Social media could consider this........

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Social media could consider this........

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 10 << First < 6 7 8 9 10

cryrst The garden of England 16 Jul 21 10.03pm
Originally posted by DanH Just realised this sounds all sorts of wrong. I’m sure you didn’t do that. Edited by DanH (16 Jul 2021 9.48pm) I've done it to women as well. Black, white romany, Asian,one leg, fat, thin. The list goes on. I'm just made of meal deals Someone link the kenny everet sid snot and made of bricks sketch please.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Jul 21 10.03pm

Originally posted by DanH

Just realised this sounds all sorts of wrong. I’m sure you didn’t do *that*.

Edited by DanH (16 Jul 2021 9.48pm)

I've done it to women as well. Black, white romany, Asian,one leg, fat, thin. The list goes on.
I'm just made of meal deals
Someone link the kenny everet sid snot and made of bricks sketch please.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 16 Jul 21 10.07pm
Originally posted by cryrst I do it because i can, whenever I can. There were years past where a meal was a struggle for me and my wife and daughter. Beans on toast for a week. They may actually be better off than me and blagging it. You have missed matovs point. I said there are two ways of reading things. It's like the environmental lobbies. Even if you think it's bollox you feel you have to agree or you are ostracised and cancelled. Its the same with racism. Its there but not as much as its portrayed. Try being a celeb and say that. You goner be cancelled and career done. Virtue signalling for self preservation. Basically morally bankrupt individuals and there are millions of them. Then they get on the moral high ground when matt Hancock kisses some tart. Do you see the point i think matov is making now. Although it's not beyond the realms I'm wrong, it has happened before But my point is that people do ‘nice’ things because they recognise others aren’t as fortunate as them and have often been in similar positions themselves. Especially with the current example of England footballers who are all essentially ‘working class boys done good’. There’s not always some ulterior motive, financial backers forcing their hand or people doing it just for the sake of their career. People do actually do it because they think it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, even if others disagree.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 16 Jul 21 10.07pm

Originally posted by cryrst

I do it because i can, whenever I can. There were years past where a meal was a struggle for me and my wife and daughter. Beans on toast for a week. They may actually be better off than me and blagging it.
You have missed matovs point. I said there are two ways of reading things. It's like the environmental lobbies.
Even if you think it's bollox you feel you have to agree or you are ostracised and cancelled. Its the same with racism. Its there but not as much as its portrayed.
Try being a celeb and say that. You goner be cancelled and career done. Virtue signalling for self preservation. Basically morally bankrupt individuals and there are millions of them. Then they get on the moral high ground when matt Hancock kisses some tart.
Do you see the point i think matov is making now.
Although it's not beyond the realms I'm wrong, it has happened before

But my point is that people do ‘nice’ things because they recognise others aren’t as fortunate as them and have often been in similar positions themselves. Especially with the current example of England footballers who are all essentially ‘working class boys done good’.

There’s not always some ulterior motive, financial backers forcing their hand or people doing it just for the sake of their career. People do actually do it because they think it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, even if others disagree.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Jul 21 10.26pm
Originally posted by DanH But my point is that people do ‘nice’ things because they recognise others aren’t as fortunate as them and have often been in similar positions themselves. Especially with the current example of England footballers who are all essentially ‘working class boys done good’. There’s not always some ulterior motive, financial backers forcing their hand or people doing it just for the sake of their career. People do actually do it because they think it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, even if others disagree. Who are they kneeling for then? Suddenly its for equality, fairness and don't abuse anyone etc. Life is about opinions. Unfortunatly they aren't openly accepted. It's like you can have an opinion as long as its mine. Equality about race left with positive discrimination look croydon council for examples of that. Useless people in serious positions just because they were non white. A bit of a tangent but someone who's black can still be useless; it's not racist to say it. Re Rushford poster,nothing racial at all but cos he's black it's construed as racist. He took a shut penalty period. Lots do nice things for a return, don't be naive enough to think otherwise. Philanthropy is a lot about not paying tax, not nice for Joe public who needs stuff in the general day to day existence. Roads, lights and police etc.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Jul 21 10.26pm

