Racism

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

The legal costs will be painful though. He should apologise, offer £10k each to a charity of their choice and hope they settle. 

He’s already retracted. I think they’ll have trouble proving people think they are paedos on the back of tweet. He’ll be trying to prove people think he’s racist based on their tweets. Again, hard to prove.  Both sides apologise and walk away. 

[Bruce Spanner]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

He’s already retracted. I think they’ll have trouble proving people think they are paedos on the back of tweet. He’ll be trying to prove people think he’s racist based on their tweets. Again, hard to prove.  Both sides apologise and walk away. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-50695593

 

Pretty sure this’ll hold here as well.

[Rico1304]

15 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-50695593

 

Pretty sure this’ll hold here as well.

It’s much harder to defame someone in the US. But proving harm to reputation is difficult if you don’t have one. Both will walk away. 

[Bruce Spanner]

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It’s much harder to defame someone in the US. But proving harm to reputation is difficult if you don’t have one. Both will walk away. 

Yeah, I know that’s why they come here to get a ‘free trial’.

 

Aren't we the libel capital of the world or something equally less charming? 
 

You’re right above, a charity donation and an ‘I’m sorry for being a bellend statement’ Shame, as I want to see him trading blow jobs for Turps down by the docks.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

There's actually an opinion piece in the Guardian today which asserts that celebrating the beauty of mixed-race people is racist because of their "proximity to whiteness".

 

Why celebrating ‘mixed-race beauty' has its problematic side | Race | The Guardian

 

Devastating news for the Maya Jama, Christina Milian and Rihanna threads on here.

Cobblers, isn't it.  I think the weirdest (and most, if anyone wants to use the word, "problematic") is the idea of people having a racial or national "type" of person they're attracted to. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Fox is a massive bellend, but you can’t go crying for being called a paedo when you have been throwing the insults around first and not expect a response back.

Wrong.

 

If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.

 

You can't go calling someone a paedo unless, y'know...

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Wrong.

 

If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.

 

You can't go calling someone a paedo unless, y'know...

They prefer unsmoked over smoked bacon? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

They prefer unsmoked over smoked bacon? 

Go lick an ashtray, you anti-bacon deviant.

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Go lick an ashtray, you anti-bacon deviant.

Go lick a penis you taste-hating ladle. 

[Rico1304]

28 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Wrong.

 

If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.

 

You can't go calling someone a paedo unless, y'know...

Nope

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Nope

Which bit are you disagreeing with?

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.

 

What about a fascist? That is all the rage.

[Rico1304]

21 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Which bit are you disagreeing with?

A person thinking it’s racist isn’t enough, in the same way someone thinking another is a kiddy fiddler isnt enough. 
 

edit: big edit!

[VladimirIlyich]

I can't believe another thread has fell into quoting and referencing this Twitter bollocks.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

40 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

A person thinking it’s racist isn’t enough, in the same way someone thinking another is a kiddy fiddler isnt enough. 
 

edit: big edit!

If you can point to something someone has said and done and say "this is racist, because..."  Then of course that's enough.   If the person being called racist disagrees, they can argue their case. That's how free speech is supposed to work. 

 

If a person calls someone a paedo with absolutely no grounds whatsoever, then they're just being a cunt and they deserve what's coming to them.

[Rico1304]

21 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If you can point to something someone has said and done and say "this is racist, because..."  Then of course that's enough.   If the person being called racist disagrees, they can argue their case. That's how free speech is supposed to work. 

 

If a person calls someone a paedo with absolutely no grounds whatsoever, then they're just being a cunt and they deserve what's coming to them.

No it isn’t. At all. 
 

I think Fox is as much a cunt as anyone on here but apply what you’ve said to St Corbyn. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

No it isn’t. At all. 
 

I think Fox is as much a cunt as anyone on here but apply what you’ve said to St Corbyn. 

Two things, Nobby:

Firstly, I've never beatified any politician, so whatever you're trying to imply by that "St Corbyn" horseshit is miles off-target.

 

Secondly, the point I made applies equally to everyone. If you accuse someone of something you need to be able to back it up, otherwise you're just being a twat.  I did not think it was a controversial point.

[Rico1304]

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Two things, Nobby:

Firstly, I've never beatified any politician, so whatever you're trying to imply by that "St Corbyn" horseshit is miles off-target.

 

Secondly, the point I made applies equally to everyone. If you accuse someone of something you need to be able to back it up, otherwise you're just being a twat.  I did not think it was a controversial point.

Of course not. 
 

In libel your opinion doesn’t matter.  ‘I said he was racist because he didn’t like blackberries or black currant’.  That’s not good enough.   

[Skidfingers McGonical]

11 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Wrong.

 

If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.

 

You can't go calling someone a paedo unless, y'know...

But what if I think they are?

[deiseach]

9 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Firstly, I've never beatified any politician, so whatever you're trying to imply by that "St Corbyn" horseshit is miles off-target.

Miles off-target is right. I mean, if you beatified him he'd be "Blessed Corbyn".

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Of course not. 
 

In libel your opinion doesn’t matter.  ‘I said he was racist because he didn’t like blackberries or black currant’.  That’s not good enough.   

I wasn't talking about the finer points of libel law: I was talking about right and wrong.

But if you want to talk about libel, let's do that.  Nobody ever has or ever will go to a UK libel hearing with a case about blackberries. No lawyer will take a case based on what one person thinks. Libel cases are decided on what the court thinks is reasonable (and the lawyers will only take those they think have a chance of success).  I've accused people on here (probably including you) of racism, in respect of something they've posted. If you (or whoever) decided to sue me for libel, I would point to your post and argue that that twat on the Clapham omnibus would think it's a bit racist. 

I've never called anyone here a paedo, because I'd have no grounds for doing so and any libel court would, quite rightly, throw the book at me.

 

To summarise:-

Saying something with evidence to back it up is the proper exercise of free speech. 

Wildly throwing around completely unfounded accusations is a cunt's trick and probably libellous.

 

(PS - Shove your "of course not" up your arse sideways, you witless snide gobshite.)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

But what if I think they are?

Back it up.

Evidence and shit.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

Facist has been so overused by the hard left that it’s completely meaningless now. If you disagree with me you’re a fascist. It’s the Zimbabwean dollar of insults. 

That claim is as much a daft cliché as the phrase "hard left".

[Bjornebye]

17 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

I've never called anyone here a paedo, because I'd have no grounds for doing so and any libel court would, quite rightly, throw the book at me.

 

To summarise:-

Saying something with evidence to back it up is the proper exercise of free speech. 

Wildly throwing around completely unfounded accusations is a cunt's trick and probably libellous.

 

A fair few of us will be right in the shit then by that reckoning 

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

Well a quick search on here shows the word has been used 1,400 plus times. Given that it’s been 75 years since the last fascist regime and this isn’t a WW2 history forum, 1,400 “fascists” feels like a lot of unnecessary usage. 

Its the go to insult. I dont think the people that have called me a fascist actually understand what it means, they never point out why they think that way. Its silly childish Rik from the Young Ones stuff.