| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? 19:27 - Sep 29 with 25214 views | hampstead_blue |
It seems the Gov can be slammed 24/7
People can be vile toward Tory MP's.
Who else? Norwich are fair game. That's a given.
However, when I dared to criticize a muslim the post was removed and a few people showed a dislike.
Why?
I guess I stepped on a 'woke' landmine.
It's sad when you can't offer-up genuine and polite criticism of a religion. Especially after that religion had screamed and screamed at a cricket club for celebrating a victory.
So, Essex CCC are allowed to be slammed by a person of religion but said person isn't allowed to be criticized?
|  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |  |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:43 - Sep 30 with 6296 views | Herbivore |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:39 - Sep 30 by Dubtractor |
Just saw this and made me think of this thread.....
|
Certain posters don't care about this though, it's the wrong kind of racism and it's associated with the wrong party. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:44 - Sep 30 with 6288 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 23:32 - Sep 29 by lowhouseblue |
i think i may have the answer here.
people don't always see things in the exact same way.
but that's not bad; it doesn't mean they're bad people.
we aren't compelled to condemn or judge our fellow posters. perversely, the quest for moral superiority corrupts all who take part.
we should celebrate diversity of thought and respect those with whom we disagree. truth is a shared endeavour and uninhibited debate should be our light.
does that help? |
 |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 10:34 - Sep 30 with 6214 views | BrixtonBlue |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:35 - Sep 30 by lowhouseblue |
says the poster whose previous reply was "You're a complete fecking moron. "
how wrong you have proven me to be. |
I think that was an example of 'fair comment.' |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 10:35 - Sep 30 with 6214 views | BrixtonBlue |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:08 - Sep 30 by lowhouseblue |
but who gets to draw this line? and why's it a line rather than an area of uncertainty and discussion?
one of the real problems here is that we have a lot of posters who seem to really believe that politics is about right and wrong answers. that there are hard and fast lines.
most interesting questions are complex, uncertain, and involve practicalities and conflicting objectives. any sensible person should be able to balance competing views in their head and should be able to replicate the case put by their opponents and see points of merit in it. they should be able to see context and demonstrate empathy.
but we don't that on here. we have black and white lines, right and wrong, good and bad, intolerance dressed up as morality. gangs with tribal chants have replaced discussion. it's really very dull. |
This isn't about politics though. It's about racism. There is no area of uncertainty when it comes to Hampstead. | |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 10:41 - Sep 30 with 6196 views | Herbivore |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:33 - Sep 30 by Herbivore |
If you publicly call gay men tank topped bumboys and Black people picanninies, what is the context that makes those public expressions not homophobic and racist? |
Further to this, just seen this on twitter. What do you think it says about Johnson, Paz and Hammers, that he wants to appoint someone to head up the BBC who has said openly racist and homophobic things? This off the back of bringing in the racist, misogynist, and homophobic Tony Abbott in an important role. If your mates are all racists and homophobes and if you yourself have a history of saying racist and homophobic things, it probably means you're a racist and a homophobe. That's what you voted for.
| |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:01 - Sep 30 with 6168 views | giant_stow |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:31 - Sep 30 by PhilTWTD |
I think I've regularly removed posts in the numerous antisemitism debates on here. Certainly a post which was as obviously antisemitic as the post I removed earlier was anti-islamic would have been removed. Anything which generalised Jews - or any other ethnic group - in the manner that muslims were referred to would be removed, and has been in the past on the rare occasions anyone has posted anything along those lines.
I have had numerous and at times very lengthy discussions regarding what should and shouldn't stay on here regarding the antisemitism debates with Jewish posters or those with Jewish family connections, who, of course, don't all hold the same views on what should be allowed to remain as part of a debate or removed as unacceptable.
I've tried to allow debate while removing anything which crosses a line. But I admit it's not been an easy topic of discussion to monitor, from a number of angles.
