CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I hate that she always speaks like a fat chap regaining composure having just climbed the stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I hate that she always speaks like a fat chap regaining composure having just climbed the stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Anybody that thinks racism isn't still at the core of the system is clearly a lost cause - (I'm not commenting on this woman) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Diane Abbott? Yeah, I probably would. She'd have to stop talking bollocks though, to be fair, or it'd be a right turn off. Especially if she commented on how my small white penis was smaller than the average black mans, the bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I wonder if she thought no one else could see the message, feel sorry for the white people living in Hackney whom she is supposed to represent (and the black people for that matter!). I think you'll find it's quite impossible to use Twitter for more than a few seconds without being aware that everyone can see what you said. I imagine she was quite happy for people to see what she said because she thought it innocuous. As it was, in my view. And to be honest, it has to be taken out of its context and presented against a backdrop of suspicion of assertive, ambitious black women, and presented to an audience who would be fearful of that, for it to have any worrying overtones at all. How insecure and fearful must you be, to feel threatened by a remark like this? I feel sorry for anyone who worries about her remark, and I wonder what other demons must plague your thoughts. Or in other words, get a **** grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Personally I don't give two hoots about what Ms. Abbott tweeted. Far too much time is spent on people becoming outraged at what this or that person said or conveyed. The thing about racism is that I always have the feeling that it is proportionally more prevalent in black members of our society than white ones. So, just as white people have undesirables like Nick Griffin to remind us of how reprehensible such views are, perhaps someone like Diane Abbott will serve to remind black people in society of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Far too much time is spent on people becoming outraged at what this or that person said or conveyed. The outrage industry is going from strength to strength, staffed mainly by people who spend their lives perceiving offence on behalf of others. See mjmooney's previous sig: So you’re offended. So f'king what? The question seems flippant at first glance. Even rude. But it is a serious and profound question. You’re feelings are hurt. You’ve chosen to take offence at somebody else’s words. So f'king what? It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves? So. F'king. What? Before you picket a theatre, write to your local paper, fire your AK-47 in the air, or call for someone’s head on a plate, ask yourself this question. Can you give an honest and coherent answer, explaining why your personal hurt feelings take precedence over someone else’s freedom? Because you need to have an answer to this question. And it has to be a good one. Otherwise you will just be dismissed as an irrational, immature cry-baby with an inflated sense of the importance of your own sensibilities. So. F'king. What? Well said, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't agree sorry, Stephen Fry is a self important clearing in the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The world is changing and allows for more protests and expressions of outrage through things like the Internet and general social media outlets. In the past you typically had localised protest, often from some hairy arsed loud mouthed opinionated (often racial) twunt fuelled by beer in the pub. Pub culture has now changed now from being a place for social "chit chat" though and many express their views to a wider audience through things such as Twitter, forums etc (the irony that we are doing just that here should not be lost). But people should show outrage and express their feelings if they feel they are not happy. Challenging ideas and views is healthy and while not all are valid and often the internet breeds rumour as fact, this should not get away from people expressing their views. We saw Cameron during the riots (when he actually returned from his holidays) talking about closing down BBM and Twitter. Why? Both allowed for a lot more positive anti-riot info and expression than those who in some way supported it. Abbott can be and often is her own worst enemy and the relevant issues she can raise as a black woman who is seemingly successful are often dismissed because of her sometimes extreme words on subjects. On the other side of the political spectrum the Tory party is littered with people who have committed similar errors, look at the bloke recently re the Nazi uniform, the racist / ill informed comments from Boris etc etc. In all areas of political life there are those that are often the biggest contributors to their own downfall. There is still a big issue re racism is this and many countries, there is a problem (as we have seen recently with the Euro thing) re Xenophobia and often these go very much hand in hand and overlap. These issues need continued looking at and continued working on to improve things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't agree sorry, Stephen Fry is a self important clearing in the woods. He is, but the point he makes above is spot on, imo. If someone wants to say white people are racist and the exploitative oppressors of third world nations then they should be free to do so. On the other side of the coin if people want to express negative personally held stereotypes about black people or whoever else they should have the same freedom. Unless they incite violence then it isn't about the view they express (which in any case helpfully identifies them to others as a bit of a chod) but their right as free people to express it. Control of language leads to control of thought by closing down what can and cannot be publicly uttered. That is, or at least should be, anathema to a democratic society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Far too much time is spent on people becoming outraged at what this or that person said or conveyed. The outrage industry is going from strength to strength, staffed mainly by people who spend their lives perceiving offence on behalf of others. See mjmooney's previous sig: So you’re offended. So f'king what? The question seems flippant at first glance. Even rude. But it is a serious and profound question. You’re feelings are hurt. You’ve chosen to take offence at somebody else’s words. So f'king