Racism Part two

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Full comments, no spin, no headlines and the comments are rabid. We have a serious problem with racism still.

And BBC tweet:

 

The replies to that tweet is exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to delete social media. It's genuinely depressing. People are such words removed.

[chrisp65]

Perfectly possible to design safe unisex accessible wc’s in line with the equality act.

Existing facilities can be tricky to refurbish and replan, but there is nothing fundamentally exotic or difficult about all WC’s being uni / inclusive.

Money and imagination and the problem goes away.

[sharkyvilla]

My old man says 'coloured' most of the time, I can almost hear him carefully working out in his head what the right word is and it still comes out as the wrong one.  He is secretary of the football club as well where we have had lots of black players, I hate to think of him saying 'coloured' in that capacity, I'm sure he must have done at some stage.  He means well and I hope if he does do it then not too much offence is taken.

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said:

My old man says 'coloured' most of the time, I can almost hear him carefully working out in his head what the right word is and it still comes out as the wrong one.  He is secretary of the football club as well where we have had lots of black players, I hate to think of him saying 'coloured' in that capacity, I'm sure he must have done at some stage.  He means well and I hope if he does do it then not too much offence is taken.

As a so called ‘coloured’ person I don’t find that term offensive whatsoever. I’ve been called a lot worse. But I get the backlash when a man in that position says it

If John down the pub said it in front of me I wouldn’t bat an eyelid.  I’d know there’d be no malice. 

[HanoiVillan]

There seems to be a row blowing up over the National Trust, who have commissioned a report looking at the links between slavery, colonialism and abolitionism at their properties, and naturally this has made the likes of Ben 'Had To Fund A Foodbank As A Punishment For Libel' Bradley lose their shit:

If you go far back into ancient history, you might remember a time when some people dumped a statue of a slave trader in a river, and the Conservative Party were extremely upset about that, because, they said, statues performed a vital role of teaching people about history (which they clearly don't, but that was the argument).

Now, we learn that *doing research* and *placing items and places into the context of Britain's history* (ie, actually teaching people about history) is 'revisionism' and 'anti-British rhetoric'.

It's almost like it's all just complete bollocks designed to provoke some sweet fury among their elderly, throbbing-veined base for one more morning eh.

[Follyfoot]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There seems to be a row blowing up over the National Trust, who have commissioned a report looking at the links between slavery, colonialism and abolitionism at their properties, and naturally this has made the likes of Ben 'Had To Fund A Foodbank As A Punishment For Libel' Bradley lose their shit:

If you go far back into ancient history, you might remember a time when some people dumped a statue of a slave trader in a river, and the Conservative Party were extremely upset about that, because, they said, statues performed a vital role of teaching people about history (which they clearly don't, but that was the argument).

Now, we learn that *doing research* and *placing items and places into the context of Britain's history* (ie, actually teaching people about history) is 'revisionism' and 'anti-British rhetoric'.

It's almost like it's all just complete bollocks designed to provoke some sweet fury among their elderly, throbbing-veined base for one more morning eh.

My days of a throbbing veined base in a morning are long gone sadly 

[Mark Albrighton]

It’s just the complete lack of nuance. Seemingly it’s utterly impossible to appreciate the architectural merits of a national trust building AND acknowledge that it was built using money obtained by the suffering of others. 

And they (those unhappy about the national trust acknowledging links to slavery) take it all so ****ing personally. Can’t possibly have a dispassionate analysis of Nelson and the like, because it’s an affront to have the character of some bloke they personally have zero connection with questioned. Because we’re English/British and we’re the good guys and we win. And I’ve entwined that notion so much so into my persona that I simply can’t accept anything to the contrary.

I wouldn’t mind so much, but I know (I guarantee) that in 46 years time, these throbbers or the offspring of these throbbers will be there celebrating “a thousand years of 1066” without it registering that they’re celebrating the probably the country’s most famous defeat. And any mention of “Stamford Bridge” will be met with a bemused “What have Chelsea got to do with it?”.

[Follyfoot]

3 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

It’s just the complete lack of nuance. Seemingly it’s utterly impossible to appreciate the architectural merits of a national trust building AND acknowledge that it was built using money obtained by the suffering of others. 

And they (those unhappy about the national trust acknowledging links to slavery) take it all so ****ing personally. Can’t possibly have a dispassionate analysis of Nelson and the like, because it’s an affront to have the character of some bloke they personally have zero connection with questioned. Because we’re English/British and we’re the good guys and we win. And I’ve entwined that notion so much so into my persona that I simply can’t accept anything to the contrary.

I wouldn’t mind so much, but I know (I guarantee) that in 46 years time, these throbbers or the offspring of these throbbers will be there celebrating “a thousand years of 1066” without it registering that they’re celebrating the probably the country’s most famous defeat. And any mention of “Stamford Bridge” will be met with a bemused “What have Chelsea got to do with it?”.

Whatever

ENG ER LAND ENG ER LAND ENG ER LAND ENGERLAND ENGERLAND TWO WORLD WARS AND ONE WORLD CUP, TRY THAT ONE FOR SIZE FRITZ - DEPTH CHARGE !! BASH THE BOSH !!!

 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

On 11/11/2020 at 19:46, HanoiVillan said:

There seems to be a row blowing up over the National Trust, who have commissioned a report looking at the links between slavery, colonialism and abolitionism at their properties, and naturally this has made the likes of Ben 'Had To Fund A Foodbank As A Punishment For Libel' Bradley lose their shit:

If you go far back into ancient history, you might remember a time when some people dumped a statue of a slave trader in a river, and the Conservative Party were extremely upset about that, because, they said, statues performed a vital role of teaching people about history (which they clearly don't, but that was the argument).

Now, we learn that *doing research* and *placing items and places into the context of Britain's history* (ie, actually teaching people about history) is 'revisionism' and 'anti-British rhetoric'.

It's almost like it's all just complete bollocks designed to provoke some sweet fury among their elderly, throbbing-veined base for one more morning eh.

I think it all depends on what else is happening at the time of these events. For example if you pulled down some statues while the US election was taking place nobody wont have even known about it. 

Timing is everything.

[StefanAVFC]

The state of the comments. Every time I am reminded of the fundamentally racist society we live in.

The worst thing is, this is one of three FFS.

Even if this was the sole advert, it wouldn't be an issue.

Edited November 17, 2020 by StefanAVFC

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The state of the comments. Every time I am reminded of the fundamentally racist society we live in.

They don't even know what they are saying...

She needs to learn her own language

[Seat68]

No sharia here 18. My life. 

[Wainy316]

FFS, I've almost worked myself into a rage reading those.  Thick, thick, thick as pig shit words removed.  

There was some good witty retorts at their expense though.

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

FFS, I've almost worked myself into a rage reading those.  Thick, thick, thick as pig shit words removed.  

There was some good witty retorts at their expense though.

It is actually shocking to me that these people exist AND feel enabled to post such filth. Then I don't know whether they think they are right and don't care or deep down know they are wrong but are just that hateful. And then I don't know which is worse

[Davkaus]

The Daily Mail comments section used to be a right laugh. Then it just became the norm. Any social media, Youtube comments, and my personal most-hated cesspit, the comments section of local news, they're all like it. Filled with bigoted, hateful people, looking for any opportunity to spill their bile. 

A lot of people are just horrendous. I used to think most people were just good generally decent people, but once you peer out from beyond your normal social circle, it's just not true. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Davkaus

[tomav84]

it used to be just newspaper website comments...then twitter. both kind of anonymous platforms. now it's facebook too, which is much less anonymous...the comments on the sainsburys facebook were hideous. and every one that i reported was left up by facebook bizarrely

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

it used to be just newspaper website comments...then twitter. both kind of anonymous platforms. now it's facebook too, which is much less anonymous...the comments on the sainsburys facebook were hideous. and every one that i reported was left up by facebook bizarrely

Free speech is very important and to be protected. But you tell them they're a word removed and it gets deleted pretty quickly. Spreading hatred of entire groups of people is fine. Targeting hatred at one specific person who deserves it isn't. I don't get it.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

Free speech is very important and to be protected. But you tell them they're a word removed and it gets deleted pretty quickly. Spreading hatred of entire groups of people is fine. Targeting hatred at one specific person who deserves it isn't. I don't get it.

Its post on poster... (*but we don't allow hate speech either)

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Free speech is very important and to be protected. But you tell them they're a word removed and it gets deleted pretty quickly. Spreading hatred of entire groups of people is fine. Targeting hatred at one specific person who deserves it isn't. I don't get it.

Facebook is quite severely slanted towards the right, even far right in some cases. Both in user base and in terms of its moderation.

Edited November 17, 2020 by StefanAVFC

[Stevo985]

44 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Free speech is very important and to be protected. But you tell them they're a word removed and it gets deleted pretty quickly. Spreading hatred of entire groups of people is fine. Targeting hatred at one specific person who deserves it isn't. I don't get it.

This happened the other day to me. I replied to a racist tweet and said something like "You're a word removed and anyone who agrees with you is a word removed"

 

Now that's not big or clever and I shouldn't have done it. But it was a blatantly racist tweet.
I was immediately banned from twitter for 12 hours. And I mean immediately

The racist tweet is still up