No one would have been "allowed" an avatar with a doctored swastika (assuming the context in which it was used wasn't anti-Nazi), either I wasn't aware of it or if I was informed about it I would more than likely banned whoever was using it.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Not to kiss arse Phillipe, but moderating the antisemitism debates must have been a nightmare. You were put in a position where you had to judge what crossed a line and what didn't - very tough for one person to do on such a complicated and wide ranging issue. For what its worth (nothing from me, I accept!), I think you did this with well and didn't stiffle debate. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:22 - Sep 30 with 6137 views | eireblue |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 07:12 - Sep 30 by 26_Paz |
I don’t think anyone ‘gets to decide’ I don’t think you can put words into an ‘offensive’ or ‘not offensive’ column. It all depends on who says then to whom and in what context. |
I know you think that.
But you are wrong.
Anti-Semitic and Islamphopia definitions have examples that form part of the definitions.
To deny it, and say there is some “context” that can be applied, means it is perfectly feasible for every racist, homophobe, anti-Semite to state, well I was just saying......, you don’t understand the context.
You are stating that the person in minority doesn’t get a choice.
But, let’s say we take your view on things. That the persons using terms about a group of which they are not a member, are allowed to apply some context and justification. And that there isn’t a way to strongly define simple usage.
Then someone like SpruceM, can apply his context to you and your postings, when using words about you.
He can quite legitimately state you are a racist and homophobe.
Seems to me if you want to have loose definitions and apply context, Spruce can call you racist. |  | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:33 - Sep 30 with 6119 views | CrayonKing |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 20:19 - Sep 29 by hampstead_blue |
I disagree Phil.
I'm talking about one person who has spoken out. That person is wrong to make such demands.
Here is something from a friend in my cricket whatsapp group...this chap is a muslim btw and loves a drink.
"Most of the Muslims I know enjoy their drink. As long as celebrations are away from cameras, most probably they won't mind."
It kind of makes him look more foolish.
I am not racist and implying I am is wrong. |
I don't think you're a racist Hampstead. For the most part you seem like a decent chap, but you do seem way too caught up in this culture war BS and that can give the wrong impression sometimes.
Having said that, the OP did cross a line. (I didn't see the first post before it got pulled btw so am only talking about the first post in this thread).
"It's sad when you can't offer-up genuine and polite criticism of a religion. Especially after that religion had screamed and screamed at a cricket club for celebrating a victory. "
"That religion" did nothing of the sort. You make it sound like "they" were burning effigies of Graham Gooch on the streets, when the reality is one person (seemingly unconnected with either club) said it was offensive when interviewed by BBC Essex. Maybe you should examine the unconscious biases that let you make the leap from "Sajid Patel on BBC Essex was offended" to "that religion had screamed and screamed at a cricket club for celebrating a victory"?
As for the story itself, I find myself agreeing with Paz (!). I think the response from Essex CCC was pretty spot on. They realised they'd caused offence, apologised, and said they'd learn from it. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:38 - Sep 30 with 6105 views | m14_blue |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:33 - Sep 30 by CrayonKing |
I don't think you're a racist Hampstead. For the most part you seem like a decent chap, but you do seem way too caught up in this culture war BS and that can give the wrong impression sometimes.
Having said that, the OP did cross a line. (I didn't see the first post before it got pulled btw so am only talking about the first post in this thread).
"It's sad when you can't offer-up genuine and polite criticism of a religion. Especially after that religion had screamed and screamed at a cricket club for celebrating a victory. "
"That religion" did nothing of the sort. You make it sound like "they" were burning effigies of Graham Gooch on the streets, when the reality is one person (seemingly unconnected with either club) said it was offensive when interviewed by BBC Essex. Maybe you should examine the unconscious biases that let you make the leap from "Sajid Patel on BBC Essex was offended" to "that religion had screamed and screamed at a cricket club for celebrating a victory"?
As for the story itself, I find myself agreeing with Paz (!). I think the response from Essex CCC was pretty spot on. They realised they'd caused offence, apologised, and said they'd learn from it. |
Spot on. |  | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:51 - Sep 30 with 6084 views | PhilTWTD |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:01 - Sep 30 by giant_stow |
Not to kiss arse Phillipe, but moderating the antisemitism debates must have been a nightmare. You were put in a position where you had to judge what crossed a line and what didn't - very tough for one person to do on such a complicated and wide ranging issue. For what its worth (nothing from me, I accept!), I think you did this with well and didn't stiffle debate. |
Thanks, very much appreciated. |  | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:13 - Sep 30 with 6040 views | Half_Idiot |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 22:44 - Sep 29 by lightuser |
99% of the muslims i've ever known drink. Men and women. But 99% of them won't touch pork and have a belief in god (although also 99% don't pray). Lol. Work that out.
In fact I'm sitting with a couple of "them" now having a few tinnies, bottles of wine and vodka cokes. Cheers peeps. |
I suspect you don't know at least 100 Muslim people well enough to know that 99% of them drink alcohol, don't pray but do abstain from eating pork.
If you're going to make up BS at least make it some what believable. |  | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:29 - Sep 30 with 6012 views | clive_baker |
It's political correctness gone mad.
We can't even be racist anymore in our own country. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:37 - Sep 30 with 5987 views | Superblue95 |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:08 - Sep 30 by lowhouseblue |
but who gets to draw this line? and why's it a line rather than an area of uncertainty and discussion?
one of the real problems here is that we have a lot of posters who seem to really believe that politics is about right and wrong answers. that there are hard and fast lines.
most interesting questions are complex, uncertain, and involve practicalities and conflicting objectives. any sensible person should be able to balance competing views in their head and should be able to replicate the case put by their opponents and see points of merit in it. they should be able to see context and demonstrate empathy.
but we don't that on here. we have black and white lines, right and wrong, good and bad, intolerance dressed up as morality. gangs with tribal chants have replaced discussion. it's really very dull. |
When are you getting your shift key repaired? |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:51 - Sep 30 with 5959 views | lightuser |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 00:29 - Sep 30 by jeera |
I'd say that's either a lie...or
you don't know any more than a couple of Muslims.
Or these are just some brown people you know and you assume they are Muslim.
The only other possibility is as already pointed out, these are people who call themselves Muslim but aren't practising. If you'd read my post you'd see I'd covered that. You can call yourself anything you like, including Christian, but it doesn't mean a thing if you don't follow any of it. [Post edited 30 Sep 2020 0:30]
|
Ah, my apologies Jeera (and Noggin). I should have read your post more carefully, "Non-practising" muslims is indeed correct.
I know them (non practicing muslims!) from the clubs, bars and kitchens here (pre covid lockdown). Black African, rather than brown Asian (the locals are not usually welcome in the African bars and vice versa). And this is a majority muslim area.
Again, my apologies for the mis-interpretation. | | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:53 - Sep 30 with 5948 views | NthQldITFC |
I can't be arsed to read the earlier tripe, but is the answer those who can't spell criticise, twice? |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:56 - Sep 30 with 5939 views | jaykay |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 08:53 - Sep 30 by BrixtonBlue |
Nonsense. Please post some links to posts saying antisemitism is valid which have gone unchecked by Phil. |
i think that might be out of the book of a past poster |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 13:00 - Sep 30 with 5930 views | SpruceMoose |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 09:33 - Sep 30 by Herbivore |
If you publicly call gay men tank topped bumboys and Black people picanninies, what is the context that makes those public expressions not homophobic and racist? |
Been trying to get an answer out of Paz on this for weeks now.
I think, for him, it's OK when the man you idolise says it, especially when you harbour those kind of views yourself. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 13:19 - Sep 30 with 5905 views | lightuser |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 12:13 - Sep 30 by Half_Idiot |
I suspect you don't know at least 100 Muslim people well enough to know that 99% of them drink alcohol, don't pray but do abstain from eating pork.
If you're going to make up BS at least make it some what believable. |
I'm talkative and curious.
The not eating pork thing seems to be consistant with the many, practising and non practising muslims that I've spoken to.
When I lived in the UK I worked in a building near to a mosque and used to chat to the youths that gathered there before they went for evening prayers.
Now that I live abroad, I get to chat to the non-practising community.
It's quite simple really. This is my anecdotal experience.
Please believe that I am not a person that lies, or exaggerates. | | | |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 13:28 - Sep 30 with 5876 views | NewcyBlue |
I went ashore in Port Qasim in Pakistan.
Despite the Taliban being active in the area at the time, I was welcomed by many people.
One man brought me into his family home, where a delicious Biryani was brought out. This is the underpinning of the Islam religion. A warm welcome, and extension of the brotherhood of man.
We talked for a few hours before I had to go back to ship.
It was a humbling and wonderful experience.
As with any religion, there are fanatics. As with any organisation, there are fanatics. We don’t tar the whole of the British Army just because of a few wrong ‘uns doing terrible things. Just as I won’t tar the whole of Islam due to some fanatical groups.
I would spend some time learning about Islam if I were you. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 14:17 - Sep 30 with 5818 views | noggin |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 13:28 - Sep 30 by NewcyBlue |
I went ashore in Port Qasim in Pakistan.
Despite the Taliban being active in the area at the time, I was welcomed by many people.
One man brought me into his family home, where a delicious Biryani was brought out. This is the underpinning of the Islam religion. A warm welcome, and extension of the brotherhood of man.
We talked for a few hours before I had to go back to ship.
It was a humbling and wonderful experience.
As with any religion, there are fanatics. As with any organisation, there are fanatics. We don’t tar the whole of the British Army just because of a few wrong ‘uns doing terrible things. Just as I won’t tar the whole of Islam due to some fanatical groups.
I would spend some time learning about Islam if I were you. |
Yeah but surely they cut your head off after dinner? |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 14:25 - Sep 30 with 5801 views | NewcyBlue |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 14:17 - Sep 30 by noggin |
Yeah but surely they cut your head off after dinner? |
Yeah, that tickled. | |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 15:17 - Sep 30 with 5728 views | The_Romford_Blue |
I’ve not read the thread after the OP because it’ll only piss me off when you start talking how you do but I’d just like to say, based on your posting history, you’re one of the most unpleasant, nasty, awful posters I’ve ever come across on here in my 7 years on TWTD.
You’re not even trolling which is the saddest part of all. It’s clear you’re just a terrible human being with no empathy or compassion for anyone that isn’t agreeing with your far-right bile. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 16:00 - Sep 30 with 5668 views | Darth_Koont |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 11:01 - Sep 30 by giant_stow |
Not to kiss arse Phillipe, but moderating the antisemitism debates must have been a nightmare. You were put in a position where you had to judge what crossed a line and what didn't - very tough for one person to do on such a complicated and wide ranging issue. For what its worth (nothing from me, I accept!), I think you did this with well and didn't stiffle debate. |
Indeed. It’s not an easy job with such a clearly nuanced but unhelpfully partisan debate.
There were quite a few who wanted to shut down the debate - and me - but testament to the site that we could continue to talk about it and raise concerns. |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 16:01 - Sep 30 with 5657 views | monytowbray |
 |  |
| |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 16:07 - Sep 30 with 5636 views | monytowbray |
| In the modern age who are we allowed to critisize? on 07:21 - Sep 30 by solomon |
We seem happy to let various posts on antisemitism and debates regarding it’s validity ride along pretty much unchecked for quite some time now, it wasn’t too long ago that someone was even allowed to have a doctored swastika as their avatar. Have rules by all means but let’s please ensure they are applied evenly. |
That was me and it was aimed at the Tories. It was back in December.
Almost a year later and I wish I had of kept it up longer seeing how things have panned out.
Context is everything. It seems useful to an agenda to remove it in this case. Straight from the [redacted] playbook. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
