US politics

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 64 of 706 < 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 >

Teddy Eagle 19 Feb 21 8.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle With all due respect whilst that might be true it has nothing to do with my point. That’s fine. You make your point and I’ll make mine. Onwards and upwards.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

19 Feb 21 8.47pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

With all due respect whilst that might be true it has nothing to do with my point.

That’s fine. You make your point and I’ll make mine. Onwards and upwards.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 8.52pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Unfortunately, changing terminology does not alter reality. Do Indians experience the same negativity as Albanians? Inevitably, minorities are more likely to focus on their identity, be it colour, nationality or religion. For some reason, some of them come to a country where they are a minority and then seem surprised when they are treated like one. This evokes a defensive posture in many against the existing majority. Some groups have a terrible record of criminality and then wonder why they are stereotyped. Some have a poor attitude to work and authority and wonder why no one wants to employ them. Certainly labelling is not helpful, but stereotypes do not get invented from nothing. They usually have a basis in fact. Unfortunately, those who do not exhibit these negative stereotypical traits suffer prejudice along with the others. One can pay lip service to irradiating these attitudes but all the time people are people and have their own interests to protect, they will continue to exist. Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making. Of course, stereotypes exist and don't come out of thin air. What I am arguing for is the removal of blanket stereotyping between huge disparate groups. Just as you wouldn't call all men misogynists or all women feminists why call people black or white? Why not be more accurate and call them what they really are, concentrating on ethnicity rather than just colour. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 8.52pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Unfortunately, changing terminology does not alter reality.

Do Indians experience the same negativity as Albanians?

Inevitably, minorities are more likely to focus on their identity, be it colour, nationality or religion. For some reason, some of them come to a country where they are a minority and then seem surprised when they are treated like one. This evokes a defensive posture in many against the existing majority.
Some groups have a terrible record of criminality and then wonder why they are stereotyped.
Some have a poor attitude to work and authority and wonder why no one wants to employ them.

Certainly labelling is not helpful, but stereotypes do not get invented from nothing. They usually have a basis in fact. Unfortunately, those who do not exhibit these negative stereotypical traits suffer prejudice along with the others.

One can pay lip service to irradiating these attitudes but all the time people are people and have their own interests to protect, they will continue to exist.

Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

Of course, stereotypes exist and don't come out of thin air. What I am arguing for is the removal of blanket stereotyping between huge disparate groups. Just as you wouldn't call all men misogynists or all women feminists why call people black or white? Why not be more accurate and call them what they really are, concentrating on ethnicity rather than just colour.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 9.06pm
Originally posted by cryrst Stereotyping is not just about colour or clothing. It's about seeing me, of the larger category as a potential future burden on the health service. Mentioned enough on here. Is that not the same, I mean surely its profiling against fatties. Can i be as offended as a black guy who is racially profiled. No it isn't. But it also isn't the point I am trying to make. Simple "white" and "black" are far too broad terms to have any real meaning. Using them causes avoidable problems and pushes people into corners and responses unnecessarily. As this is though the usual language we use it isn't going to just disappear. It isn't even recognised yet. My hope is that one day it will be. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 9.06pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Stereotyping is not just about colour or clothing.
It's about seeing me, of the larger category as a potential future burden on the health service. Mentioned enough on here. Is that not the same, I mean surely its profiling against fatties. Can i be as offended as a black guy who is racially profiled.

No it isn't. But it also isn't the point I am trying to make.

Simple "white" and "black" are far too broad terms to have any real meaning. Using them causes avoidable problems and pushes people into corners and responses unnecessarily.

As this is though the usual language we use it isn't going to just disappear. It isn't even recognised yet. My hope is that one day it will be.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 19 Feb 21 10.03pm
'To assume that if we liked we could all settle down to love one another and live in perfect amity and harmony together is possible only to those idealists who are congenitally blind to the true character of all life' (Anthony Ludovici) This country use to be socially cohesive, until elites placed profits before their own people and idiots and those with malign intent were allowed to cover for it with 'hopeful' ideologies that have never succeeded anywhere on earth ever. All they do is create the conditions that can be found in the links I provided. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 10.04pm) '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

19 Feb 21 10.03pm

'To assume that if we liked we could all settle down to love one another and live in perfect amity and harmony together is possible only to those idealists who are congenitally blind to the true character of all life' (Anthony Ludovici)

This country use to be socially cohesive, until elites placed profits before their own people and idiots and those with malign intent were allowed to cover for it with 'hopeful' ideologies that have never succeeded anywhere on earth ever.

