|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 12, 2023 14:09:22 GMT
Nope. Christian’s seem to need a far higher tolerance to insults and ridicule compared with Muslims. Ill point out again that the word ‘ nigga’ is repeated constantly around popular culture now but lefties never seem to be offended by that . Because the Bible is different to The Quoran, for example it specifically states in the Quoran that to depict Mohamed is disrespectful. It was always my argument in the Charlie Hebdo case, that because something IS ALLOWED, it does not then follow that we should "Do It" simply to provoke anger or a response. It works both ways - Remember the outrage when a group of hot head Muslims burned Poppies ?, they knew they were not breaking the law, but they knew it would draw anger and a response. Its often said that "Theres no respect these days", and my argument has always been - Why offend someone, or a group, or a section of society if there is no real need to offend. ? SURELY THATS A RELIVANT QUESTION Its not a good enough reason to offend people, or a particular group of people, because you can Whats the need to have a comic black doll with big lips, and call it a golly wog ? ... Why would anyone associate themselves with something that could easily cause offence to a particular section of society. ? Well if we are on the Quran I find it very disrespectful that people should openly pray to a God that states that me and mine are no better than filth and humiliating us is fair game. It seems I have to ask again why is it only some that are protected from offense and not others? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 12, 2023 14:12:00 GMT
om15 >> "Is offending someone a crime?"Yes, if it is either racial, faith related or a hate crime Toreodor >> "WOG was considered complimentary when it meant Westernised Oriental Gentleman, then people like you came along."No it was not, and that is a figment of your imagination, the term you refer to is an invention designed to somehow justify using the highly offensive term "wog". om15's question is good one, because it exposes the hypocrisy where you get to pick and choose, where associating a slab of pink meat to a white Leave supporter is OK and encouraged.
Toreodor is also correct and all you've done is prove his case. It's an acronym. To be offended by it really only exposes an emotional problem placed there by people who feed on the weakest of minds, where even context is thrown out of the window.
It is deviation to introduce an unrelated out of context comment where both subjects are worthy of discussion in their own right. It is weak minded to muddy the waters in this way. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 12, 2023 14:15:22 GMT
I'm not sure I understand your point. IMO the doll in itself is not racist, it is the way in which some people have used it and or used its name, that has in the past been racist. My point is that I see the doll as a , doll . Nothing else crosses my mind ,well it didn't until some muppet said it looked like a black man . I ask you whos the racist here the guy that owns a Golly as a doll or the guy that says it looks like Kunta Kinte and that nobody is allowed to own one ? Neither of your alternative applies to anything I have posted. So I think you are asking the wrong person. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 12, 2023 14:22:25 GMT
I agree. The very people who insist the Golliwog is racist have no idea of the history behind it, not that it matters. Weak lefties, supporters of the cult that is woke, aren't interested with real history or facts. They're only interested in destroying anything they don't understand. The followers of woke have a lot in common with Nazis, and I mean that quite sincerely. When I see clueless lefties ripping down statues they disagree with and demanding that history is airbrushed and cancelled, I'm reminded of 1930's Nazi book burnings. Yes, but far less threatening and for more naively foolish. Don't quite follow, who is less threatening? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2023 14:24:57 GMT
Because the Bible is different to The Quoran, for example it specifically states in the Quoran that to depict Mohamed is disrespectful. It was always my argument in the Charlie Hebdo case, that because something IS ALLOWED, it does not then follow that we should "Do It" simply to provoke anger or a response. It works both ways - Remember the outrage when a group of hot head Muslims burned Poppies ?, they knew they were not breaking the law, but they knew it would draw anger and a response. Its often said that "Theres no respect these days", and my argument has always been - Why offend someone, or a group, or a section of society if there is no real need to offend. ? SURELY THATS A RELIVANT QUESTION Its not a good enough reason to offend people, or a particular group of people, because you can Whats the need to have a comic black doll with big lips, and call it a golly wog ? ... Why would anyone associate themselves with something that could easily cause offence to a particular section of society. ? Well if we are on the Quran I find it very disrespectful that people should openly pray to a God that states that me and mine are no better than filth and humiliating us is fair game. It seems I have to ask again why is it only some that are protected from offense and not others? Keep in mind they're non-negotiable even if extreme in the hypocrisy, as demonstrated by the police. The police will claim it was for their own protection, in the same way people are encouraged not to draw pictures that may offend weak minded reactionaries, who may mass-murder people over a depiction of you know who. They encourage people to be weak, pathetic and afraid (especially to question), because to them that's power.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 12, 2023 14:32:31 GMT