what? It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves? So. F'king. What? Before you picket a theatre, write to your local paper, fire your AK-47 in the air, or call for someone’s head on a plate, ask yourself this question. Can you give an honest and coherent answer, explaining why your personal hurt feelings take precedence over someone else’s freedom? Because you need to have an answer to this question. And it has to be a good one. Otherwise you will just be dismissed as an irrational, immature cry-baby with an inflated sense of the importance of your own sensibilities. So. F'king. What? Well said, that. I think he's half right. What he doesn't refer to is that the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of thinking whether what you want to say is a good idea. I don't want to live in a world where everyone says whatever the hell they want without stopping to consider the consequences of their actions and other peoples feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What he doesn't refer to is that the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of thinking whether what you want to say is a good idea. Therein lies the problem, a good idea according to whom? Surely that's a personal judgement with personal consequences (social rather than legal)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What he doesn't refer to is that the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of thinking whether what you want to say is a good idea. Therein lies the problem, a good idea according to whom? Surely that's a personal judgement with personal consequences (social rather than legal)? Here here... couldn't agree more. If people spout rubbish, as for example racist rubbish, in the final analysis they do more harm to themselves than to others. Let the morons get on with it. Mind you, I do think we should be able to silence the religious community... they really are offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't agree sorry, Stephen Fry is a self important clearing in the woods. He is, but the point he makes above is spot on, imo. If someone wants to say white people are racist and the exploitative oppressors of third world nations then they should be free to do so. On the other side of the coin if people want to express negative personally held stereotypes about black people or whoever else they should have the same freedom. Unless they incite violence then it isn't about the view they express (which in any case helpfully identifies them to others as a bit of a chod) but their right as free people to express it. Control of language leads to control of thought by closing down what can and cannot be publicly uttered. That is, or at least should be, anathema to a democratic society. Ultimately you could make the same argument about causing physical harm instead of just psychological abuse. "Someone complaining about me hitting them is taking away my personal freedom to hit them" to paraphrase Stephen Fry's general argument. "Control of peoples actions leads to control of speech which leads to control of thought" is the continuation of your argument there. Abusing someone verbally is still damaging, in the right circumstances more damaging than a simple punch in the mouth. How can you make a logical and consistent argument that one form of abuse is allowed but not the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 There is still a big issue re racism is this and many countries, there is a problem (as we have seen recently with the Euro thing) re Xenophobia and often these go very much hand in hand and overlap. These issues need continued looking at and continued working on to improve things and yet the bnp pulls it's voters voters from labour and UKIP form the tories ..which would suggest that voting intent wise they don't go hand in hand and that maybe racism is a working class thing and Euro Scepticism is a middle class thing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What he doesn't refer to is that the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of thinking whether what you want to say is a good idea. Therein lies the problem, a good idea according to whom? Surely that's a personal judgement with personal consequences (social rather than legal)? Here here... couldn't agree more. If people spout rubbish, as for example racist rubbish, in the final analysis they do more harm to themselves than to others. Let the morons get on with it. Mind you, I do think we should be able to silence the religious community... they really are offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What he doesn't refer to is that the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of thinking whether what you want to say is a good idea. Therein lies the problem, a good idea according to whom? Surely that's a personal judgement with personal consequences (social rather than legal)? I don't think anyone is suggesting legal action against Miss Abbott? At least not in this thread. Just that she's clearly a cu*t. Freedom of speech that - Diane Abbott, my MP, is a cu*t. I doubt very much that Stephen Fry was referencing racism in his little gambit their either, as succinct and agreeable as it is. People like Abbott are food for the BNP and organisations like them and that's not a good thing regardless of anybody's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 There is still a big issue re racism is this and many countries, there is a problem (as we have seen recently with the Euro thing) re Xenophobia and often these go very much hand in hand and overlap. These issues need continued looking at and continued working on to improve things and yet the bnp pulls it's voters voters from labour and UKIP form the tories ..which would suggest that voting intent wise they don't go hand in hand and that maybe racism is a working class thing and Euro Scepticism is a middle class thing ? Very scientific reasoning there. Racism doesn't have any class divide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Racism doesn't have any class divide. my reply was more about highlighting the stupidity that anyone wanting out of the calamity of European Fiscal Union is being Xenophobic but sweeping generalisations aside whilst racism comes from all walks certainly when it came to voting bnp it was more prevalent amongst the working classes *the 2009 local elections the bnp vote consisted of 36 per cent manual workers, 11 per cent professionals....In the country at large, professional workers outnumber manual workers by 20 per cent to 18 per cent ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggieavfc Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 if this was the other way round white mp making a racist comment then if an apology would of been enough i doubt it and we wouldnt of heard the last of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts