if you actually look over the weekend and at the images, the more people causing trouble are the antifa crowd, i dont see why they counter march on edl/right wing rallies, they know its going to kick off its like me fancying a stroll around selhurst on match day with a charlton shirt on if i got a pasting it would be my own stupidity.
if you actually look over the weekend and at the images, the more people causing trouble are the antifa crowd, i dont see why they counter march on edl/right wing rallies, they know its going to kick off its like me fancying a stroll around selhurst on match day with a charlton shirt on if i got a pasting it would be my own stupidity.
I'd say you'd be pretty safe tbf mate.
well i did think that apologies for my silly example, oh john fortuneeeeee
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
calling people nazi's is extremely disrespectful tbh, we dont know the full story he was there with his wife, if for example as he was getting on the coach someone went for his wife, id of done the same? we don't know the full story as we are constantly told with any other incident such as terrorism acts, the levels of hypocrisy on here are laughable. the edl it self has jewish and sikh followers, admittedly they attract a few dickheads but then you could argue that extremists are the edl of the muslim faith?
The EDL attracts more than a few dickheads - like the BNP and NF its main appeal seems to be to racist thugs. Look at any of its marches....
We have a long history of anti-immigrant political parties in this country who seem committed to stirring things up without having anything constructive to say.
However respectable the far right parties have tried to make themselves they've still ended up with the same violent core support.
you know the edl are not a political party they are a counter extremist group, the protest at the weekend was something to do with the football lads alliance or something to that effect. basically casuals from teams turning out to march on the streets, i dont believe any police were hurt unlike in east london by the black lives matter crowd, i've said before i dont think marching does any good just gets you in a place where your more likely to get into trouble.
EDL and Britain First are both far right groups that attract supporters that are anti immigrant - their marches are frequently provocative and the openly racist language used by their supporters is indefensible. You had supposedly respectable leaders in the British Brothers, British Union of Fascists, NF, BNP, British Movement etc yet throughout history they've always attracted the same racist violent support.
Anarchist and far left groups have had violent protests but in general they haven't had an openly racist support.
We only have to go back to the Second World War to look at the dangers of far right politics.
So it's okay to have violent protest just as long as there's no racism? very strange. For me the biggest issue in protests is when they become violent and damage gets caused. Also for the record, I've witnessed a video of a German being told "Go back home" by a women cheered on by other Anifita members, is that not racism?
I have at no stage said violent protest is a good thing - I was merely pointing out the racist agenda of the far right. I'm not really clear what you're arguing about?
I don't understand why some on here feel the need to make some sort of defence for far right politics given its racist agenda. I'm not a great fan of ill-informed racist bigots and as far as I can see the majority are right wing.
calling people nazi's is extremely disrespectful tbh, we dont know the full story he was there with his wife, if for example as he was getting on the coach someone went for his wife, id of done the same? we don't know the full story as we are constantly told with any other incident such as terrorism acts, the levels of hypocrisy on here are laughable. the edl it self has jewish and sikh followers, admittedly they attract a few dickheads but then you could argue that extremists are the edl of the muslim faith?
The EDL attracts more than a few dickheads - like the BNP and NF its main appeal seems to be to racist thugs. Look at any of its marches....
We have a long history of anti-immigrant political parties in this country who seem committed to stirring things up without having anything constructive to say.
However respectable the far right parties have tried to make themselves they've still ended up with the same violent core support.
you know the edl are not a political party they are a counter extremist group, the protest at the weekend was something to do with the football lads alliance or something to that effect. basically casuals from teams turning out to march on the streets, i dont believe any police were hurt unlike in east london by the black lives matter crowd, i've said before i dont think marching does any good just gets you in a place where your more likely to get into trouble.
EDL and Britain First are both far right groups that attract supporters that are anti immigrant - their marches are frequently provocative and the openly racist language used by their supporters is indefensible. You had supposedly respectable leaders in the British Brothers, British Union of Fascists, NF, BNP, British Movement etc yet throughout history they've always attracted the same racist violent support.
Anarchist and far left groups have had violent protests but in general they haven't had an openly racist support.
We only have to go back to the Second World War to look at the dangers of far right politics.
So it's okay to have violent protest just as long as there's no racism? very strange. For me the biggest issue in protests is when they become violent and damage gets caused. Also for the record, I've witnessed a video of a German being told "Go back home" by a women cheered on by other Anifita members, is that not racism?
I have at no stage said violent protest is a good thing - I was merely pointing out the racist agenda of the far right. I'm not really clear what you're arguing about?
I don't understand why some on here feel the need to make some sort of defence for far right politics given its racist agenda. I'm not a great fan of ill-informed racist bigots and as far as I can see the majority are right wing.
I'm not arguing anything, I'm discussing with you on a forum. I agreed with you about them always attracting idiots, I pointed out Anifita because in my opinion they are in my eyes very very similar to the EDL with opposite political views.
In all honesty, I doubt anyone on here could argue that Tommy Robinson isn't ....
A few people could, but if you have made your mind up about someone then it isn't worth the hassle.
I thought Russell Brand was a complete ... until I watched a documentary he made and whilst I think he is a self admitted show off and extrovert I no longer think he is a complete .... The trick with people like Tommy Robinson is to see past the working class bluster and listen and read what he is saying in its entirety. Definitely not everyone's cup of Earl Grey but he is calling out some very real issues that nobody seemingly wants to embrace or discuss
In all honesty, I doubt anyone on here could argue that Tommy Robinson isn't ....
A few people could, but if you have made your mind up about someone then it isn't worth the hassle.
I thought Russell Brand was a complete ... until I watched a documentary he made and whilst I think he is a self admitted show off and extrovert I no longer think he is a complete .... The trick with people like Tommy Robinson is to see past the working class bluster and listen and read what he is saying in its entirety. Definitely not everyone's cup of Earl Grey but he is calling out some very real issues that nobody seemingly wants to embrace or discuss
Robinson can never avoid being dragged back to his central tenet of white supremacy. He and his ilk can't see past the colour of your skin. As a basis for an ideology that is abhorrent and of course illegal. Whether or not he has a grasp of other political themes or an ability to express himself is irrelevant all the while his motivation remains racial.
I'm not arguing anything, I'm discussing with you on a forum. I agreed with you about them always attracting idiots, I pointed out Anifita because in my opinion they are in my eyes very very similar to the EDL with opposite political views.
What's all this 'Anifita' stuff you keep mentioning. I'd never heard of it before, so I googled it. Turns out to be a woman called Anita Baumann. What's she ever done to you to stoke your ire like this?
3 words 3 flags 3 lols 3 likes 3 times directly quoted
Five hat-tricks from a single post. I'm not contributing to the thread, just admiring the symmetry.
I'll be honest this is the sort of attention to detail that could severely threaten a moderator. Another threat. Just when I thought I'd tied ibborg up by asking everyone to go to him if they want old threads and quotes dug up, along comes another thing for me to 'deal' with
calling people nazi's is extremely disrespectful tbh, we dont know the full story he was there with his wife, if for example as he was getting on the coach someone went for his wife, id of done the same? we don't know the full story as we are constantly told with any other incident such as terrorism acts, the levels of hypocrisy on here are laughable. the edl it self has jewish and sikh followers, admittedly they attract a few dickheads but then you could argue that extremists are the edl of the muslim faith?
I didn't call him a nazi because he got into a fight, I called him a nazi because in my opinion he is a nazi.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
Happen to know that when Robinson was serving time for mortgage fraud he was a whiny little bitch who was scared of his own shadow.
You'd know more than I would but to get my head around this. He committed a non-violent crime as in lending someone money/fraud and ended up in a category A jail?
Only reason I ask this is someone I know was found guilty of something similar if not worse and went to an open prison.
Bearing in mind that A category jails are run by muslim gangs and as someone like him is going to be a massive target as proved by the amount of hidings he has had in prison wouldn't you make a noise about that and be seriously concerned for your safety?
I probably sound like I'm somehow defending him here, I'm not just putting context or trying to
Whilst Woodhill does hold Cat A prisoners it still operates as a core local which means there will be prisoners serving short sentences for non-violent offences. There will have been reasons why he was sent there rather than a specific Cat B or C establishment although I can't specify why that decision was taken because I don't know. Regardless, wherever he'd have ended up in the prison estate he would have been a target for those opposed to his views.
He could have requested to go VP or refused to locate and done his time segregated if it was too much for him. No sympathy really as it's simple - if you're scared of what might happen to you in prison then don't commit acts that may land you in prison.
on the subject of prisons its widely known that a lot of these extremists are converted inside, do you think there should be Muslim only wings @AddickUpNorth ? as that was a tommy robinson idea which i think is a very good one.
on the subject of prisons its widely known that a lot of these extremists are converted inside, do you think there should be Muslim only wings @AddickUpNorth ? as that was a tommy robinson idea which i think is a very good one.
There are currently ongoing plans to open units for Muslim prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist related offences and those who are classed as radicalisers. The prison I work at is one of the sites chosen to have one of these units although I've not applied to work in it. These units will only hold a handful though and we're a very long way off from having full wings of Muslim only prisoners.