Originally posted by DanH

Who are they kneeling for then? Suddenly its for equality, fairness and don't abuse anyone etc. Life is about opinions. Unfortunatly they aren't openly accepted. It's like you can have an opinion as long as its mine. Equality about race left with positive discrimination look croydon council for examples of that. Useless people in serious positions just because they were non white. A bit of a tangent but someone who's black can still be useless; it's not racist to say it. Re Rushford poster,nothing racial at all but cos he's black it's construed as racist. He took a shut penalty period.
Lots do nice things for a return, don't be naive enough to think otherwise. Philanthropy is a lot about not paying tax, not nice for Joe public who needs stuff in the general day to day existence. Roads, lights and police etc.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01 Bristol 16 Jul 21 11.13pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Again, you haven't answered the question. You just make value judgements but without explaining why. I can only conclude that you don't really have an answer. Perhaps you choose to make skin colour more of a genetic discrimination over say intelligence because that's what you are told to think by your political tribe. As for short males not having being discriminated against? Are you serious? They have been discriminated against in job roles, and in female selection preferences throughout history. Hmmm I wouldn't go on about unanswered questions when you haven't attempted to answer mine. Ultimately unless you can unequivocally answer why it's okay to reference someone's skin colour as part of an insult then I really think you're scratching around at nothing. And if you think I'm being ridiculous then I would really like to hear how it goes down when you use this type of insult to someone's face. Perhaps at a place of work. P.S - Tom Cruise is a short bloke and he got into both Wimbledon finals and the Euro final. No discrimination there!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01

Bristol 16 Jul 21 11.13pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Again, you haven't answered the question.

You just make value judgements but without explaining why.

I can only conclude that you don't really have an answer.

Perhaps you choose to make skin colour more of a genetic discrimination over say intelligence because that's what you are told to think by your political tribe.

As for short males not having being discriminated against? Are you serious?

They have been discriminated against in job roles, and in female selection preferences throughout history.

Hmmm I wouldn't go on about unanswered questions when you haven't attempted to answer mine.

Ultimately unless you can unequivocally answer why it's okay to reference someone's skin colour as part of an insult then I really think you're scratching around at nothing.

And if you think I'm being ridiculous then I would really like to hear how it goes down when you use this type of insult to someone's face. Perhaps at a place of work.

P.S - Tom Cruise is a short bloke and he got into both Wimbledon finals and the Euro final. No discrimination there!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 17 Jul 21 12.08am
Originally posted by Wilesy01 Hmmm I wouldn't go on about unanswered questions when you haven't attempted to answer mine. Ultimately unless you can unequivocally answer why it's okay to reference someone's skin colour as part of an insult then I really think you're scratching around at nothing. And if you think I'm being ridiculous then I would really like to hear how it goes down when you use this type of insult to someone's face. Perhaps at a place of work. P.S - Tom Cruise is a short bloke and he got into both Wimbledon finals and the Euro final. No discrimination there!! I did answer your question......why do I have to explain myself again? I stated that everybody has genetic prejudices. I pointed out that abuse of skin colour is intrinsically no worse than other forms of genetic abuse. You are part of a movement that believes it is...Yet there are questions to these assumptions....which actually you didn't answer. I highlighted intelligence and looks both of which are genetic and insulted daily but which are ignored on industrial levels. Yet someone's feast or famine in their regard is important to life advantages....just as high ability with a football is. I didn't say that deliberately and intentionally abusing people over 'skin colour' is 'ok'. So that's a strawman This said, when it comes to both humour and art, it's important that what is termed as 'abuse' is restricted as otherwise there is suffocation on creativity....though that doesn't mean that criticism isn't valid and equally important within the arts. I'll take your comments on Tom Cruise as frivolous. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2021 12.11am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

17 Jul 21 12.08am

Originally posted by Wilesy01

Hmmm I wouldn't go on about unanswered questions when you haven't attempted to answer mine.

Ultimately unless you can unequivocally answer why it's okay to reference someone's skin colour as part of an insult then I really think you're scratching around at nothing.

And if you think I'm being ridiculous then I would really like to hear how it goes down when you use this type of insult to someone's face. Perhaps at a place of work.

P.S - Tom Cruise is a short bloke and he got into both Wimbledon finals and the Euro final. No discrimination there!!

I did answer your question......why do I have to explain myself again?

I stated that everybody has genetic prejudices.

I pointed out that abuse of skin colour is intrinsically no worse than other forms of genetic abuse. You are part of a movement that believes it is...Yet there are questions to these assumptions....which actually you didn't answer.

I highlighted intelligence and looks both of which are genetic and insulted daily but which are ignored on industrial levels. Yet someone's feast or famine in their regard is important to life advantages....just as high ability with a football is.

I didn't say that deliberately and intentionally abusing people over 'skin colour' is 'ok'. So that's a strawman

This said, when it comes to both humour and art, it's important that what is termed as 'abuse' is restricted as otherwise there is suffocation on creativity....though that doesn't mean that criticism isn't valid and equally important within the arts.

I'll take your comments on Tom Cruise as frivolous.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2021 12.11am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 17 Jul 21 12.14am
Originally posted by DanH Maybe when I’m your age and (pushing) 60 I’ll be as cynical as you Long way to go yet though. It seems appropriate to quote Samuel Clemens since Wisbech did so earlier today. "The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much.If he is an optimist after it, he knows too little".
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

17 Jul 21 12.14am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by DanH

Maybe when I’m your age and (pushing) 60 I’ll be as cynical as you Long way to go yet though.

It seems appropriate to quote Samuel Clemens since Wisbech did so earlier today.

"The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much.If he is an optimist after it, he knows too little".

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 17 Jul 21 12.17am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It seems appropriate to quote Samuel Clemens since Wisbech did so earlier today. "The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much.If he is an optimist after it, he knows too little". Haha. Buy me a beer next time you’re down at Selhurst.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 17 Jul 21 12.17am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It seems appropriate to quote Samuel Clemens since Wisbech did so earlier today.

"The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much.If he is an optimist after it, he knows too little".

Haha. Buy me a beer next time you’re down at Selhurst.

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 17 Jul 21 1.58am
Originally posted by Slimey Toad I think Badger sees the abusive quality of the comment. However, is the call for repatriation actually a crime now in the UK? Even voluntary? Serious question. Shouldn't be a crime, but let's not imagine that someone making a 'go home' judgement to a fellow countryman is someone that we should be keen to protect vs the person who is subject to that attack. If someone lives a life and all they take from it is skin deep and imaginations behind that, then they have little to add in comparison to their target. Edited by BlueJay (17 Jul 2021 5.28am)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 17 Jul 21 1.58am

Originally posted by Slimey Toad

I think Badger sees the abusive quality of the comment. However, is the call for repatriation actually a crime now in the UK? Even voluntary? Serious question.

Shouldn't be a crime, but let's not imagine that someone making a 'go home' judgement to a fellow countryman is someone that we should be keen to protect vs the person who is subject to that attack. If someone lives a life and all they take from it is skin deep and imaginations behind that, then they have little to add in comparison to their target.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Jul 2021 5.28am)

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 17 Jul 21 2.23am
Originally posted by Badger11 There are many instances where anonymity is a good thing: - You live in a police state and want to express your dissatisfaction with the regime. - You are LGBT and live in a culture where it is unacceptable to the threat of your life. That could be the Middle East or a former mill town oop north. - Whistle blowing on your employer who routinely trawls social media looking for this stuff. Plenty of complaints that companies like Amazon do this. - Any number of issues you campaign on and might not want family and friends to be aware of e.g. FGM, Forced Marriage or spousal abuse. - Cancer support, you want to engage with others before you are ready to tell your love ones you are going to die. Etc. All very good points. I get people being angry at targeted comments online, but they should also appreciate that 1) often these people leave a trail right to their door and 2) the 'show me your papers' approach to dealing with it snuffs out a great many avenues for genuinely persecuted people. I have to be honest; in a worst case scenario where someone can't be traced, I would much rather have that than voices of the silenced (those you mention for instance) be snuffed out as result. Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 17 Jul 21 2.23am

Originally posted by Badger11

There are many instances where anonymity is a good thing:

- You live in a police state and want to express your dissatisfaction with the regime.
- You are LGBT and live in a culture where it is unacceptable to the threat of your life. That could be the Middle East or a former mill town oop north.
- Whistle blowing on your employer who routinely trawls social media looking for this stuff. Plenty of complaints that companies like Amazon do this.
- Any number of issues you campaign on and might not want family and friends to be aware of e.g. FGM, Forced Marriage or spousal abuse.
- Cancer support, you want to engage with others before you are ready to tell your love ones you are going to die.

Etc.

All very good points. I get people being angry at targeted comments online, but they should also appreciate that 1) often these people leave a trail right to their door and 2) the 'show me your papers' approach to dealing with it snuffs out a great many avenues for genuinely persecuted people.

I have to be honest; in a worst case scenario where someone can't be traced, I would much rather have that than voices of the silenced (those you mention for instance) be snuffed out as result. Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

Alert a moderator to this post

dreamwaverider London 17 Jul 21 5.33am
If players want to avoid a mental abuse beating just don’t use social media as they do. If they go down some dodgy bar by comparison, they would risk physical abuse in addition. It’s why they don’t go. Okay the game of life. If you are famous and can’t deal with abuse then go under cover. Same on social media. Expose yourself as yourself and the trolls have a field day. All pathetic snowflake world stuff. Go anonymous then no abuse. Simples.
Alert a moderator to this post

dreamwaverider

London 17 Jul 21 5.33am

Send a Private Message to dreamwaverider

If players want to avoid a mental abuse beating just don’t use social media as they do. If they go down some dodgy bar by comparison, they would risk physical abuse in addition. It’s why they don’t go. Okay the game of life. If you are famous and can’t deal with abuse then go under cover. Same on social media. Expose yourself as yourself and the trolls have a field day. All pathetic snowflake world stuff. Go anonymous then no abuse. Simples.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 10 of 10 << First < 6 7 8 9 10

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Social media could consider this........

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors