Racist Hate Crime

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Racist Hate Crime

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > Last >>

eagleman13 On The Road To Hell & Alicante 22 Jul 23 1.38pm
A hand gesture we all do, has been labelled a Racist Hate Crime. Its the 'OK' sign. Rooney's DC United have fallen foul of it. [Link] This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.
Alert a moderator to this post

eagleman13

On The Road To Hell & Alicante 22 Jul 23 1.38pm

A hand gesture we all do, has been labelled a Racist Hate Crime. Its the 'OK' sign. Rooney's DC United have fallen foul of it.

[Link]

This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 22 Jul 23 1.46pm
I've long suspected that the world has gone mad, now here's the ultimate proof. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 22 Jul 23 1.46pm

I've long suspected that the world has gone mad, now here's the ultimate proof.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Jul 23 1.55pm
I hope they take a case - f*** all of this. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Jul 23 1.55pm

I hope they take a case - f*** all of this.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt 22 Jul 23 2.35pm
On one hand, who cares? It's in America, not here. Whether the OK hand sign genuinely has some racist connotation in the US, or the whole thing is woke politics in extreme I couldn't say and don't care, as neither the case or the context are British. On the other hand, the fact the story is reported by the BBC provides (yet more) reason for concern about their agenda. What is the relevance to the British public of one person getting sacked on the other side of the world? What is the purpose of reporting this, rather than (for example) an isolated theft, murder or civil dispute case from another country which, within itself, would have greater impacts for those involved? Hundreds of thousands of the latter go unreported (understandably so), but not this case. Why? What editorial policy results in this? I don't mind a slight obsession with race, gender etc on thier part, if they apply high intellectual standards and basic objectivity, but they never do. The report in question is typical. It explains the potential implications of the symbol, and that even the regulatory body recognises the need to take care when attributing meaning to what has long been a perfectly innocent gesture, but (as usual with the BBC) doesn't offer any serious critique of the decision in this case or of the culture. If you're not going to critique it, why report it? My own concern is that the BBC go out of their way not to examine the trend of identity politics, to the point of refusing to acknowledge the existence of the many detailed and reasonable criticisms many other mainstream media platforms seem able to host. Once you've denied that conversation any oxygen, all these reports become layer after layer of creating a BBC worldview. It's hard not to feel they search the haystack for needles relating to race, gender etc. The report isn't exactly lauding the process that led to someone getting sacked for something 'some people consider racist' but it certainly doesn't examine the decision either.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt

22 Jul 23 2.35pm

On one hand, who cares? It's in America, not here. Whether the OK hand sign genuinely has some racist connotation in the US, or the whole thing is woke politics in extreme I couldn't say and don't care, as neither the case or the context are British.

On the other hand, the fact the story is reported by the BBC provides (yet more) reason for concern about their agenda. What is the relevance to the British public of one person getting sacked on the other side of the world? What is the purpose of reporting this, rather than (for example) an isolated theft, murder or civil dispute case from another country which, within itself, would have greater impacts for those involved? Hundreds of thousands of the latter go unreported (understandably so), but not this case. Why? What editorial policy results in this?

I don't mind a slight obsession with race, gender etc on thier part, if they apply high intellectual standards and basic objectivity, but they never do. The report in question is typical. It explains the potential implications of the symbol, and that even the regulatory body recognises the need to take care when attributing meaning to what has long been a perfectly innocent gesture, but (as usual with the BBC) doesn't offer any serious critique of the decision in this case or of the culture. If you're not going to critique it, why report it?

My own concern is that the BBC go out of their way not to examine the trend of identity politics, to the point of refusing to acknowledge the existence of the many detailed and reasonable criticisms many other mainstream media platforms seem able to host. Once you've denied that conversation any oxygen, all these reports become layer after layer of creating a BBC worldview.

It's hard not to feel they search the haystack for needles relating to race, gender etc. The report isn't exactly lauding the process that led to someone getting sacked for something 'some people consider racist' but it certainly doesn't examine the decision either.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 22 Jul 23 2.38pm
Originally posted by eagleman13 A hand gesture we all do, has been labelled a Racist Hate Crime. Its the 'OK' sign. Rooney's DC United have fallen foul of it. [Link] Could be a lot of people out of work in the shadow puppet industry…no more bunnies with pointed ears! hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 22 Jul 23 2.38pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by eagleman13

A hand gesture we all do, has been labelled a Racist Hate Crime. Its the 'OK' sign. Rooney's DC United have fallen foul of it.

[Link]

Could be a lot of people out of work in the shadow puppet industry…no more bunnies with pointed ears!

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 22 Jul 23 2.50pm
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt On one hand, who cares? It's in America, not here. Whether the OK hand sign genuinely has some racist connotation in the US, or the whole thing is woke politics in extreme I couldn't say and don't care, as neither the case or the context are British. On the other hand, the fact the story is reported by the BBC provides (yet more) reason for concern about their agenda. What is the relevance to the British public of one person getting sacked on the other side of the world? What is the purpose of reporting this, rather than (for example) an isolated theft, murder or civil dispute case from another country which, within itself, would have greater impacts for those involved? Hundreds of thousands of the latter go unreported (understandably so), but not this case. Why? What editorial policy results in this? I don't mind a slight obsession with race, gender etc on thier part, if they apply high intellectual standards and basic objectivity, but they never do. The report in question is typical. It explains the potential implications of the symbol, and that even the regulatory body recognises the need to take care when attributing meaning to what has long been a perfectly innocent gesture, but (as usual with the BBC) doesn't offer any serious critique of the decision in this case or of the culture. If you're not going to critique it, why report it? My own concern is that the BBC go out of their way not to examine the trend of identity politics, to the point of refusing to acknowledge the existence of the many detailed and reasonable criticisms many other mainstream media platforms seem able to host. Once you've denied that conversation any oxygen, all these reports become layer after layer of creating a BBC worldview. It's hard not to feel they search the haystack for needles relating to race, gender etc. The report isn't exactly lauding the process that led to someone getting sacked for something 'some people consider racist' but it certainly doesn't examine the decision either. Congratulations on an excellent, post. How would you feel about sending it as feedback to the BBC (with a few tweaks "you" (the BBC) for "they" etc) to see what reaction it gets? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 22 Jul 23 2.50pm

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Congratulations on an excellent, post. How would you feel about sending it as feedback to the BBC (with a few tweaks "you" (the BBC) for "they" etc) to see what reaction it gets?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 22 Jul 23 2.59pm
That's Eddie Murphy in trouble again. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

22 Jul 23 2.59pm

That's Eddie Murphy in trouble again.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Jul 23 3.22pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle That's Eddie Murphy in trouble again. [Link] Constantly in blackface or stereotypical Jewish impersonations. Probably done a 'Red Indian' or Chinaman that I can't remember. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Jul 23 3.22pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

That's Eddie Murphy in trouble again.

[Link]

Constantly in blackface or stereotypical Jewish impersonations. Probably done a 'Red Indian' or Chinaman that I can't remember.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jul 23 3.37pm
That means that all divers are racists. While we allow lunatics to control the narrative, this kind of insanity will continue.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

22 Jul 23 3.37pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

That means that all divers are racists.

While we allow lunatics to control the narrative, this kind of insanity will continue.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 22 Jul 23 3.46pm
So all deaf people are now racist. Having a deaf family member this is a common hand sign to give an approval or agreement. f*** em all I guess, their fault for being born deaf
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 22 Jul 23 3.46pm

So all deaf people are now racist. Having a deaf family member this is a common hand sign to give an approval or agreement. f*** em all I guess, their fault for being born deaf

Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt 22 Jul 23 3.47pm
Originally posted by YT Congratulations on an excellent, post. How would you feel about sending it as feedback to the BBC (with a few tweaks "you" (the BBC) for "they" etc) to see what reaction it gets? Waste of time in my experience, unfortunately. Around the time of the euros, BBC support (or regular, prominent and ultra non-critical coverage) regarding BLM reached the point where, for the first and only time, I submitted a complaint as follows: Bias in coverage of BLM and footballer kneeling.  Please can you at least attempt to exercise balance and fairness in your coverage of opposition to BLM and to footballers taking the knee? Contrary to what appears your default position, my objections to both do not stem from racism, or from a lack of education or compassion. I oppose identity politics because I consider it a divisive, harmful and deeply flawed school of thought. For similar reasons I oppose the (evidently political) position of an organisation like BLM, whose own website called for the police to be defunded, and who advocate positive discrimination. As a human being living through a time of unprecedented crisis, I was furious about the unlawful, life-threatening gatherings during the height of the first lockdown - most of us were enduring the pain of being cut off from loved ones but complying nonetheless, and your critique of the BLM protests was grossly insufficient. In addition, I am concerned that commercial organisations can overpromote their support of BLM, successfully diverting attention away from their complicity in so many other significant issues. Mostly though, and from the outset, I was infuriated by the support offered to BLM despite their failure to show evidence of structural racism in our society. You have led from the front with fact-checks around covid, the vaccine, and your obsession with Trump, yet you apply no such factual, objective scrutiny to BLM. You suspend any comment facility on the subject, denying license fee payers the chance of respectful debate. I don't need you to agree with my position on this issue, but you do have a responsibility to at least acknowledge the existence of reasoned opposition to BLM and to kneeling. Not doing so is not only unfair on me and others who you are misrepresenting, it is a serious failure on your part to educate and inform. It denies those who support BLM access to a view they ought to consider, misleading them into feeling they are in the presence of racism or ignorance. I wish I'd kept the response. It was a combination of autotext ('We thank you for taking the time to contact us') the avoidance of proper engagement, dismissive power tripping ('We are not biased, you are wrong' - and that's almost a literal quote) all wrapped up in noticeably low standards (poor grammar, illogical sentences, no discernable structure of thought). To be honest, the response was so infuriating and pointless that I deleted it, as I didn't want to get wound up every time I saw it lingering in my inbox. It was evident that they do as they please no matter what.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheBigToePunt

22 Jul 23 3.47pm

Originally posted by YT

Congratulations on an excellent, post. How would you feel about sending it as feedback to the BBC (with a few tweaks "you" (the BBC) for "they" etc) to see what reaction it gets?

Waste of time in my experience, unfortunately.

Around the time of the euros, BBC support (or regular, prominent and ultra non-critical coverage) regarding BLM reached the point where, for the first and only time, I submitted a complaint as follows:

Bias in coverage of BLM and footballer kneeling. 

Please can you at least attempt to exercise balance and fairness in your coverage of opposition to BLM and to footballers taking the knee?

Contrary to what appears your default position, my objections to both do not stem from racism, or from a lack of education or compassion. I oppose identity politics because I consider it a divisive, harmful and deeply flawed school of thought. For similar reasons I oppose the (evidently political) position of an organisation like BLM, whose own website called for the police to be defunded, and who advocate positive discrimination. As a human being living through a time of unprecedented crisis, I was furious about the unlawful, life-threatening gatherings during the height of the first lockdown - most of us were enduring the pain of being cut off from loved ones but complying nonetheless, and your critique of the BLM protests was grossly insufficient. In addition, I am concerned that commercial organisations can overpromote their support of BLM, successfully diverting attention away from their complicity in so many other significant issues. Mostly though, and from the outset, I was infuriated by the support offered to BLM despite their failure to show evidence of structural racism in our society. You have led from the front with fact-checks around covid, the vaccine, and your obsession with Trump, yet you apply no such factual, objective scrutiny to BLM. You suspend any comment facility on the subject, denying license fee payers the chance of respectful debate.

I don't need you to agree with my position on this issue, but you do have a responsibility to at least acknowledge the existence of reasoned opposition to BLM and to kneeling. Not doing so is not only unfair on me and others who you are misrepresenting, it is a serious failure on your part to educate and inform. It denies those who support BLM access to a view they ought to consider, misleading them into feeling they are in the presence of racism or ignorance.

I wish I'd kept the response. It was a combination of autotext ('We thank you for taking the time to contact us') the avoidance of proper engagement, dismissive power tripping ('We are not biased, you are wrong' - and that's almost a literal quote) all wrapped up in noticeably low standards (poor grammar, illogical sentences, no discernable structure of thought).

To be honest, the response was so infuriating and pointless that I deleted it, as I didn't want to get wound up every time I saw it lingering in my inbox. It was evident that they do as they please no matter what.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 22 Jul 23 4.02pm
Originally posted by eagleman13 A hand gesture we all do, has been labelled a Racist Hate Crime. Its the 'OK' sign. Rooney's DC United have fallen foul of it. [Link] Any scuba divers are in the s*** then! Ridiculous Sorry just seen Hrolf beat me to it Edited by Spiderman (22 Jul 2023 4.02pm) Edited by Spiderman (22 Jul 2023 4.03pm) Edited by Spiderman (22 Jul 2023 6.15pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 22 Jul 23 4.02pm