It has to be pointed out though that not all Muslim prisoners are radicalised or supportive of Islamist ideologies. For a lot it just means being part of a gang which is a continuation of the lifestyle they were living outside and for a lot it's just a case of trying to stay safe by being part of the biggest 'gang' there is inside. Speak to some individually away from their peers and they'll admit it's all just a front, a case of self preservation.
on the subject of prisons its widely known that a lot of these extremists are converted inside, do you think there should be Muslim only wings @AddickUpNorth ? as that was a tommy robinson idea which i think is a very good one.
There are currently ongoing plans to open units for Muslim prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist related offences and those who are classed as radicalisers. The prison I work at is one of the sites chosen to have one of these units although I've not applied to work in it. These units will only hold a handful though and we're a very long way off from having full wings of Muslim only prisoners.
It has to be pointed out though that not all Muslim prisoners are radicalised or supportive of Islamist ideologies. For a lot it just means being part of a gang which is a continuation of the lifestyle they were living outside and for a lot it's just a case of trying to stay safe by being part of the biggest 'gang' there is inside. Speak to some individually away from their peers and they'll admit it's all just a front, a case of self preservation.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
No, all I was saying is that nazis come from somewhere - they didn't start off by slaughtering millions. The people that profess Islam as an excuse for murdering are driven by a twisted ideology as well.
I don't consider this to be a Christian country, but if that is your faith I respect that.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
No, all I was saying is that nazis come from somewhere - they didn't start off by slaughtering millions. The people that profess Islam as an excuse for murdering are driven by a twisted ideology as well.
I don't consider this to be a Christian country, but if that is your faith I respect that.
maybe use the word racists, not saying that the edl doesnt have combat 18 sympathisers aswell as other backwards groups, but tommy robinson might be a bit of a thug but hes not a nazi.
i think he has some very good points and hes doing something about it, there was at least 5,000 on the streets saturday and i dont consider them nazis, there just people that are english and have had enough, i said this would happen eventually people start to have enough.
really? what would you consider it as maybe in the future we will have ramadam/eid as a public holiday, hopefully never in my lifetime.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
It's only eight days since a man who grew up in England, with similarly anti-Muslim views, tried very hard to kill several people in London.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
No, all I was saying is that nazis come from somewhere - they didn't start off by slaughtering millions. The people that profess Islam as an excuse for murdering are driven by a twisted ideology as well.
I don't consider this to be a Christian country, but if that is your faith I respect that.
maybe use the word racists, not saying that the edl doesnt have combat 18 sympathisers aswell as other backwards groups, but tommy robinson might be a bit of a thug but hes not a nazi.
i think he has some very good points and hes doing something about it, there was at least 5,000 on the streets saturday and i dont consider them nazis, there just people that are english and have had enough, i said this would happen eventually people start to have enough.
really? what would you consider it as maybe in the future we will have ramadam/eid as a public holiday, hopefully never in my lifetime.
I would be perfectly happy to have eid as a public holiday. Bring it on. I'm not a Christian but I celebrate Christmas, and I'm not a Moslem but I have been to countries where there is public celebration of Eid and I joined in that too.
Regarding the nazi thing - in Germany between the wars nazis and their sympathisers also portrayed themselves as good Germans who had had enough of wet socialism and of German values being undermined by a steady influx of people who were inimical to their values. It was a big selling point for them.
@Chizz whats funny about calling people nazi's i think its quite a strong word to call someone, a lot of people on here lost family members due to the "nazi's"
I can't and won't speak for the other posters who clicked "Like" or "LOL" on that post. But for me, the angst imbued in that three-word phrase, suffused with enraged feeling and barely-suppressed anger was comical.
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
cheers,
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
It is a strong word. Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions and the big Nazis were supported by lots of little nazis who believed in them or who jumped on the bandwagon for their own ends. The little nazis made the genocide possible.
tommy robinson/the edl arent responsible for the mass murder of anyone, dangerous extremist converts on the other hand, if they wanna blow themselves up to mince meat then fair enough, but this is england its what i call home and the last time i checked it was a christian country, so if they want to try and put there laws on our streets someone has to stand up to them?, or what shall we do all roll back and appease everything they want.
No, all I was saying is that nazis come from somewhere - they didn't start off by slaughtering millions. The people that profess Islam as an excuse for murdering are driven by a twisted ideology as well.