All they do is create the conditions that can be found in the links I provided.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 10.04pm)

'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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 10.47pm
My comments in bold. Originally posted by Stirlingsays 'To assume that if we liked we could all settle down to love one another and live in perfect amity and harmony together is possible only to those idealists who are congenitally blind to the true character of all life' (Anthony Ludovici) Obviously true. We humans are imperfect and capable of much stupidity. Whilst we may never completely succeed that doesn't mean we are incapable of either recognising our shortcomings or trying to improve our performance. For that has been our record since time began and will continue until it ends. This country use to be socially cohesive, until elites placed profits before their own people and idiots and those with malign intent were allowed to cover for it with 'hopeful' ideologies that have never succeeded anywhere on earth ever. Completely untrue. We have never been socially cohesive. The difference is only in the changes to the various social levels. There have always been strata in British society. Just read some Dickens, research the Suffragettes or further back the Peasants' revolt. All they do is create the conditions that can be found in the links I provided. Nonsense. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 10.04pm) For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 19 Feb 21 10.47pm

My comments in bold.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Obviously true. We humans are imperfect and capable of much stupidity. Whilst we may never completely succeed that doesn't mean we are incapable of either recognising our shortcomings or trying to improve our performance. For that has been our record since time began and will continue until it ends.

Completely untrue. We have never been socially cohesive. The difference is only in the changes to the various social levels. There have always been strata in British society. Just read some Dickens, research the Suffragettes or further back the Peasants' revolt.

All they do is create the conditions that can be found in the links I provided.

Nonsense.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 10.04pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 19 Feb 21 11.10pm
Oh look the liar is back lying. If you are genetically British instead of reading his drivel have a look at this link to your ancestors and then compare it to the future people of his type and ideology have fashioned. [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 11.12pm) '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

19 Feb 21 11.10pm

Oh look the liar is back lying.

If you are genetically British instead of reading his drivel have a look at this link to your ancestors and then compare it to the future people of his type and ideology have fashioned.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 11.12pm)

'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 20 Feb 21 12.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making. Of course, stereotypes exist and don't come out of thin air. What I am arguing for is the removal of blanket stereotyping between huge disparate groups. Just as you wouldn't call all men misogynists or all women feminists why call people black or white? Why not be more accurate and call them what they really are, concentrating on ethnicity rather than just colour. Well skin colour is just an easy label lacking nuance but easy for simple humans to grasp. Many nowadays claim that skin colour is unimportant and then promote Blackness for example. That cake and eat it double standard with pride in colour is the issue for me. White people are no longer allowed to be proud of being White because they are stereotyped as National Front types. Everyone else is free to use divisive terminology and propaganda. Personally I find pride in colour ridiculous. It's tribalism pure and simple.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Feb 21 12.50am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

Well skin colour is just an easy label lacking nuance but easy for simple humans to grasp. Many nowadays claim that skin colour is unimportant and then promote Blackness for example.
That cake and eat it double standard with pride in colour is the issue for me. White people are no longer allowed to be proud of being White because they are stereotyped as National Front types. Everyone else is free to use divisive terminology and propaganda.

Personally I find pride in colour ridiculous. It's tribalism pure and simple.

Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 20 Feb 21 9.08am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Well skin colour is just an easy label lacking nuance but easy for simple humans to grasp. Many nowadays claim that skin colour is unimportant and then promote Blackness for example. That cake and eat it double standard with pride in colour is the issue for me. White people are no longer allowed to be proud of being White because they are stereotyped as National Front types. Everyone else is free to use divisive terminology and propaganda. Personally I find pride in colour ridiculous. It's tribalism pure and simple. Absolutely right and often put forward as an excuse when feeling "uncomfortable" ... a situation exemplified by Meghan and her stooge Harry. Denial is not just a river in Egypt
Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 20 Feb 21 9.08am

Send a Private Message to Henry of Peckham

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Absolutely right and often put forward as an excuse when feeling "uncomfortable" ... a situation exemplified by Meghan and her stooge Harry.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 20 Feb 21 9.28am
Originally posted by Henry of Peckham Absolutely right and often put forward as an excuse when feeling "uncomfortable" ... a situation exemplified by Meghan and her stooge Harry. Daily Star has had some cracking headlines this week. "Publicity shy couple tell 7.8bn people they are having a paper" "...doing interview with Oprah" One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 20 Feb 21 9.28am

Originally posted by Henry of Peckham

Absolutely right and often put forward as an excuse when feeling "uncomfortable" ... a situation exemplified by Meghan and her stooge Harry.

Daily Star has had some cracking headlines this week.

"Publicity shy couple tell 7.8bn people they are having a paper" "...doing interview with Oprah"

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 20 Feb 21 9.42am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making. Of course, stereotypes exist and don't come out of thin air. What I am arguing for is the removal of blanket stereotyping between huge disparate groups. Just as you wouldn't call all men misogynists or all women feminists why call people black or white? Why not be more accurate and call them what they really are, concentrating on ethnicity rather than just colour. I understand your point but just as it is almost impossible to tell what part of the world a white person comes from, are you able to tell the difference between an African and a Caribbean person just by looking. Some would consider getting that wrong to be more discriminatory than whether they are black or white.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 20 Feb 21 9.42am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Again whilst all, for the sake of argument, may be true it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

I understand your point but just as it is almost impossible to tell what part of the world a white person comes from, are you able to tell the difference between an African and a Caribbean person just by looking. Some would consider getting that wrong to be more discriminatory than whether they are black or white.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Feb 21 10.21am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Oh look the liar is back lying. If you are genetically British instead of reading his drivel have a look at this link to your ancestors and then compare it to the future people of his type and ideology have fashioned. [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 11.12pm) More personal insults! Just a tad ironic perhaps from the poster who complains about those who don't debate? If I was "lying" then it would be more constructive to point out how and where. Actually all I have done is offer an alternative opinion. Here is another. The idea that video shows your ancestors is as distorted a concept as it's possible to portray. I might be wrong but I doubt any of us had relatives that lived in huge mansions and could afford early movie cameras. What's certain is not all of us did. Most of us come from the working classes who were downtrodden and marginalised by the sort of people shown in that video. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 20 Feb 21 10.21am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Oh look the liar is back lying.

If you are genetically British instead of reading his drivel have a look at this link to your ancestors and then compare it to the future people of his type and ideology have fashioned.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Feb 2021 11.12pm)

More personal insults! Just a tad ironic perhaps from the poster who complains about those who don't debate?

If I was "lying" then it would be more constructive to point out how and where. Actually all I have done is offer an alternative opinion. Here is another.

The idea that video shows your ancestors is as distorted a concept as it's possible to portray. I might be wrong but I doubt any of us had relatives that lived in huge mansions and could afford early movie cameras. What's certain is not all of us did. Most of us come from the working classes who were downtrodden and marginalised by the sort of people shown in that video.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Feb 21 10.29am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Well skin colour is just an easy label lacking nuance but easy for simple humans to grasp. Many nowadays claim that skin colour is unimportant and then promote Blackness for example. That cake and eat it double standard with pride in colour is the issue for me. White people are no longer allowed to be proud of being White because they are stereotyped as National Front types. Everyone else is free to use divisive terminology and propaganda. Personally I find pride in colour ridiculous. It's tribalism pure and simple. I don't disagree with you. I want everyone, whatever their skin colour, to stop labelling themselves by it. I can understand why those marginalised by racism fight back and then why those who aren't themselves racist react to that fight. My point is about the use of language and whether it helps or hinders relationships. If it hinders then change it. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 20 Feb 21 10.29am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't disagree with you. I want everyone, whatever their skin colour, to stop labelling themselves by it.

I can understand why those marginalised by racism fight back and then why those who aren't themselves racist react to that fight.

My point is about the use of language and whether it helps or hinders relationships. If it hinders then change it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 64 of 706 < 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

US politics

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors