| Thread removed? 09:44 - Feb 6 with 4454 views | GlasgowBlue |
That’s a damn shame as it was interesting and educational imo. Racial stereotypes should be challenged, but with the exception of a couple of posters the issues were discussed with civility and understanding. |  |
| |  |
| Thread removed? on 12:33 - Feb 6 with 1703 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thread removed? on 12:22 - Feb 6 by eireblue |
I think you only need to consider the converse argument.
A majority gets to decide how to address a minority?
Is that reasonable?
But pondering the rationale that is sometimes used.
Most of the littering I see is by white middle class British people. That is true of my experience. Should I use that observation whenever a topic about middle class white people come up, and characterise white middle class British people as a dirty littering populace, apart from a couple of good ones, that also don’t like littering,….but hardly any of them go and pick up litter.
Also, I think citing the rationale, oh sometimes people in that group don’t mind, is also very suspect.
I used to laugh a Irish jokes, sort of had too, don’t really hear that many anymore. |
in reality we've established limits on speech based upon objective criteria - such as intent, context, reasonableness, etc. clearly someone 'taking offence' or finding something 'abusive' is entirely subjective, but limits on what people can say have to be objective. good manners or politeness - being sensitive to what someone may subjectively find offensive or abusive - is entirely different from setting limits on what people can say. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Thread removed? on 12:46 - Feb 6 with 1656 views | eireblue |
| Thread removed? on 12:24 - Feb 6 by ZXBlue |
I dont say the majority necessarily decides either.
Logic, reason and measured argument shoudl decide, and you should not be precluded from using those tools by not being hte offended party. nor should you be able to impose on others, by claiming offense over things which are really not, objectively, unreasonable.
It requires conversation and reason. Any side trying to silence the other by saying (for instance) I am the offended party, and I get to decide, is a problem and throws reason out of the equation. |
Not being racist, as an example, is not an imposition.
It is perfectly easy to be abusive to someone based on their individual characteristics.
I could say you are just trying to intellectualise an argument to justify being abusive to someone and that makes you a horrible tosser.
Or I could say, you are just displaying typical white privilege of a littering middle class person that has never been subjected to beating due to their race.
(Of course I don’t know if any of that is true, it is said to make a point)
I can be offensive, and emotive, but I don’t have to refer to a general characteristic.
As I mentioned earlier, I was told I used a term that was offensive, I apologised, changed a word, and my point was still made. It is still quite easy to insult or offend a person, or indeed to tell a joke, without invoking general prejudices and racism.
I would suggest that holding that line, you know, Irish people aren’t actually stupid, it isn’t funny telling such jokes, seems to me why people don’t do that so much.
Same could be said of any easy targets. |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 12:49 - Feb 6 with 1650 views | eireblue |
| Thread removed? on 12:33 - Feb 6 by lowhouseblue |
in reality we've established limits on speech based upon objective criteria - such as intent, context, reasonableness, etc. clearly someone 'taking offence' or finding something 'abusive' is entirely subjective, but limits on what people can say have to be objective. good manners or politeness - being sensitive to what someone may subjectively find offensive or abusive - is entirely different from setting limits on what people can say. |
Who is we? | | | |
| Thread removed? on 12:52 - Feb 6 with 1640 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thread removed? on 12:49 - Feb 6 by eireblue |
Who is we? |
society | |
| 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 |
| |
| Thread removed? on 13:06 - Feb 6 with 1600 views | leitrimblue |
| Thread removed? on 10:10 - Feb 6 by PhilTWTD |
I was in two minds about it. I wasn't aware of it until late last night and I thought I'd leave it up for the reasons you outline and as the post in the thread you refer to was challenged by several posters, but had a second complaint about it this morning so changed my mind.
Not a perfect science. On the one hand I agree with you, but on the other should we allow prejudiced posts to remain? |
I understand your left in a very difficult position Phil, but I think it should have been left up there. Removing it feels a bit like it pretending it never happened. Think possibly
a better move would be locking it and leaving it up there. Perhaps with a comment from yourself explaining why it's not acceptable. Like to think we can then all look back at these old locked threads in a few years time and marvel how the world as changed for the better.. |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 13:12 - Feb 6 with 1583 views | WeWereZombies |
| Thread removed? on 12:33 - Feb 6 by lowhouseblue |
in reality we've established limits on speech based upon objective criteria - such as intent, context, reasonableness, etc. clearly someone 'taking offence' or finding something 'abusive' is entirely subjective, but limits on what people can say have to be objective. good manners or politeness - being sensitive to what someone may subjectively find offensive or abusive - is entirely different from setting limits on what people can say. |
Although 'in reality' keeping public order is often the pragmatic route taken by those in charge of, errr, keeping public order... |  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 13:24 - Feb 6 with 1555 views | eireblue |
When did we as a society decide that some stating they have been abused is merely subjective, and we seem not to think it appropriately to simply apologise.
When did that get dropped from being polite by society.
As evidenced by this and other threads, society does not have unified view. | | | |
| Thread removed? on 13:32 - Feb 6 with 1537 views | BlueBadger |
| Thread removed? on 11:17 - Feb 6 by eireblue |
The important part is, it isn’t up to the person making a comment to decide if it is racially offensive.
I used a term someone found offensive, others in the same community didn’t find it offensive, I still apologised, and changed the post.
It really isn’t that difficult. |
Essentially, this. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Thread removed? on 13:44 - Feb 6 with 1505 views | lowhouseblue |
| Thread removed? on 13:24 - Feb 6 by eireblue |
When did we as a society decide that some stating they have been abused is merely subjective, and we seem not to think it appropriately to simply apologise.
When did that get dropped from being polite by society.
As evidenced by this and other threads, society does not have unified view. |
in terms of when, i'm going to say since descartes. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Thread removed? on 17:04 - Feb 6 with 1393 views | Pendejo |
| Thread removed? on 12:10 - Feb 6 by bluelagos |
If you reedit your first sentence I'll try and answer when am clearer on your point/question.
Guessing it's: How does what you have written about an individual's attitude towards GRT <differ?> to <what> some this board have written about the Police?
Can only speak for myself - I try not to use ACAB (Which isn't always easy) as I recognise there are a few good apples. So mine is more of a MCAB which I appreciate won't sit easy with many people, but that is my genuine experience of the police.
As for those who do use ACAB (or even me using MCAB) - I'd make a couple of additional points.
1. The police are not an oppressed minority - they are the ones doing the nasty stuff (often)
2. Is only be highlighting the many failing of the police that we can hope to get change / improvement.
3. I think those in denial about the police failings are far more of a problem that anyone stating ACAB.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2022 12:22]
|
Thanks for the edit, can't even blame auto correct.
My point, I think, was more about words that may incite others to take hatred to another level. Hate speech?
If one were to, for example, say all xxxx are thieves - that would be deemed as hate speech. Xxxx select any racial group.
Then MCAB is surely promoting hate?
The police may not be an oppressed minority, but how many of us in our daily jobs potentially put ourselves in danger, risk having the words "line of duty" after our names posthumously?
Blakelock, Harper, Fletcher etc. |  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 18:30 - Feb 6 with 1324 views | eireblue |
| Thread removed? on 13:44 - Feb 6 by lowhouseblue |
in terms of when, i'm going to say since descartes. |
Meaningless. | | | |
| Thread removed? on 18:39 - Feb 6 with 1306 views | PhilTWTD |
| Thread removed? on 11:38 - Feb 6 by Ryorry |
Can't threads like that just be locked, after a final post from yourself explaining why? Or, as is apparently going to happen with one of the slave trader statues that was toppled over & daubed with paint by protesters, be moved to a 'museum' (online archive) in its current state, as a kind of 'living history' educational piece?
As GB said, it had great educational value & thoughtful debate, straight deletion means that's now lost forever, which is a great shame - not least because the same topic is likely to arise again and instead of being able to refer back to that thread, the same unacceptable argument from a small number of people is likely to arise again. |
Perhaps. I didn't really think to, to be honest. Maybe that is an option in those circumstances, although there's still the question of whether we should have a post which is perceived to have been prejudiced remaining for posterity. |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 18:40 - Feb 6 with 1304 views | PhilTWTD |
| Thread removed? on 11:32 - Feb 6 by bluelagos |
It's a difficult one tbf.
I'd have preferred that if Phil deems the comments (even though challenged) should be removed - why not delete just the offensive comments?
Glassers posted quite an eye opener on prejudice against GRT and how his wife had faced and dealt with prejudice. Not many of us have interactions with travelers so it was an eye opener to read his comments.
It really does seem to be the only widely accepted/ignored form of racism in the UK. |
I do tend to go with what the board thinks on these things as much as my own opinion. As I say, I could see reasons for leaving it and reasons for removing it. As it is, similar discussions have been reignited in this thread. | | | |
| Thread removed? on 19:06 - Feb 6 with 1256 views | Ryorry |
| Thread removed? on 18:39 - Feb 6 by PhilTWTD |
Perhaps. I didn't really think to, to be honest. Maybe that is an option in those circumstances, although there's still the question of whether we should have a post which is perceived to have been prejudiced remaining for posterity. |
Fair enough 👠|  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 19:39 - Feb 6 with 1208 views | gtsb1966 |
| Thread removed? on 18:40 - Feb 6 by PhilTWTD |
I do tend to go with what the board thinks on these things as much as my own opinion. As I say, I could see reasons for leaving it and reasons for removing it. As it is, similar discussions have been reignited in this thread. |
My posts weren't racist and I think you have shown that by not rebuking me. I will admit though that when it comes to remarking on how travellers seem to break the law and leave a mess I should've said that's a minority. I'll hold my hands up to that. I've had a few messages from people on here saying I'm correct on what I'm saying but should've said that it's the minority not the majority. I agree with that. |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 20:02 - Feb 6 with 1164 views | MattinLondon |
| Thread removed? on 19:39 - Feb 6 by gtsb1966 |
My posts weren't racist and I think you have shown that by not rebuking me. I will admit though that when it comes to remarking on how travellers seem to break the law and leave a mess I should've said that's a minority. I'll hold my hands up to that. I've had a few messages from people on here saying I'm correct on what I'm saying but should've said that it's the minority not the majority. I agree with that. |
If it’s the minority then surly you can apply that logic to every ethnic group? |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 20:08 - Feb 6 with 1144 views | gtsb1966 |
| Thread removed? on 20:02 - Feb 6 by MattinLondon |
If it’s the minority then surly you can apply that logic to every ethnic group? |
Yes. Again, I don't apologise for what I said but i do acknowledge it isn't all | | | |
| Thread removed? on 20:41 - Feb 6 with 1090 views | HARRY10 |
| Thread removed? on 20:08 - Feb 6 by gtsb1966 |
Yes. Again, I don't apologise for what I said but i do acknowledge it isn't all |
So you accept that what you said was inaccurate, but you don't feel the need to apologise, though.
For my part, yes there are a number of supposed travellers whose behaviour amounts to criminal, persistently.
However, I am also aware that they are an easy target.
How many thousands have they cost in clearing up after them - in comparison to the billions wasted on useless PPE, or the billions lost in furlough fraud ? All through incompetence.
How many have they actually killed - compared to the 180,000 lost in COVID deaths due to the country not going into lock down sooner ?
People like you rail against immigrants and asylum seekers, all of whom want to work. The loss of the former has had a devastating effect on the UK economy - compared to the Russian oligarchs (criminals) given a right to remain because they bunged the government a couple of million.
For my part it is not your selective racism, not that you like so many of your kind are so easily manipulated. Played upon because you need an easy target for your daily two minutes of hate. Just as those in the slums of Belfast used to squabble over what colour the friggin' kerb stones were painted.
"It's out culture, and so it is, and that's the truth and so it is................" Blind to the knowledge that the Pope actually supported William IV at the Battle of the Boyne. That Catholic europe was opposed to Catholic King James.
And what did those stupid b'stards achieve. Not the ownership of a stately home as their betters did. No, for them, it was FARK HALL just as it is now. And as long as clueless idiots like you allow yourself to be told what you should get angry about this will continue. |  | | |
| Thread removed? on 20:48 - Feb 6 with 1063 views | gtsb1966 |
| Thread removed? on 20:41 - Feb 6 by HARRY10 |
So you accept that what you said was inaccurate, but you don't feel the need to apologise, though.
For my part, yes there are a number of supposed travellers whose behaviour amounts to criminal, persistently.
However, I am also aware that they are an easy target.
How many thousands have they cost in clearing up after them - in comparison to the billions wasted on useless PPE, or the billions lost in furlough fraud ? All through incompetence.
How many have they actually killed - compared to the 180,000 lost in COVID deaths due to the country not going into lock down sooner ?
People like you rail against immigrants and asylum seekers, all of whom want to work. The loss of the former has had a devastating effect on the UK economy - compared to the Russian oligarchs (criminals) given a right to remain because they bunged the government a couple of million.
For my part it is not your selective racism, not that you like so many of your kind are so easily manipulated. Played upon because you need an easy target for your daily two minutes of hate. Just as those in the slums of Belfast used to squabble over what colour the friggin' kerb stones were painted.
"It's out culture, and so it is, and that's the truth and so it is................" Blind to the knowledge that the Pope actually supported William IV at the Battle of the Boyne. That Catholic europe was opposed to Catholic King James.
And what did those stupid b'stards achieve. Not the ownership of a stately home as their betters did. No, for them, it was FARK HALL just as it is now. And as long as clueless idiots like you allow yourself to be told what you should get angry about this will continue. |
Your second paragraph is correct. The rest of your post is a waste of time. | | | |
| Thread removed? on 20:51 - Feb 6 with 1040 views | bluelagos |
| Thread removed? on 17:04 - Feb 6 by Pendejo |
Thanks for the edit, can't even blame auto correct.
My point, I think, was more about words that may incite others to take hatred to another level. Hate speech?
If one were to, for example, say all xxxx are thieves - that would be deemed as hate speech. Xxxx select any racial group.
Then MCAB is surely promoting hate?
The police may not be an oppressed minority, but how many of us in our daily jobs potentially put ourselves in danger, risk having the words "line of duty" after our names posthumously?
Blakelock, Harper, Fletcher etc. |
If you are saying my position on policing, which is highly critical but is based on plenty of examples promotes hatred, I'd disagree.
It promotes, as I have, a hatred for the corruption and dishonesty that is prevalent within British policing.
The debate as to how much corruption there is comes down to a matter of opinion, but I am not shy in pointing out the many cases of corruption that the police suffer.
By your logic, was it hateful for Machperson to label the Met institutionally racist? I'd say in so doing he did more for British policing than any one else I know of.
You of course can quote some police officers tragically killed. But none of that is remotely relevant to issues as hand. And if you wish to start a list, am sure the list of those killed by police officers will be quite a long one too. |  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 20:54 - Feb 6 with 1024 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Thread removed? on 20:41 - Feb 6 by HARRY10 |
So you accept that what you said was inaccurate, but you don't feel the need to apologise, though.
For my part, yes there are a number of supposed travellers whose behaviour amounts to criminal, persistently.
However, I am also aware that they are an easy target.
How many thousands have they cost in clearing up after them - in comparison to the billions wasted on useless PPE, or the billions lost in furlough fraud ? All through incompetence.
How many have they actually killed - compared to the 180,000 lost in COVID deaths due to the country not going into lock down sooner ?
People like you rail against immigrants and asylum seekers, all of whom want to work. The loss of the former has had a devastating effect on the UK economy - compared to the Russian oligarchs (criminals) given a right to remain because they bunged the government a couple of million.
For my part it is not your selective racism, not that you like so many of your kind are so easily manipulated. Played upon because you need an easy target for your daily two minutes of hate. Just as those in the slums of Belfast used to squabble over what colour the friggin' kerb stones were painted.
"It's out culture, and so it is, and that's the truth and so it is................" Blind to the knowledge that the Pope actually supported William IV at the Battle of the Boyne. That Catholic europe was opposed to Catholic King James.
And what did those stupid b'stards achieve. Not the ownership of a stately home as their betters did. No, for them, it was FARK HALL just as it is now. And as long as clueless idiots like you allow yourself to be told what you should get angry about this will continue. |
"People like you" in a rant about stereotyping. Interesting take. |  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 21:34 - Feb 6 with 966 views | HARRY10 |
| Thread removed? on 20:48 - Feb 6 by gtsb1966 |
Your second paragraph is correct. The rest of your post is a waste of time. |
Taken out of context, as you have done it has at least highlighted where the problem lies with some on here.
As the old saying gies. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
But still, well done for reading the post right through. That's a beginning.
Though whether it will make your sort begin to think for yourselves (assuming you have that capacity) is another matter.
But we live in hope. | | | |
| Thread removed? on 22:04 - Feb 6 with 922 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Thread removed? on 21:34 - Feb 6 by HARRY10 |
Taken out of context, as you have done it has at least highlighted where the problem lies with some on here.
As the old saying gies. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
But still, well done for reading the post right through. That's a beginning.
Though whether it will make your sort begin to think for yourselves (assuming you have that capacity) is another matter.
But we live in hope. |
"Your sort." Doubling down! | |
| |
| Thread removed? on 00:02 - Feb 7 with 857 views | monytowbray |
| Thread removed? on 11:57 - Feb 6 by Pendejo |
How does what you have written about an individual's attitude towards GRT to some this board have written about the Police?
I fully realise the Police are not a racial group, but some of the hostile attitudes (ACAB) would appear to me to legitimise the generalisation of an attitude towards a group as a whole... in the same way as manifested by racism.
With regards to GRT, I have had more positive than negative contact. The location I worked from 2004-2020 was next to a permanent traveller site, they owned our site and thus were protective; tipping us off when the "bad apples" were around and to organise extra security.
My own hatred is reserved for thieves, rapists, bullies and the bone idle.
Don't even hate Giant Ulla and the Naaaridge scum family, better to support them than Livmanchelarsetotham cunited spurty. [Post edited 6 Feb 2022 12:04]
|
Straw man compares apples to oranges. |  |
| |
| Thread removed? on 00:07 - Feb 7 with 855 views | monytowbray |
Anyone remember on here a few years back having to explain the word “P*k*y” was a racial slur?
Many posters felt it was the WOKE MOB making things up and doubled down on using said word, be it out of bigotry or BANTZ.
I will say a lot of those posters are gone now mind you. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
