NJ2 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Why would you phone the drug crisis line to talk about sex addiction? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Craig Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Anyone know Richard? Maybe pop round or give him a call, make sure he's OK. Richard has tweeted this morning. He's safe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 2 hours ago, TavTastic said: At uni they reckoned over a third of us left with a drink problem. After the final exams you'd go and see the careers advisor. His name was Jack Daniels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Richard has tweeted this morning. He's safe. Yeah, saw that. Still doesn't seem to be in a good place though. Better, but not good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 51 minutes ago, The_Craig said: Richard has tweeted this morning. He's safe. "Peace and quite". Send for the Spelling Police. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I missed all the Danny Baker chat: I listened to Danny a lot (Brown sauce btw) and my take is that he knew exactly how the picture could/would be interpreted and had all the clever come-backs and rebuttals in mind for the wee Twitter backlash that he hoped it might create. IMO he probably searched for and had the picture/'joke' ready to go for a while before the birth. He didn't consider that he'd be punted right off the bat for it though.Why would he take down the tweet so soon after then? He would surely have known there was a chance it would go as far as it has as this sort of thing has happened several times before and I’m bit convinced he took a calculated risk just for the sake of a few witty twitter comebacks that he had rehearsed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburgh phil Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 My life is complete. I recently chatted to Dave Benson Phillips about his homemade soup and Mike Tyson followed me. This is livin'...L I V I N. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 5 hours ago, ali_91 said: In a dozen pages of outrageous stupidity, the notion that white people are able to determine what is racist more than a POC takes the biscuit. Welcome back. Feel free to establish your arguments with logical reasoning and/or evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 The notion that white people are in a position to subjectively look at a situation and determine racist intent, when white people all have a starting position of different levels of inherent bias and white privilege, is ridiculous. The majority of white people in Scotland think it’s fine to refer to a Chinese restaurant as a ‘chinky,’ ffs. Intent is not a prerequisite for something to be racist either, and the notion it, or strong evidential basis, is needed for someone to be cancelled is fundamentally wrong. Ignorance is not a justification. There are indeed inherent biases of all different forms, but generalising about white people being unable to rationalise racist intent is just not on. And I would argue that it's not a majority that would use that term for Chinese takeaway. Still more than it should be though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ali_91 said: The notion that white people are in a position to subjectively look at a situation and determine racist intent, when white people all have a starting position of different levels of inherent bias and white privilege, is ridiculous. The majority of white people in Scotland think it’s fine to refer to a Chinese restaurant as a ‘chinky,’ ffs. Intent is not a prerequisite for something to be racist either, and the notion it, or strong evidential basis, is needed for someone to be cancelled is fundamentally wrong. Ignorance is not a justification. Everybody has inherent biases which sub-consciously influence their thinking. However, it is the people who have the inherent biases who are best placed to describe the other, conscious, patterns of thought that exists. All other people, looking from the outside, will not know whether a particular thought pattern is subconscious or conscious. To put in another way, if the issue is about a subjective mind-state, then a person with a strong understanding of the subject individual is better placed than a person with a weak understanding of the subjective individual. This is just so obviously true. There are dangers associated with this approach, such as that an 'accused' individual can lie about their mindstate, however that does change the basic obvious logic of the foregoing. Instead, what that suggests it that rather than having a subjective approach to determining guilt, one should take an objective approach, and that is what I have been advocating. Quote Intent is not a prerequisite for something to be racist either. This probably explains why you feel like what I am saying is instinctively wrong - because we are talking about two completely different concepts. So why are you even bothering to be aggro? On any traditional interpretation of the word, racist conduct requires racist intent. If you take some modern, Twitter-hhyped definition then that's up to you, but you should really think hard about the following: Quote the notion a strong evidential basis is needed for someone to be cancelled is fundamentally wrong You are arguing that people should lose their careers and reputations, and potentially their friends and family connections, without a strong evidential basis. This is exactly the sort of approach that leads to This is persecution. This is the modus operandi for the shooting of innocent black people in America and all other forms of injustice committed without punishment against 'undesirables'. What you have just said is so dangerous and morally wrong, and it is alarming because it is so common to see people who are apparently good people advocating these sorts of injustices. I am afraid it is just a kind of simple minded fudge which doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny, and a reminder that there are just as many dumb people parroting bullshit on the "good" side as the "bad" side, and I thank god that these sorts of immature ideas are largely confined to the angry and simple-minded masses on social media, rather than the majority of people on the streets of this country. Edited May 18, 2019 by Margaret Thatcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) @ali_91 it's not why they get shot, it's a less serious example of the same thing: bad shit happening to allegedly "undesirable" people without evidential basis. But, I apologise, for continuing to engage with you, for I have realised that you are a dumb cun.t, and I wish you were instead on the side of the racists, because you would greatly depreciate their cause. Edited May 18, 2019 by Margaret Thatcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 Apparently Ayrshire folk use "black b*****ds" and "chinky" entirely innocent of the connotations. Fair enough, but after been told how people find it insulting, surely they should stop? I'm sure Ayrshire folk are as well mannered and polite as anyone else btw. Insulting language is in the ear of the beholder. Oh not this again. There no defence for the term "chinky". It's lazy and offensive. The other example has a completely different meaning. The two are the therefore not the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Margaret Thatcher said: On any traditional interpretation of the word, racist conduct requires racist intent. Apparently Ayrshire folk use "black b*****ds" and "chinky" entirely innocent of the connotations. Fair enough, but after been told how people find it insulting, surely they should stop? I'm sure Ayrshire folk are as well mannered and polite as anyone else btw. Insulting language is in the ear of the beholder. Edited May 18, 2019 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, ali_91 said: I agree with that, but you’ve fucked the quote up! Cheers, I may have fucked up the time continuum by fixing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 I honestly have no idea what point you are making. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said: I honestly have no idea what point you are making. Clearly. People saying things about, or using terms to refer to other races, don't get to decide whether they're being insulting or not. If a stranger doesn't like being referred to as coloured, you stop using it. Otherwise you're being deliberately rude, and a racist. No matter whether or not it it used to the normal language in the 50's. Edited May 18, 2019 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 Okay, well I disagree with the three words where you say "and a racist". If you don't know why they don't like it and your reasons for continuing to use it have nothing to do with race, then I don't see how you can go as far as saying that makes someone a racist. Imagine a kid who just doesn't like his teacher and doesn't want to do what he's told. that would be completely unconnected to race. If you want to know more about my opinion you can go back a few pages and read my posts there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said: Imagine a kid who just doesn't like his teacher and doesn't want to do what he's told. that would be completely unconnected to race. Eh? If she referred to him as a picaninny it would. I don't understand your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.