Lawrence

[longdogs]

OMG! Thick as merde. I T W A S A T V P R O G R A M M E.

But do you not think that even the title of the magazine kind of excludes white girls slightly.

Je think so!

 

[Whitespirit66]

So, let's have a quick re-cap.

Activities that exclude whites = not a problem

Activities that exclude blacks = abhorrent and probably illegal.

People who agree with their own already crowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = good, right thinking, intelligent, prgogressive fairminded people.

People who dare to disagree with their own already overcrowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = bigotted and uneducated dinosaurs who should just put up and shut up and not worry about the problems being created for themselves and future generations.

Black murders white = hardly a rare event or even newsworthy.

White murders black = blanket news coverage for next few decades.

Right, well that's consistent then!

 

[longdogs]

Spot on WS.

 

[JBR]

[

If you say on one hand that the 'British' traditionally feel sorry for the underdog, do you accept that you are out of step with mainstream opinion on this one then?

No.

Sorry , I misread you then. From your answer you say you are in step with what you feel are traditional, mainstream British values That is to say, you sympathise with the underdog, ie the Lawrence family in this case.

Understood.[/quote]

No. I often feel sorry for the underdog, but perhaps our definitions of 'underdog' are different. For example, you may well define a certain person as being an 'underdog' because of their colour or ethnicity, whilst the same person might well benefit from certain advantages by virtue of their colour or ethnicity. 'Positive discrimination' is an example of this.

As for the Lawrence family's situation, I don't know because that particular news item has not been of particular interest to me.

To clarify, I believe in equality of opportunities for all.

 

[JBR]

Try having an awards do for whites only. You couldn't and tbh I don't think you should. So why is there a black only one? So the likes of roguehanger can feel good about themselves for helping the "poor downtroddens".
Also helps to segregate between races.

Thank you. An example of positive discrimination, to support my last post!

 

[JBR]

So, let's have a quick re-cap.

Activities that exclude whites = not a problem

Activities that exclude blacks = abhorrent and probably illegal.

People who agree with their own already crowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = good, right thinking, intelligent, prgogressive fairminded people.

People who dare to disagree with their own already overcrowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = bigotted and uneducated dinosaurs who should just put up and shut up and not worry about the problems being created for themselves and future generations.

Black murders white = hardly a rare event or even newsworthy.

White murders black = blanket news coverage for next few decades.

Right, well that's consistent then!

Excellent post Turps.

 

[Micilin]

you sympathise with the underdog, ie the Lawrence family in this case.

Why are they the underdog. Because you say so? There just people who have suffered a tragic loss. Stop calling them underdogs FFS. They are every bit as equal as you or I. They wouldn't be seen as underdogs if people like you stopped calling them it. Your only going on about Lawrence cos he was black. Half the inequalitites left in society today are because some types won't leave it alone. Go stick up for badly watered plants or some other cause for you feel good about and stop perpetuating the racist problem.

The 'underdog' label was attached in the post to which I was replying. That is the context of the word my post.

I thought I made it clear that I was not 'going on about Lawrence cos he was black. He was killed beccause he was black, the police investigation was corrupt- probably his colour was a factor. But my interest in such cases is mainly

- Bodies like the police are supposed to uphold the law, and when they do not then there is no law. Regardless of the victim's background.

What I think is interesting ,is that some people think it is less important because he was black.

 

[ajstoneservices]

What I think is interesting ,is that some people think it is less important because he was black.

The trouble is with all we've seen and heard you could be forgiven for turning that on its head.

 

[Big Tone]

Spot on WS.

X2 + more...................

But shush.

I like WS because he just dared to just 'tell it as it is'.

 

[Micilin]

Sorry , I misread you then. From your answer you say you are in step with what you feel are traditional, mainstream British values That is to say, you sympathise with the underdog, ie the Lawrence family in this case.

Understood.

No. I often feel sorry for the underdog, but perhaps our definitions of 'underdog' are different. For example, you may well define a certain person as being an 'underdog' because of their colour or ethnicity, whilst the same person might well benefit from certain advantages by virtue of their colour or ethnicity. 'Positive discrimination' is an example of this.

As for the Lawrence family's situation, I don't know because that particular news item has not been of particular interest to me.

To clarify, I believe in equality of opportunities for all.

But you definitely said:


" I understand it's a result of the British traditionally feeling sorry for the underdog. "

Which is why I sought to clarify.If 'underdog' does not relate to the Lawrence family, then why introduce the term in this context? So therefore in your post 'underdog' reads 'Lawrence's'. Unless you meant another party in the story?

So Logically :

If the British traditionally side with underdogs, then it follows you either sympathise with the Lawrence's, or don't hold with traditional British values. Otherwise the internal logic of your post breaks down.

You may of course have meant something different to what was written-hence your subsequent posts, so thank you for our exchange on a subject that is of little interest to you.

Of course, I accept your commitment to equality, that was not in question.
Cheers.

 

[RogueHanger]

OMG! Thick as merde. I T W A S A T V P R O G R A M M E.

But do you not think that even the title of the magazine kind of excludes white girls slightly.

Je think so!

You accuse me of being thick, but you provide a link to a magazine article and claim it was a TV programme.
I'll explain slowly for the thickies.
You claim that a magazine that caters for the cosmetic requirements of black women is racist. Why, because you think it excludes white women. It doesn't. It doesn't even exclude men. It doesn't exclude you does it? If your interest is in the cosmetic availability for black women, I'm sure they will welcome your subscription.
Just assuming that the majority of their readers are black women, (and the odd DIYer from UK) you can surmise that probably all of their entrants into a competition organised by that publication will be black women.
If you want to enter the annual black women's rock awards competition, why not submit your entry? I'm sure that in UK they would be obliged to accept your submission, assuming you could meet the minimum entry requirements of being female and able to sing.
Whether it's legal in US. I don't know and I don't give a toss. I don't feel excluded. I appreciate that you might have wanted to enter the competition.
No doubt you'll want to enter the bouncing babies competition as well.

You could organise a competition entitled "Pink mens bottom waggling competition" if you wanted. You might only break UK laws if a) it was oganised and run in UK and b) you limited entry requirements against UK laws. c) you contravened UK laws.

If you're so concerned about the Annual Black Women's Rock Singer Awards, why not complain to the oganisers. You would at least find out if your concerns were substantiated. If they were, then you could investigate if their actions were legal in US, then you could come back and complain, if there was anything to complain about.

But, you were obvioulsy entertained by it, or were you looking for justification for your biases?

Where were you to complain about "girlie" magazines, or womens clothes magazines that doesn't advertise muslim/indian/maori style of clothes, or teens' magazines?

FFS, grow up.

 

[RogueHanger]

Activities that exclude whites = not a problem

Show me one (in UK, please).
And if you feel excluded or offended, complain to the relevant authorities, instead of posting your xenophobic comments, while hiding under your cloak of anonymity.

Activities that exclude blacks = abhorrent and probably illegal.

Why limit your comment to black people. It applies equally to all ethnicities. Although, I don't feel that the exclusion of any particular ethnicity is abhorrent. It would depend on the reason for the exclusion. If it's an event, publication or programme catering for specialised needs I wouldn't feel excluded. When I'm on board the ferries, do I feel excluded from the manicure, perfumery, hairdressing demonstrations? Is it catering for females, in general? Probably.
Am I excluded? Of course not.
However, I feel that the hatred and violent behaviour toward other ethnicities is abhorrent.

People who agree with their own already crowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = good, right thinking, intelligent, prgogressive fairminded people.

So you complain to the policy-makers. Behave responsibly and legally. Hmm, thought not.

People who dare to disagree with their own already overcrowded country being invaded with millions of people with completely alien cultures = bigotted and uneducated dinosaurs who should just put up and shut up and not worry about the problems being created for themselves and future generations.

People who post bigotted and uneducated comments on social media to try to increase racial tension are the real villains, and cowards to boot.

Black murders white = hardly a rare event or even newsworthy.

Seized on by the racist posters of DIYnot and denounced vociferously.

White murders black = blanket news coverage for next few decades.

Well, lets try not to mention that on DIYnot. The subsequent institutional racism, police corruption,etc....try to sweep that under the carpet. Just don't mention it.

Right, well that's consistent then!

Typical biased and prejudiced comment. Supported by the rest of the klan, as usual.
Perhaps we should re-name DIYnot GD forum as the klan chapter.
Fortunately, there's only a few. Sadly the majority sit by and watch this stuff happen and do nothing.

 

[JBR]

Sorry , I misread you then. From your answer you say you are in step with what you feel are traditional, mainstream British values That is to say, you sympathise with the underdog, ie the Lawrence family in this case.

Understood.

No. I often feel sorry for the underdog, but perhaps our definitions of 'underdog' are different. For example, you may well define a certain person as being an 'underdog' because of their colour or ethnicity, whilst the same person might well benefit from certain advantages by virtue of their colour or ethnicity. 'Positive discrimination' is an example of this.

As for the Lawrence family's situation, I don't know because that particular news item has not been of particular interest to me.

To clarify, I believe in equality of opportunities for all.

But you definitely said:


" I understand it's a result of the British traditionally feeling sorry for the underdog. "

Which is why I sought to clarify.If 'underdog' does not relate to the Lawrence family, then why introduce the term in this context? So therefore in your post 'underdog' reads 'Lawrence's'. Unless you meant another party in the story?

So Logically :

If the British traditionally side with underdogs, then it follows you either sympathise with the Lawrence's, or don't hold with traditional British values. Otherwise the internal logic of your post breaks down.

You may of course have meant something different to what was written-hence your subsequent posts, so thank you for our exchange on a subject that is of little interest to you.

Of course, I accept your commitment to equality, that was not in question.
Cheers.

I'd love to continue this dialogue about semantics, but I haven't time.

I think I've made my position quite clear.

 

[Big Tone]

@ RogueHanger

My ‘beef’ as I have said many times before is that this is a small country and there are too many in it! I don’t care if my neighbour is black, white, male, female, gay or disabled. There are just too many in MY country!

On the matter of being racist or any other ‘izm. It is very naïve indeed to think someone with what is ostensibly regarded as a disadvantage is turned into ‘playing the race card’ or whatever ace someone has up their sleeve. I’m sorry but it’s just foolish to think it doesn’t happen and isn’t happening RougeHanger. My rant about positive discrimination, as one example. Excuse me, you should get the job on merit whether that’s all black, all women or all gay! (Or all white heterosexual men!).

The issue I have with your take, if I can put it that way, is if one points something iffy out as-and-when it occurs we get berated for being something we are not, (a racist), instead of something we are, (telling it as it is). And so we have a choice: Keep schtum for fear of reprisal and being wrongly labelled or persecuted ourselves, or speak out. This is why I give credit to WS!

If ‘they’ had their way we’d keep taking more and more on board in this country until the lifeboat capsizes! Unfortunately, ‘the boat’ in terms of a country doesn’t physically capsize. It happens and is happening, but in small and subtle ways which progress like a cancer. (You have to be of a certain age to see and understand, first hand, the before and after of what my country has become).

The first thing I think of when I get off the ferry to France and start riding or driving away is “where is everybody!” That’s one of the many things which make it such a beautiful country and, presumably, ‘a’ reason why you chose to be there and not shuffling along on British roads like an embolism...? (Fair play to you I say).

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Sadly the majority sit by and watch this stuff happen and do nothing.

The majority agree. Thats why you guys get so touchy.