in that of late, certainly more football related racism than I can remember in many years over the past 12 months. In terms of less conscious prejudice, I'm not sure how much that has changed. The Guardian article I posted earlier is pretty worrying from that perspective. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:18 - Jan 23 with 929 views | Enigma_Blue |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:53 - Jan 22 by eireblue |
I haven’t actually expressed much of an opinion on the actual Meghan issue
But here goes.
There are racist and prejudiced people. Racist attitudes have changed and improved in the UK. The trend in research is this is generally generational and immigration related. Younger, better educated people, with more exposure to different people tend to be less racist. That is a trend.
I would respectfully ask you to look at the link that Herbivore posted, i.e. the comparison between the coverage of Meghan and Kate.
Then I would respectfully ask you to consider this.
If those papers said the same things about Kate, would they sell more or less papers to an older demographic with a traditional view of the monarchy?
If there is a slow news day, will they sell more papers by saying bad things about Kate and an avocado?
Is there the slightest chance that they may understand their demographic, and know perfectly well that the difference in their coverage of Kate and Meghan will maximise sales.
Do you think if all those stories were reversed, they would sell more?
In my opinion, the negative content of the media coverage of Meghan was not motivated by a single thing she actually has done. E.g. not wear a hat.
Do you really think a certain demographic would read a paper that continuously criticised Kate, for doing things like simply not wearing a hat.
So that is why in my opinion, even though you will not find a single racist thing in those stories, this is what could be considered.
The continuous negative coverage of Meghan, when doing the exact same thing as Kate, is motivated by selling papers to maximise sales.
In doing so they didn’t cover what Meghan did, they used the differences between herself and Kate, knowing precisely what they were trying to achieve.
Being bias, nasty, unkind, negative about a person, not because of what they do, but who they inherently are, is simply prejudice.
You may or may not agree with some or any of the above.
Blatant and obvious racism is slowly decreasing, although hate crimes could be increasing. I suspect a smaller minority is getting angrier.
But that is no reason not to also point out possible subtle and less obvious racism. |
I think you have missed my point. I have considered the fact that certain papers criticising Meghan for doing certain things, when they didn't criticise kate when she did the exact same things could be down to racism conscious or other wise. Yes it could well be that is the case. However I think certain people need to consider the fact that it might well be down to the fact they just may not like her personality. Now that may be hard for Meghan & her family and friends to comprehend. We know a lot of people get sick and tired of woke celebrities lecturing us on how we should live our lives for the good of climate change but not practicing what they preach. They got criticised for this but instead of coming out & saying ' yes we could see how what we said could be seen as hypocritical but we just wanted to highlight an issue that we believe is important and we are going to make a conscious effort going forward to reduce our carbon foot print ' but instead of this they moan about the criticism, press intrusion in general & racial undertones. Now that kind of behaviour isn't going to endear either of them to anybody, least of all the tabloid press. For me they both need to learn how to play the media a bit better.
Quite a few people my mum included think that Meghan might be using Harry, like it was always her plan after they started dating to get him to marry her & to get pregnant & at some point dump him down the line. But because she is the mother of a royal son she will always have a high profile & be in the media spotlight, perfect for future earning potential.
Now this could all be wide of the mark but what cannot be in doubt that public opinion has really turned against both of them and the reason why a lot of the press are criticising Meghan for the same things that Kate didn't get criticised for because the tide of public opinion has turned against her & the press are wanting to maximise sales.
So for me there as much chance as it being for not liking her character & personality as it is to do with her race. And when that is the case it is very dangerous to state is definitely racism or it is definitely not. It seems these days you can't just be neutral, you have to be on one side or the other rather like brexit and have people at loggerheads with each other. Sometimes it should be ok to just sit on the fence and go, you know what I just don't know, or i don't have an opinion or even don't care. Like Laurence said it just all starts to get boring after a while. [Post edited 23 Jan 2020 12:47]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:27 - Jan 23 with 913 views | BackToRussia |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:18 - Jan 23 by Enigma_Blue |
I think you have missed my point. I have considered the fact that certain papers criticising Meghan for doing certain things, when they didn't criticise kate when she did the exact same things could be down to racism conscious or other wise. Yes it could well be that is the case. However I think certain people need to consider the fact that it might well be down to the fact they just may not like her personality. Now that may be hard for Meghan & her family and friends to comprehend. We know a lot of people get sick and tired of woke celebrities lecturing us on how we should live our lives for the good of climate change but not practicing what they preach. They got criticised for this but instead of coming out & saying ' yes we could see how what we said could be seen as hypocritical but we just wanted to highlight an issue that we believe is important and we are going to make a conscious effort going forward to reduce our carbon foot print ' but instead of this they moan about the criticism, press intrusion in general & racial undertones. Now that kind of behaviour isn't going to endear either of them to anybody, least of all the tabloid press. For me they both need to learn how to play the media a bit better.
