Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

If it’s a term which is exclusively used to insult a group based on the colour of their skin, age, and sex it’s racist, ageist and sexist. But I think it’s actually directed at those guilty of thoughtcrime, the scum who don’t agree with Jeremy and the people who do his thinking for him. Which makes it a fascist insult. It’s funny on two counts:

- if the people who this is directed at (probably me) react with outrage they are shown up as the broflakes they are
- the incredibly witty people who thought it up to have a go at anyone who doesn’t agree with them and their Dear Leader are falling further behind the most inept, incompetent and crappy government in my memory in the polls by the day. Tories now 5% ahead, after local elections where Labour fell further back in 50% of the marginal seats they need to win to form the next government (I know local elections are not necessarily the best predictor, but still...) perhaps the brightest and best of Corbynistas would be better off spending their time dreaming up some policies which people might vote for.

Meanwhile, the States of Guernsey are having a grown up discussion about assisted dying, which they might allow. The argument against this, usually put forward by various religious spokespeople and sundry others who enjoy speaking on behalf of others without consulting those they claim to speak for, usually focuses on the fear that the ‘poor and vulnerable’ will feel ‘pressured’ into taking the option. Possibly, but why should that prevent the rich and invulnerable, or even just those who can think for themselves, having the choice? Go Guernsey, the unlikely beacon of progressive thinking!

 

[Stroller]

If it’s a term which is exclusively used to insult a group based on the colour of their skin, age, and sex it’s racist, ageist and sexist. It’s funny on two counts:

- if the people who this is directed at (probably me) react with outrage they are shown up as the broflakes they are
- the incredibly witty people who thought it up to have a go at anyone who doesn’t agree with them and their Dear Leader are falling further behind the most inept, incompetent and crappy government in my memory in the polls by the day. Tories now 5% ahead, after local elections where Labour fell further back in 50% of the marginal seats they need to win to form the next government (I know local elections are not necessarily the best predictor, but still...) perhaps the brightest and best of Corbynistas would be better off spending their time dreaming up some policies which people might vote for.

Meanwhile, the States of Guernsey are having a grown up discussion about assisted dying, which they might allow. The argument against this, usually put forward by various religious spokespeople and sundry others who enjoy speaking on behalf of others without consulting those they claim to speak for, usually focuses on the fear that the ‘poor and vulnerable’ will feel ‘pressured’ into taking the option. Possibly, but why should that prevent the rich and invulnerable, or even just those who can think for themselves, having the choice? Go Guernsey, the unlikely beacon of progressive thinking!

I had to look up Broflake. Shame on me.

Assisted dying is surely the kind of thing that should be put to a referendum.

 

[sb_73]

I had to look up Broflake. Shame on me.

Assisted dying is surely the kind of thing that should be put to a referendum.

Broflake is like over cooked and crispy gammon.

I won’t be lured into a debate, but I think it’s an individual choice, not a collective one. Plus I’m sick of people I don’t respect taking decisions for me.

 

[Stroller]

Broflake is like over cooked and crispy gammon.

I won’t be lured into a debate, but I think it’s an individual choice, not a collective one.

Yes, but we're not currently allowed the choice.

 

[kiwiqpr]

Assisted dying is surely the kind of thing that should be put to a referendum.

would 52% in favour be enough

 

[kiwiqpr]

You must log in or register to see images

Labours name calling vs meeting real people at the door dilemma. #gammon

 

[durbar2003]

Ambidextrous

This should be in the MXs thread.

 

[kiwiqpr]

You must log in or register to see images

Angry

You must log in or register to see images

Red-faced

You must log in or register to see images

White

You must log in or register to see images

Old

You must log in or register to see images

Man

You must log in or register to see images

#JeremyGammon

 

[Willhoops]

i think i've mentioned before it's more about the intent and tone with how "racist" words are dealt out. When i random stranger calls me a chinky, then obviously i'll probably take offence especially if they are doing it for "fun" around their mates.

If my mate was ribbing me or just calling me (in fact my other oriental mates sometimes use it) then i don't take it as racism as i know they mean no intent on it.

Likewise casual racism jokes etc from my friends.

Gammon is casual racism but just empty words with no historical context about it.

Owen jones and the left (not corbyn) who think its fine and acceptable are obviously showing their hypocritical nature about it (especially since it's used in a derogatory manner) and it's been used to describe essentially white people.

Pretty funny though

Nail on head, to be honest the whole gammon thing is a childish response to a load of the other stooooooped lazy terminology used to group people rather than treat people as individuals. For me the only important part of the description as I take it, is it's anyone who reads the headline of a daily mail article, some Britain's First (or the new equivalent) post on tinterweb, or something similar gets angry without knowing if firstly the story has any basis in reality, I was banned from BF faceache page when I followed a story back commenting on each person/page on the way to advise them that it didn't actually happen, with BF, rather than retract the story, I was blocked and the comment removed (it was a story about a British soldier in uniform who got refused service in Tesco because it might offend the Muslims, it didn't happen, the brief outline before clicking on the link included a street that didn't exist in London, and the link took you nowhere) yet I know this story went viral **** loads raged about it... It didn't happen. Secondly even if part of the story is true, people don't look at the context and pick out selective parts to fit in so they can be outraged. Thirdly is the whole faux outrage, I've noticed this a lot with the anti Semitism stories with labour, certain people will be fuming about it, yet when similar bigoted views, comments have come from 'their political' allegiance it's somehow different or gets ignored. If you are going to get outraged by racism, bigoted views and xenophobia if you aren't consistent, to me it shows you really don't care, and it's all about who the accused is. Lastly is when certain stuff comes up, more noticed within gender fluid, trans gender, etc.. why do people actually give a ****? Is it going to effect you directly? No, so why give people five minutes of fame? I personally don't care if someone wants to be a man, woman, manwoman with a unicorn horn, it's their life and it's not going to effect me and is none of my business.

Where I think Bobby has really hit the nail on the head is racist, xenophobic and bigoted terms do have historical context of oppression, hatred, killings and genocide. So if certain words fall under this why use them? Is it that difficult not to use a few words?

 

[kiwiqpr]

Why do so many people lazily dismiss the mail/guardian etc just because it's the mail/guardian etc

 

[Willhoops]

Why do so many people lazily dismiss the mail/guardian etc just because it's the mail/guardian etc

Not mentioned the guardian, however the mail's accuracy in reporting facts has been brought into question, oh and they just make **** up. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8

 

[BobbyD]

Nail on head, to be honest the whole gammon thing is a childish response to a load of the other stooooooped lazy terminology used to group people rather than treat people as individuals. For me the only important part of the description as I take it, is it's anyone who reads the headline of a daily mail article, some Britain's First (or the new equivalent) post on tinterweb, or something similar gets angry without knowing if firstly the story has any basis in reality, I was banned from BF faceache page when I followed a story back commenting on each person/page on the way to advise them that it didn't actually happen, with BF, rather than retract the story, I was blocked and the comment removed (it was a story about a British soldier in uniform who got refused service in Tesco because it might offend the Muslims, it didn't happen, the brief outline before clicking on the link included a street that didn't exist in London, and the link took you nowhere) yet I know this story went viral **** loads raged about it... It didn't happen. Secondly even if part of the story is true, people don't look at the context and pick out selective parts to fit in so they can be outraged. Thirdly is the whole faux outrage, I've noticed this a lot with the anti Semitism stories with labour, certain people will be fuming about it, yet when similar bigoted views, comments have come from 'their political' allegiance it's somehow different or gets ignored. If you are going to get outraged by racism, bigoted views and xenophobia if you aren't consistent, to me it shows you really don't care, and it's all about who the accused is. Lastly is when certain stuff comes up, more noticed within gender fluid, trans gender, etc.. why do people actually give a ****? Is it going to effect you directly? No, so why give people five minutes of fame? I personally don't care if someone wants to be a man, woman, manwoman with a unicorn horn, it's their life and it's not going to effect me and is none of my business.

Where I think Bobby has really hit the nail on the head is racist, xenophobic and bigoted terms do have historical context of oppression, hatred, killings and genocide. So if certain words fall under this why use them? Is it that difficult not to use a few words?

Yes a lot of people play the person instead of the debate In front of them and this is where politics in my lifetime has gone bad and toxic.

Then again something like order order which I've read a few links cause of the pl politics thread you know is just some distorted words that I just don't even bother to read as I know it's a lie and it's not worth my bother reading that and having to fact check it else where.

One thing I don't like is the dilution of language where words are starting to disappear like fat. Bullying is horrible but if I use it if its used in a normal way, it shouldnt be banned because someone else is offended by it.

Not mentioned the guardian, however the mail's accuracy in reporting facts has been brought into question, oh and they just make **** up. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8

Don't read the mail myself personally But I have seen them post stories only for them to be wrong (not breaking news ones like terrorism as no one has all the facts) but even boring mundane stories which they haven't bothered to fact check.

