|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 15:22:51 GMT
I'd put the shovel down now mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 15:29:57 GMT
I'd put the shovel down now mate. Not only do you recognise the media labelling something incorrectly, you're also using the same argument to avoid the specific point regarding race-hate/racism and how that's applied. If you're just going to keep wriggling then I'll just accept that you have nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 15:52:00 GMT
Lets let others judge now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 15:58:40 GMT
Lets let others judge now. You require collectivist reassurance because you cannot comprehend logic?
That the media and yourself (apparently) don't understand the difference between racial and religious, and that racism under Woke dogma is a white majority thing. We've proven the first part, and I suspect your wriggling comes down to objecting to the second part, which is what you're avoiding.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 16:33:00 GMT
As I said earlier mate, you made a right numpty of yourself claiming that hate crime legislation only applies when white people commit the hate crimes and then immediately linked to a case where a brown person had been convicted of a hate crime. Oops.
You then seem to claim that the fact that this guy was convicted of a religiously aggravated hate crime rather than a racially motivated hate crime is somehow evidence of anti-white bias, seemingly blissfully unaware that this would be the legal offence whether the hate crime was committed by a brown muslim against a white Jew or by a white christian against a brown muslim. Only if the hatred had been directed against the victim's skin colour or nationality rather than his religion would the offence become racially rather than religiously motivated.
Have a little lie down, think about it for a while and see if you can work out the difference.....
You made yourself look foolish and I (and no doubt others) have had a little giggle at your stupidity. Stop embarrassing yourself now though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 16:48:51 GMT
As I said earlier mate, you made a right numpty of yourself claiming that hate crime legislation only applies when white people commit the hate crimes and then immediately linked to a case where a brown person had been convicted of a hate crime. Oops. You then seem to claim that the fact that this guy was convicted of a religiously aggravated hate crime rather than a racially motivated hate crime is somehow evidence of anti-white bias, seemingly blissfully unaware that this would be the legal offence whether the hate crime was committed by a brown muslim against a white Jew or by a white christian against a brown muslim. Only if the hatred had been directed against the victim's skin colour or nationality rather than his religion would the offence become racially rather than religiously motivated. Have a little lie down, think about it for a while and see if you can work out the difference..... You made yourself look foolish and I (and no doubt others) have had a little giggle at your stupidity. Stop embarrassing yourself now though. I have explained it to you in fine detail so I can only assume you're now telling lies and relying on insults, which is typical of somebody who is controlled by their irrational feelies instead of logic.
I never mentioned hate crime, that is your invention. I pointed out, several times, that the media stated that they were race-hate and racist attacks, when they wasn't. Your entire argument is to conflate racially and religiously motivated crimes, just like the media does.
The so-called anti-white bias is related to Woke dogma, which is clearly having a strong influence throughout our institutions.
This is why the person I was responding to could recognise the hypocrisy and uneven handedness related to racism, but didn't specify a reason for it. My post was designed to offer a possibility as to why this hypocrisy exists. It's all about understanding what racism means to different people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 18, 2022 17:00:02 GMT
As usual that's not true though is it. Raffiq's complaints were pretty disturbing and few right-minded people would suggest that the failings seemingly endemic in Yorkshire Cricket Club should not be corrected. The accusations against Raffiq were well publicised and suggest he is himself not a pleasant person but that doesn't detract or justify the actions of Yorkshire towards him or others. As it happens I understand there are further accusations against Raffiq's conduct emerging now. Raffiq is an ex-player over whom the ECB have little or no jurisdiction. Alex Hales is a current player - indeed a member of the T20 squad last week - over whom they do. Do you see the difference? As ever, Dappy rushes to the defence of an ethnic minority. Hands up anyone who's surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 18:01:17 GMT
That’s rather revealing Red
It suggests you feel people who are being lied about should not be defended from those lies if they have brown skin.
Is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 18, 2022 18:46:56 GMT
That’s rather revealing Red It suggests you feel people who are being lied about should not be defended from those lies if they have brown skin. Is that what you are saying? LOL, are you attempting to analyse me Dappy? Brilliant. I have an idea for a forthcoming project, a remake of a film. I see me as DeNiro's character, you as Billy Crystal's character, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 19:16:44 GMT
No idea what you are talking about.
I presume you have been drinking again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 18, 2022 19:38:18 GMT
No idea what you are talking about. I presume you have been drinking again? LOL, not 'have been', as in past tense, but 'am' as in present tense. You seem to think I'm bothered about you or anyone else for that matter, knowing I'm having a beer. Dappy, if I didn't want you to know, I wouldn't tell you. Now ffs grow up.  |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 18, 2022 19:55:35 GMT
No because Azeem was also reprimanded (in October), the Daily Mail carefully didn't mention that. But reprimanding Hales was well OTT. There was no racist intent in his wearing 'blackface', at that time most people didn't realise it can cause offence and he's long ago apologised. Steve, steppenwolf didn't say, Rafiq was not reprimanded, he said ...
"Rafiq who got a lot of money off Yorkshire Cricket Club for accusing them of racism was later found to have posted quite a lot of antisemitic stuff on twitter but it hardly got any coverage and he basically got away with it"...
Which is correct. There is no way Rafiq was ever going to be publicly reprimanded in the same withering tones as a white player. Rafiq's racism was essentially played down, no big deal nothing to see hear folks. On the other hand, the ECB publicly accused Alex Hales of racist and discriminatory conduct. It's laughable, if only the ECB could see it. You claim dressing up as Tupac Shakur "could have caused offence", I mean really? If it caused offence to some thin skinned woke warrior, then so be it, big deal. In spite of woke types who constantly look for offence, it is not against the law to offend . . .. BS ^ Rafiq was publicly reprimanded in same tones. The BBC, ITV, Sky and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all of the media (incl the Daily Misery) reported it. . . .You claim dressing up as Tupac Shakur "could have caused offence", I mean really? If it caused offence to some thin skinned woke warrior, then so be it, big deal. In spite of woke types who constantly look for offence, it is not against the law to offend. It's not against the law to call you a whingeing racist cunt either but I'm sure it would offend you if I did (and to be clear, I haven't). There's always a balance to be struck between offending/harming and limiting free speech but a good place to start is to accept that not everyone thinks like you (or me for that matter) but everyone has a right to have their feelings fairly considered. And I suggest you are underestimating how many non whites are seriously upset by white people caricaturing them in ways such as black face. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 20:10:36 GMT
Steve, steppenwolf didn't say, Rafiq was not reprimanded, he said ...
"Rafiq who got a lot of money off Yorkshire Cricket Club for accusing them of racism was later found to have posted quite a lot of antisemitic stuff on twitter but it hardly got any coverage and he basically got away with it"...
Which is correct. There is no way Rafiq was ever going to be publicly reprimanded in the same withering tones as a white player. Rafiq's racism was essentially played down, no big deal nothing to see hear folks. On the other hand, the ECB publicly accused Alex Hales of racist and discriminatory conduct. It's laughable, if only the ECB could see it. You claim dressing up as Tupac Shakur "could have caused offence", I mean really? If it caused offence to some thin skinned woke warrior, then so be it, big deal. In spite of woke types who constantly look for offence, it is not against the law to offend . . .. BS ^ Rafiq was publicly reprimanded in same tones. The BBC, ITV, Sky and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all of the media (incl the Daily Misery) reported it. . . .You claim dressing up as Tupac Shakur "could have caused offence", I mean really? If it caused offence to some thin skinned woke warrior, then so be it, big deal. In spite of woke types who constantly look for offence, it is not against the law to offend. It's not against the law to call you a whingeing racist cunt either but I'm sure it would offend you if I did (and to be clear, I haven't). There's always a balance to be struck between offending/harming and limiting free speech but a good place to start is to accept that not everyone thinks like you (or me for that matter) but everyone has a right to have their feelings fairly considered. And I suggest you are underestimating how many non whites are seriously upset by white people caricaturing them in ways such as black face. The article doesn't mention racism. Being prejudice is not racism. As Red Rackham already pointed out, which makes your response somewhat pointless.
Red Rackham said: "There is no way Rafiq was ever going to be publicly reprimanded in the same withering tones as a white player. Rafiq's racism was essentially played down, no big deal nothing to see hear folks."
It wasn't so much as played down, it was non-existent in the eyes of the Woke establishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 20:11:11 GMT
You may choose to get yourself drunk if you wish Red. It’s a free country. Try not to let the drink control you rather than the other way around though. Don’t let your wife down.
You are not the most coherent poster even when sober. When drunk you become less coherent, your racism becomes more overt and you become aggressive. You are not one of life’s amiable drunks I am afraid. Still your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 18, 2022 20:24:18 GMT
You may choose to get yourself drunk if you wish Red. It’s a free country. Try not to let the drink control you rather than the other way around though. Don’t let your wife down. You are not the most coherent poster even when sober. When drunk you become less coherent, your racism becomes more overt and you become aggressive. You are not one of life’s amiable drunks I am afraid. Still your choice. Who mentioned getting drunk? Oh I see, because I'm not bothered about you knowing I'm having a beer, you have to up the anti in the hope I get annoyed? LOL. Dappy, get in the bin you sad git.  |
|
