Fairytale of New York

SporadicAddick said:

PaddyP17 said:

bigstemarra said:

ValleyGary said:

Who’s Lawrence Fox and why has everyone got their arse in the air about him?

He's an (ex - now cancelled) actor who dared to challenge the sacred belief/conspiracy theory/divisive bollocks that is the concept of  'white privilege' on Question Time.  He was called racist for pointing out that making generalised derogatory statements about folk based on the colour their skin was probably racist, what with it being the dictionary definition and all.  Unfortunately, the person he defended himself against was not only a woman, but also not white and in the woke pantheon they are infallible and always right (unless they vote Tory, in which case they're race traitors).  For this he must BURN!  Pile on!

Also made himself look a bit of an arse in an argument about Sikhs in the British Army in WWI.  Doesn't always choose his battles wisely.  

He is now a kind of Trump replacement figure to the woke (they have to tweet about someone else all day now that the orange one is being slowly shuffled, unwillingly, toward the exit door - they will need someone else to spend their whole day hating now) and as such has become the virtue signallers 'go to'. He's also posh, making him even more of a hate figure on the left, although he probably comes from the same demographic as most of those who run and support the Labour Party. 

So get online and tweet about how much you hate him in order to inveigle yourself into the woke tribe and rack up some 'right on' points with the righteous.  It's all the rage!

White privilege isn't a concept. It is fact, though the term is too simplistic for the nuance. 

White privilege is best articulated as the absence of additional hardships on the basis of skin colour - not that "all white people" have it good or better than non-white people. (It would be absolutely ridiculous to accuse a working-class twenty-something unemployed white man from Burnley, for instance, of being more privileged than myself overall, for instance.)

I'd like to clarify that the following isn't based on whatever specific Fox incident you're talking about, but invoking a dictionary definition is always a fun one. Racism is an incredibly complex topic and defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down.

But if we are to follow a dictionary definition - what the fuck are you on about with this "woke pantheon" and supposed infallibility of women of colour? Can you perhaps not make generalisations about non-white people?

What is "wokeism" to you? What is "virtue signalling"? You use these terms with derision but I've not seen you define them.

Is a dictionary,therefore, an inherently racist publication? I think we should be told.

No, and I'll thank you for not implying that's what I said.

 SporadicAddick said:

PaddyP17 said:

bigstemarra said:

ValleyGary said:

Who’s Lawrence Fox and why has everyone got their arse in the air about him?

He's an (ex - now cancelled) actor who dared to challenge the sacred belief/conspiracy theory/divisive bollocks that is the concept of  'white privilege' on Question Time.  He was called racist for pointing out that making generalised derogatory statements about folk based on the colour their skin was probably racist, what with it being the dictionary definition and all.  Unfortunately, the person he defended himself against was not only a woman, but also not white and in the woke pantheon they are infallible and always right (unless they vote Tory, in which case they're race traitors).  For this he must BURN!  Pile on!

Also made himself look a bit of an arse in an argument about Sikhs in the British Army in WWI.  Doesn't always choose his battles wisely.  

He is now a kind of Trump replacement figure to the woke (they have to tweet about someone else all day now that the orange one is being slowly shuffled, unwillingly, toward the exit door - they will need someone else to spend their whole day hating now) and as such has become the virtue signallers 'go to'. He's also posh, making him even more of a hate figure on the left, although he probably comes from the same demographic as most of those who run and support the Labour Party. 

So get online and tweet about how much you hate him in order to inveigle yourself into the woke tribe and rack up some 'right on' points with the righteous.  It's all the rage!

White privilege isn't a concept. It is fact, though the term is too simplistic for the nuance. 

White privilege is best articulated as the absence of additional hardships on the basis of skin colour - not that "all white people" have it good or better than non-white people. (It would be absolutely ridiculous to accuse a working-class twenty-something unemployed white man from Burnley, for instance, of being more privileged than myself overall, for instance.)

I'd like to clarify that the following isn't based on whatever specific Fox incident you're talking about, but invoking a dictionary definition is always a fun one. Racism is an incredibly complex topic and defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down.

But if we are to follow a dictionary definition - what the fuck are you on about with this "woke pantheon" and supposed infallibility of women of colour? Can you perhaps not make generalisations about non-white people?

What is "wokeism" to you? What is "virtue signalling"? You use these terms with derision but I've not seen you define them.

Is a dictionary,therefore, an inherently racist publication? I think we should be told.

No, but it is sexist. Why can’t it be called a fannyionary?

PaddyP17 said:

bigstemarra said:

ValleyGary said:

Who’s Lawrence Fox and why has everyone got their arse in the air about him?

He's an (ex - now cancelled) actor who dared to challenge the sacred belief/conspiracy theory/divisive bollocks that is the concept of  'white privilege' on Question Time.  He was called racist for pointing out that making generalised derogatory statements about folk based on the colour their skin was probably racist, what with it being the dictionary definition and all.  Unfortunately, the person he defended himself against was not only a woman, but also not white and in the woke pantheon they are infallible and always right (unless they vote Tory, in which case they're race traitors).  For this he must BURN!  Pile on!

Also made himself look a bit of an arse in an argument about Sikhs in the British Army in WWI.  Doesn't always choose his battles wisely.  

He is now a kind of Trump replacement figure to the woke (they have to tweet about someone else all day now that the orange one is being slowly shuffled, unwillingly, toward the exit door - they will need someone else to spend their whole day hating now) and as such has become the virtue signallers 'go to'. He's also posh, making him even more of a hate figure on the left, although he probably comes from the same demographic as most of those who run and support the Labour Party. 

So get online and tweet about how much you hate him in order to inveigle yourself into the woke tribe and rack up some 'right on' points with the righteous.  It's all the rage!

White privilege isn't a concept. It is fact, though the term is too simplistic for the nuance. 

White privilege is best articulated as the absence of additional hardships on the basis of skin colour - not that "all white people" have it good or better than non-white people. (It would be absolutely ridiculous to accuse a working-class twenty-something unemployed white man from Burnley, for instance, of being more privileged than myself overall, for instance.)

I'd like to clarify that the following isn't based on whatever specific Fox incident you're talking about, but invoking a dictionary definition is always a fun one. Racism is an incredibly complex topic and defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down.

But if we are to follow a dictionary definition - what the fuck are you on about with this "woke pantheon" and supposed infallibility of women of colour? Can you perhaps not make generalisations about non-white people?

What is "wokeism" to you? What is "virtue signalling"? You use these terms with derision but I've not seen you define them.

You don't need the term 'virtue signalling' defined to you. You know exactly what it means. It's a term that is often used lazily and thoughtlessly much like 'racist', 'sexist' etc.
However, that doesn't preclude the fact that in certain instances their usage can be wholly apposite and justified.

SporadicAddick said:

PaddyP17 said:

SporadicAddick said:

PaddyP17 said:

bigstemarra said:

ValleyGary said:

Who’s Lawrence Fox and why has everyone got their arse in the air about him?

He's an (ex - now cancelled) actor who dared to challenge the sacred belief/conspiracy theory/divisive bollocks that is the concept of  'white privilege' on Question Time.  He was called racist for pointing out that making generalised derogatory statements about folk based on the colour their skin was probably racist, what with it being the dictionary definition and all.  Unfortunately, the person he defended himself against was not only a woman, but also not white and in the woke pantheon they are infallible and always right (unless they vote Tory, in which case they're race traitors).  For this he must BURN!  Pile on!

Also made himself look a bit of an arse in an argument about Sikhs in the British Army in WWI.  Doesn't always choose his battles wisely.  

He is now a kind of Trump replacement figure to the woke (they have to tweet about someone else all day now that the orange one is being slowly shuffled, unwillingly, toward the exit door - they will need someone else to spend their whole day hating now) and as such has become the virtue signallers 'go to'. He's also posh, making him even more of a hate figure on the left, although he probably comes from the same demographic as most of those who run and support the Labour Party. 

So get online and tweet about how much you hate him in order to inveigle yourself into the woke tribe and rack up some 'right on' points with the righteous.  It's all the rage!

White privilege isn't a concept. It is fact, though the term is too simplistic for the nuance. 

White privilege is best articulated as the absence of additional hardships on the basis of skin colour - not that "all white people" have it good or better than non-white people. (It would be absolutely ridiculous to accuse a working-class twenty-something unemployed white man from Burnley, for instance, of being more privileged than myself overall, for instance.)

I'd like to clarify that the following isn't based on whatever specific Fox incident you're talking about, but invoking a dictionary definition is always a fun one. Racism is an incredibly complex topic and defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down.

But if we are to follow a dictionary definition - what the fuck are you on about with this "woke pantheon" and supposed infallibility of women of colour? Can you perhaps not make generalisations about non-white people?

What is "wokeism" to you? What is "virtue signalling"? You use these terms with derision but I've not seen you define them.

Is a dictionary,therefore, an inherently racist publication? I think we should be told.

No, and I'll thank you for not implying that's what I said.

Not sure I implied any such thing - I asked a questioned. I'd like to ask another question. Should we not accept a dictionary definition of racism if it hasn't been written by a person of colour? 

Alright, fair enough. Apologies for the cynicism!

I will make this my last post on the subject because we're miles away from the thread here (again, apologies for my part in the thread derailment), but we should probably not exclusively measure racism as a metric according to how it's defined in the dictionary. For instance, one could argue that the nuance and power dynamics of - for example, and excuse the ham-fisted terms - "white-on-black" abuse; "Chinese-on-Indian" abuse; or "Latino-on-African American" abuse are all very different. Indeed, a white person racially abusing a black person would have a different context in the US compared to, for instance, Zimbabwe (where white people were an actively persecuted minority under Mugabe).