Quite a few people my mum included think that Meghan might be using Harry, like it was always her plan after they started dating to get him to marry her & to get pregnant & at some point dump him down the line. But because she is the mother of a royal son she will always have a high profile & be in the media spotlight, perfect for future earning potential.
Now this could all be wide of the mark but what cannot be in doubt that public opinion has really turned against both of them and the reason why a lot of the press are criticising Meghan for the same things that Kate didn't get criticised for because the tide of public opinion has turned against her & the press are wanting to maximise sales.
So for me there as much chance as it being for not liking her character & personality as it is to do with her race. And when that is the case it is very dangerous to state is definitely racism or it is definitely not. It seems these days you can't just be neutral, you have to be on one side or the other rather like brexit and have people at loggerheads with each other. Sometimes it should be ok to just sit on the fence and go, you know what I just don't know, or i don't have an opinion or even don't care. Like Laurence said it just all starts to get boring after a while. [Post edited 23 Jan 2020 12:47]
|
Lol. Citing your mum as evidence. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:36 - Jan 23 with 904 views | lowhouseblue |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:53 - Jan 22 by eireblue |
I haven’t actually expressed much of an opinion on the actual Meghan issue
But here goes.
There are racist and prejudiced people. Racist attitudes have changed and improved in the UK. The trend in research is this is generally generational and immigration related. Younger, better educated people, with more exposure to different people tend to be less racist. That is a trend.
I would respectfully ask you to look at the link that Herbivore posted, i.e. the comparison between the coverage of Meghan and Kate.
Then I would respectfully ask you to consider this.
If those papers said the same things about Kate, would they sell more or less papers to an older demographic with a traditional view of the monarchy?
If there is a slow news day, will they sell more papers by saying bad things about Kate and an avocado?
Is there the slightest chance that they may understand their demographic, and know perfectly well that the difference in their coverage of Kate and Meghan will maximise sales.
Do you think if all those stories were reversed, they would sell more?
In my opinion, the negative content of the media coverage of Meghan was not motivated by a single thing she actually has done. E.g. not wear a hat.
Do you really think a certain demographic would read a paper that continuously criticised Kate, for doing things like simply not wearing a hat.
So that is why in my opinion, even though you will not find a single racist thing in those stories, this is what could be considered.
The continuous negative coverage of Meghan, when doing the exact same thing as Kate, is motivated by selling papers to maximise sales.
In doing so they didn’t cover what Meghan did, they used the differences between herself and Kate, knowing precisely what they were trying to achieve.
Being bias, nasty, unkind, negative about a person, not because of what they do, but who they inherently are, is simply prejudice.
You may or may not agree with some or any of the above.
Blatant and obvious racism is slowly decreasing, although hate crimes could be increasing. I suspect a smaller minority is getting angrier.
But that is no reason not to also point out possible subtle and less obvious racism. |
i haven't seen anything to suggest that the treatment of meghan by the press is because of her race. the press can be critical of her without that criticism being racist. the press treated fergie far far worse and she is white.
if the press is biased against meghan it's not because of her race - it's because she is a millennial, and the press don't like a royal having those traits. in contrast kate is firmly from the 1950s - and in truth she is a bit of a doormat - and the press thinks that's great. if meghan was the same race she is but went around two steps behind her hubby and only spoke when she is spoken to the press would absolutely love her. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:38 - Jan 23 with 901 views | Enigma_Blue |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:27 - Jan 23 by BackToRussia |
Lol. Citing your mum as evidence. |
Hey you leave my mum alone, she is a very wise woman. She always said I was a very special boy;) | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? (n/t) on 22:47 - Jan 25 with 781 views | The_Last_Baron |
[Post edited 25 Jan 2020 22:48]
|  |
| |
| Have we covered white privilege man Laurence Fox? on 22:49 - Jan 25 with 775 views | The_Last_Baron |
He's a fine singer as well as an actor, check out his track 'The Distance' on the usual outlets. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