 

[Willhoops]

Yes a lot of people play the person instead of the debate In front of them and this is where politics in my lifetime has gone bad and toxic.

Then again something like order order which I've read a few links cause of the pl politics thread you know is just some distorted words that I just don't even bother to read as I know it's a lie and it's not worth my bother reading that and having to fact check it else where.

One thing I don't like is the dilution of language where words are starting to disappear like fat. Bullying is horrible but if I use it if its used in a normal way, it shouldnt be banned because someone else is offended by it.



Don't read the mail myself personally But I have seen them post stories only for them to be wrong (not breaking news ones like terrorism as no one has all the facts) but even boring mundane stories which they haven't bothered to fact check.

And you are aware of Saxton and the ****e he posts from the mail, it's no coincidence what the Mail decides is newsworthy and what isn't. I'm not suggesting that most media has some biased, but the mails is just ridiculous.

 

[BobbyD]

And you are aware of Saxton and the ****e he posts from the mail, it's no coincidence what the Mail decides is newsworthy and what isn't. I'm not suggesting that most media has some biased, but the mails is just ridiculous.

yeah, i've obviously just ignored those stories. It's funny because it just goes gives me more confirmation bias (probably wrongly as now i think its only foreigners when really its probably that and the poor) that the daily mail is only picking on the foreigners.

What i'm not going to argue is about whether foreigners are committing crimes as i'm sure they can't just make up a crime story. What it does show is that the paper is just covering crime to paint a picture to its readers (even if you have 2 a days which is 730 stories a year) when there are tens of thousands of murders alone in the UK let alone other crime

 

[Stroller]

Where I think Bobby has really hit the nail on the head is racist, xenophobic and bigoted terms do have historical context of oppression, hatred, killings and genocide. So if certain words fall under this why use them? Is it that difficult not to use a few words?

This is what is so ridiculous about the 'gammon' outrage. When was the last time that middle-aged pink men were oppressed?

 

[BobbyD]

This is what is so ridiculous about the 'gammon' outrage. When was the last time that middle-aged white men were oppressed?

i think the outrage is more about the hypocrisy of identity politics which the modern left (well at least online anyway) are about.

The fact is, if there was a new term to label black people, homosexuals, etc which had no historical meaning to it but was used in a negative way, you can bet your ass that the left would be in uproar. This is exactly what the left have done with this gammon label of a middle class white man.

 

[Stroller]

i think the outrage is more about the hypocrisy of identity politics which the modern left (well at least online anyway) are about.

The fact is, if there was a new term to label black people, homosexuals, etc which had no historical meaning to it but was used in a negative way, you can bet your ass that the left would be in uproar. This is exactly what the left have done with this gammon label of a middle class white man.

I disagree. I think racist or homophobic labels are about oppression (historical or current), and the group to which the 'gammon' label is being attached have not been and are not being oppressed.

 

[Willhoops]

This is what is so ridiculous about the 'gammon' outrage. When was the last time that middle-aged white men were oppressed?

That's the rhetoric that is being sold and the answer is pretty much never, as a white, straight, male I have never in my life had any proper **** for it the odd wannabe kid gangster trying out new lingo but nothing more. However if you are female and/or a different ethnicity or of a different sexuality throughout history and still today there are massive flaws in equality, for instance pretty much every time I go on a night out there will always be some men find it perfectly acceptable to put there hands on a woman they don't know be it a slap on the arse, although I have seen a lot worse . The media is pressing that you can't do this, can't do that, can't even say I'm English these days without being called racist. When the truth of the matter is that just isn't the case you get called a racist when you say or do racist things, it's that simple.

Don't get me wrong there is the odd idiot that cries racist and things on gender issues, etc.. but the answer is this is the odd person here or there, by highlighting it with outrage you are giving this person a platform... just don't do it

 

[Willhoops]

i think the outrage is more about the hypocrisy of identity politics which the modern left (well at least online anyway) are about.

The fact is, if there was a new term to label black people, homosexuals, etc which had no historical meaning to it but was used in a negative way, you can bet your ass that the left would be in uproar. This is exactly what the left have done with this gammon label of a middle class white man.

Have they really? Or is it a few people on twatter and then people responding to score points?

 

[Willhoops]

I disagree. I think racist or homophobic labels are about oppression (historical or current), and the group to which the 'gammon' label is being attached have not been and are not being oppressed.

For me it's all about the personal characteristics shown by the person as well, it just so happens the majority are middle aged white men. My other half is mixed race and she got outraged by something on faceache (again it wasn't true) so, in a joking/ironic way I have called her it already.