Yes, but far less threatening and for more naively foolish. Don't quite follow, who is less threatening? The none Nazi naive fools who wanted to destroy statues. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 12, 2023 14:41:52 GMT
Don't quite follow, who is less threatening? The none Nazi naive fools who wanted to destroy statues. They may be a hundred years apart, but they're all the same. Outraged left wing idiots who insist on imposing their opinions on everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 12, 2023 14:51:35 GMT
om15 >> "Is offending someone a crime?"Yes, if it is either racial, faith related or a hate crime Toreodor >> "WOG was considered complimentary when it meant Westernised Oriental Gentleman, then people like you came along."No it was not, and that is a figment of your imagination, the term you refer to is an invention designed to somehow justify using the highly offensive term "wog". Watch out OM15 and Toreodor you have offended a lefty woke. I would prefer more difficult tasks. Like I said, we were taught the meaning of WOG at school, same as I was taught how to spell Moslem, old habits die hard. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Apr 12, 2023 14:55:40 GMT
The home secretary was said to call the police and tell them to get serious.
The gollywog criminal was discovered in the White Heart Inn in Essex.
The crime was hate. Someone reported that they hated gollywogs.
Makes you wanna cry, done-it.
Yes it is frustrating when people needlessly start duplicate threads like this one. Especially when they get the numbers and spelling wrong as well See ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/thread/2237/more-plod-lefty-wokery |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2023 15:07:58 GMT
Cross linking threads should be frowned upon. It encourages people to point out that it should be frowned upon, which can lead to the thread being derailed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 12, 2023 16:40:10 GMT
The home secretary was said to call the police and tell them to get serious.
The gollywog criminal was discovered in the White Heart Inn in Essex.
The crime was hate. Someone reported that they hated gollywogs.
Makes you wanna cry, done-it.
Yes it is frustrating when people needlessly start duplicate threads like this one. Especially when they get the numbers and spelling wrong as well See ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/thread/2237/more-plod-lefty-wokery Sorry for the spelling. Gollywogs are really not my thing. By the way, the word is derived from golly (it means god, from 1775). |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 13, 2023 7:24:04 GMT
The none Nazi naive fools who wanted to destroy statues. They may be a hundred years apart, but they're all the same. Outraged left wi ng idiots who insist on imposing their opinions on everyone.That is unproveable stupidity, the Nazi were left wing in name only, their single minded intention was the glorification of Germany and a particular way of German life. Pure right-wing Fascism. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 13, 2023 8:03:19 GMT
They may be a hundred years apart, but they're all the same. Outraged left wi ng idiots who insist on imposing their opinions on everyone.That is unproveable stupidity, the Nazi were left wing in name only, their single minded intention was the glorification of Germany and a particular way of German life. Pure right-wing Fascism. Nazi book burners and woke lefties have the same MO. Destroy anything they disagree with.   |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 13, 2023 8:38:13 GMT
That is unproveable stupidity, the Nazi were left wing in name only, their single minded intention was the glorification of Germany and a particular way of German life. Pure right-wing Fascism. Nazi book burners and woke lefties have the same MO. Destroy anything they disagree with. It is quite telling that the Nazis were the ones who sought to control society, how it thought, how it acted and what individuals could say. I am not aware that anyone on the right wishes to limit anything, although they will call out hypocrisy when the left are protecting their own behaving in a way that is normally deplored. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 13, 2023 10:26:49 GMT
It is quite telling that the Nazis were the ones who sought to control society, how it thought, how it acted and what individuals could say. I am not aware that anyone on the right wishes to limit anything, although they will call out hypocrisy when the left are protecting their own behaving in a way that is normally deplored. Indeed. When you look back, history suggests that left wing socialists aren't very social at all. Perhaps this is why they always desire to destroy history. |
|