I don't consider this to be a Christian country, but if that is your faith I respect that.
maybe use the word racists, not saying that the edl doesnt have combat 18 sympathisers aswell as other backwards groups, but tommy robinson might be a bit of a thug but hes not a nazi.
i think he has some very good points and hes doing something about it, there was at least 5,000 on the streets saturday and i dont consider them nazis, there just people that are english and have had enough, i said this would happen eventually people start to have enough.
really? what would you consider it as maybe in the future we will have ramadam/eid as a public holiday, hopefully never in my lifetime.
Obviously having Ramadan as a public holiday would be ridiculous. But why would anyone object to Eid being a public holiday?
Comments
That it was posted without quoting anyone else and appeared, at first glance, to be a propos precisely nothing at all, made it stand out even more.
The structure of adjective-adjective-noun added to the comic effect. It gave the noun "twat" enhanced dramatic effect, whereas (of course) one should be more startled at the second adjective ("nazi").
This gives the reader the juxtaposition of the offending word "twat" being imbued with greater dramatic resonance than the reader should expect from a sentence where the two other words are normally the centrepiece of an insulting epithet ("fucking" and "nazi").
The brilliant way in which the sentence rolls up, through "fucking" and onwards through "nazi", takes the reader on an anticipatory journey. That journey's tension should released by a hugely-significant culmination noun. But the reader's tension is left wanting, in that "twat" is a far tamer noun than the reader might have been expecting.
The sentence is left alone, so thinking about how that piece of offence might be resolved only adds to its piquancy. Does the subject take offence at the phrase? And if so, to which word? If he objects to "nazi", is he admitting he's a "fucking twat"? Or does he gainsay either of the other terms? In which case he's tacitly agreeing to his nazism. It's a tantalising opener to a short play which the reader has to complete himself.
So, in short, the brilliantly-written, pithy comment by @Wheresmeticket? was, to all intents and purposes, "funny". That's not to say some people also found offence in it and flagged it: not me. And others still merely "liked" it. I can't speak to their motives.
Does that answer your question fully?
I don't understand why some on here feel the need to make some sort of defence for far right politics given its racist agenda. I'm not a great fan of ill-informed racist bigots and as far as I can see the majority are right wing.
I thought Russell Brand was a complete ... until I watched a documentary he made and whilst I think he is a self admitted show off and extrovert I no longer think he is a complete .... The trick with people like Tommy Robinson is to see past the working class bluster and listen and read what he is saying in its entirety. Definitely not everyone's cup of Earl Grey but he is calling out some very real issues that nobody seemingly wants to embrace or discuss
3 flags
3 lols
3 likes
3 times directly quoted
Five hat-tricks from a single post. I'm not contributing to the thread, just admiring the symmetry.
Be careful, I'll be watching you very closely
i do think its a very strong word to use as the nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, tommy robinson is against the warped ideology behind people that have killed a lot of people in terrorist attacks.
warped ideology as in taking it very literally, as all religions are ridiculous if taken in there literal sense.
Only reason I ask this is someone I know was found guilty of something similar if not worse and went to an open prison.
Bearing in mind that A category jails are run by muslim gangs and as someone like him is going to be a massive target as proved by the amount of hidings he has had in prison wouldn't you make a noise about that and be seriously concerned for your safety?
I probably sound like I'm somehow defending him here, I'm not just putting context or trying to
He could have requested to go VP or refused to locate and done his time segregated if it was too much for him. No sympathy really as it's simple - if you're scared of what might happen to you in prison then don't commit acts that may land you in prison.
There are currently ongoing plans to open units for Muslim prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist related offences and those who are classed as radicalisers. The prison I work at is one of the sites chosen to have one of these units although I've not applied to work in it. These units will only hold a handful though and we're a very long way off from having full wings of Muslim only prisoners.
It has to be pointed out though that not all Muslim prisoners are radicalised or supportive of Islamist ideologies. For a lot it just means being part of a gang which is a continuation of the lifestyle they were living outside and for a lot it's just a case of trying to stay safe by being part of the biggest 'gang' there is inside. Speak to some individually away from their peers and they'll admit it's all just a front, a case of self preservation.
Hope this shines a light for you @palarsehater
I don't consider this to be a Christian country, but if that is your faith I respect that.
i think he has some very good points and hes doing something about it, there was at least 5,000 on the streets saturday and i dont consider them nazis, there just people that are english and have had enough, i said this would happen eventually people start to have enough.
really? what would you consider it as maybe in the future we will have ramadam/eid as a public holiday, hopefully never in my lifetime.
Regarding the nazi thing - in Germany between the wars nazis and their sympathisers also portrayed themselves as good Germans who had had enough of wet socialism and of German values being undermined by a steady influx of people who were inimical to their values. It was a big selling point for them.