SantaClaus said:

https://twitter.com/TraceyFans/status/1009806379593367552?s=09

These kind of threads always remind of this Tracey Ulman sketch. I think she absolutely nails a certain type of virtue signaller.

It for me shows that you can (and will) effectively be accused of being a bigot if someone doesn't like you. 

'Woke' is the ability to be a complete hypocrite due to cultural relativism, i.e treating people differently and having flexible principles depending on their minority and perceived victim status.  It is the enemy of equality. 

So a non-white person being racist is fine, but a white person even being perceived as having been racist is beyond the pale...they must be destroyed.  No-one has a problem with genuine racists reaping what they sow, but there is a lack of supply of the real thing, so it requires the charge to be manufactured more often than not. Perception is all that matters, not intent, so being guilty of a thought crime needs no actual evidence.  Not that the mob cares; it stills get a nice, warm, satisfying glow as it wields the sword of social justice - and all it required was a few clicks of the mouse, or for the more advanced, a mildly amusing sign attacking the correct targets to be circulated around social media following a demo for the 'right causes'.

The morally pure constantly pointing out the defects in others whilst having an inability to reflect on their own possible moral failings (which we all have, but only some will admit to).   The type of people who will flock to the online equivalent of a pitchfork wielding mob to heap abuse and hatred of others, bullying, basically, yet still consider themselves 'nice' and on the side of the angels.

Virtue signalling is a tribal act where you display your membership of the tribe of the righteous by attacking the right figures and having the correct thoughts and incessantly letting the rest of the world know how 'right thinking you are'.  If you are unsure of the definition, just watch any recent BBC 'comedy', where 'clapter' (VS statements denouncing the 'correct' targets that the audience can show their approval of) has replaced actually being funny.  Even Frankie Boyle now has the disease, which is a shame.  It is probably best described now as a religion, complete with immutable articles of faith, true believers and, of course, blasphemers (anyone who questions the holy tenets of the faith).

Critical race theory is just another conspiracy theory; it is a perception of the world confused with and presented as fact.  It is the product of a self-serving industry that has grown huge recently and needs the world to see racism everywhere so that it can sell itself as being the solution to it.  There's a lot of money to be made out of promoting racial disharmony, after all.  Meanwhile the cohesion of the country is destroyed as people are re-calibrated to see what makes them different to others rather than looking for common ground and uniting.  It is a poisonous, divisive ideology which makes a mockery of the inclusive message that MLK delivered to the world; I'll stick with him, thanks....the right-on racists can go to hell.

Anyway, it's Friday night.  Time to get a life, at least for a while.

PaddyP17 said:

Covered End said:

Huskaris said:

In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.

Thanks xox

But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used.
Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.

By jove, he's understanding it!

Jove? Is that really still acceptable? Please don't remind me of the Roman imperialist past that my family suffered, it's very backward looking, and I live this every day of my life. 

Covered End said:

PaddyP17 said:

Covered End said:

Huskaris said:

In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.

Thanks xox

But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used.
Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.

By jove, he's understanding it!

Do you know which dictionary we should use?

Does it have to be one that originated with black people or brown people or people of colour in general, or does it need to be more specific like East Asian or South Asian or perhaps a mixture of everyone?

Also, does it also have to originate from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex as well?

What about straight female or male, is that ok if they are not white?

I think what he is trying to say is that you have to use his definition, regardless of if the people he is ham-fistedly trying to represent actually agree.

Basically "don't use the actual definition of the word, use the one that allows me to make my argument."

Rinse and repeat. 

Huskaris said:

PaddyP17 said:

Covered End said:

Huskaris said:

In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.

Thanks xox

But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used.
Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.

By jove, he's understanding it!

Jove? Is that really still acceptable? Please don't remind me of the Roman imperialist past that my family suffered, it's very backward looking, and I live this every day of my life. 

Covered End said:

PaddyP17 said:

Covered End said:

Huskaris said:

In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.

Thanks xox

But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used.
Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.

By jove, he's understanding it!

Do you know which dictionary we should use?

Does it have to be one that originated with black people or brown people or people of colour in general, or does it need to be more specific like East Asian or South Asian or perhaps a mixture of everyone?

Also, does it also have to originate from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex as well?

What about straight female or male, is that ok if they are not white?

I think what he is trying to say is that you have to use his definition, regardless of if the people he is ham-fistedly trying to represent actually agree.

Basically "don't use the actual definition of the word, use the one that allows me to make my argument."

Rinse and repeat. 

Not what I've said at all. (NB My response to Covered End's comment that made fun of me was tongue in cheek, for the avoidance of doubt.)

I said that we have to be careful sticking solely to a dictionary-led definition of racism when it's a far more complex issue than can be summed up in one or two sentences, and also in part because dictionaries were primarily pioneered by white men. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold. If you do, let me know and we'll leave it there.