Quantcast
Racism - Page 37 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

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

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Back it up.

Evidence and shit.

But you have said that if you think someone is being racist you would call them out on it. So using Fox as an example, has he specifically said anything overtly racist to be justified being branded a racist? (I'll freely admit I personally haven't seen it as I pay very little attention to him)

 

Or is it just people piling on, like a lot of the left have done with the likes of Jordan Peterson (recent example of him being compared to a the Nazi Red Skull) or Sam Harris or even Ben Shapiro (granted he sets himself up with poor analogy's)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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. 

And of those 1,400 uses, how many are used as an empty insult against someone the poster disagrees with? And how many are used to refer to, y'know, Fascists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

And of those 1,400 uses, how many are used as an empty insult against someone the poster disagrees with? And how many are used to refer to, y'know, Fascists?

You're right of course a lot are empty insults. Is it right to down play the meaning of the word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

And of those 1,400 uses, how many are used as an empty insult against someone the poster disagrees with? And how many are used to refer to, y'know, Fascists?

I think it’s massively misunderstood. It’s become a catch all to insult people whose opinions are right wing even those a lot of ‘right wing’ values such as libertarianism, small state, free markets etc are directly at odds with the actual fascist beliefs of authoritarianisn, massive expansion of the role of the state into every sphere of life and nationalised industries. I struggle to see how many modern UK conservative politicians could be defined as fascist but it’s a commonplace insult, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

I think it’s massively misunderstood. It’s become a catch all to insult people whose opinions are right wing even those a lot of ‘right wing’ values such as libertarianism, small state, free markets etc are directly at odds with the actual fascist beliefs of authoritarianisn, massive expansion of the role of the state into every sphere of life and nationalised industries. I struggle to see how many modern UK conservative politicians could be defined as fascist but it’s a commonplace insult, 

I'd say their leader is at least a racist,bigot and xenophobe so he's pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

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.)

This is what you said. 
 

“If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.”
 
Thats not true because people can take all sorts of benign things to be racist. Like wearing braids or wearing the wrong clothes.  So, you calling someone racist because of your own interpretation of the word isn’t any kind of defence.  Glad to have helped and hope they rest of your period passes well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I'd say their leader is at least a racist,bigot and xenophobe so he's pretty close.

This is exactly my point, racism isn’t fascism, it’s racism. Bigotry isn’t facism, it’s bigotry. Fascism is a very specific set of values and beliefs although there are variants between the German and Italian approach. Johnson is not a facist by any definition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

This is exactly my point, racism isn’t fascism, it’s racism. Bigotry isn’t facism, it’s bigotry. Fascism is a very specific set of values and beliefs although there are variants between the German and Italian approach. Johnson is not a facist by any definition. 

He's just missing mobilising the army to whip us all into shape to be fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

This is exactly my point, racism isn’t fascism, it’s racism. Bigotry isn’t facism, it’s bigotry. Fascism is a very specific set of values and beliefs although there are variants between the German and Italian approach. Johnson is not a facist by any definition. 


He’s certainly sailing close to the wind, through accident or design is up to the observer...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-military-fascist-far-right-language-a9126151.html%3Famp

 

When even the friendly newspapers are mentioning it it might be time to consider it a option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

 

That's the definition. He's ticked most of them and is starting to use briefings to slag off opposition politicians. I think we aren't that far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

This is exactly my point, racism isn’t fascism, it’s racism. Bigotry isn’t facism, it’s bigotry. Fascism is a very specific set of values and beliefs although there are variants between the German and Italian approach. Johnson is not a facist by any definition. 

Nationalisation of industry (you can't control what you don't own) is a left ideology pure and simple, yet according to you it comes under fascism. You can't say I think it means they are fascist but if a number of elements combine then you can definitely point it out as leaning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get snippets of most political ideals that are shared across the spectrum. Just interpreted differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A Red said:

You're right of course a lot are empty insults. Is it right to down play the meaning of the word?

No it's not right to do that. Nor is it anywhere near as common as people like Bumcunt would like to pretend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


He’s certainly sailing close to the wind, through accident or design is up to the observer...

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/is-it-time-to-use-the-f-word-about-boris-johnsons-disastrous-regime/

I think it does demonstrate that when faced with a real or artificial existential threat, how quickly the general population will cede their liberties and embrace authoritarianism. It’s terrifying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No it's not right to do that. Nor is it anywhere near as common as people like Bumcunt would like to pretend.

I think you might have the wrong rank

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

I think it’s massively misunderstood. It’s become a catch all to insult people whose opinions are right wing even those a lot of ‘right wing’ values such as libertarianism, small state, free markets etc are directly at odds with the actual fascist beliefs of authoritarianisn, massive expansion of the role of the state into every sphere of life and nationalised industries. I struggle to see how many modern UK conservative politicians could be defined as fascist but it’s a commonplace insult, 

The current government is behaving in an increasingly authoritarian manner. In that respect, at least, I've seen people  (with some justification) arguing that they are showing some of the signs of Fascism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The current government is behaving in an increasingly authoritarian manner. In that respect, at least, I've seen people  (with some justification) arguing that they are showing some of the signs of Fascism. 

Media manipulation being at the fore-front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

This is what you said. 
 

“If someone says or does something you think is racist, it's perfectly legitimate to call them a racist twat.”
 
Thats not true because people can take all sorts of benign things to be racist. Like wearing braids or wearing the wrong clothes.  So, you calling someone racist because of your own interpretation of the word isn’t any kind of defence.  Glad to have helped and hope they rest of your period passes well. 

Such a bellend. 

 

I know what I said, you daft fart: i said it. Of course it's legitimate to call someone racist if they say or do something you think is racist.  (Ask MacPherson if you don't believe me.) I'd go further and argue that it's a moral obligation to call out racism where you see it. Obviously, if the person you call racist thinks they've done nothing wrong, it's perfectly legitimate for them to argue their case.

 

Not a fan of free speech, ate you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Such a bellend. 

 

I know what I said, you daft fart: i said it. Of course it's legitimate to call someone racist if they say or do something you think is racist.  (Ask MacPherson if you don't believe me.) I'd go further and argue that it's a moral obligation to call out racism where you see it. Obviously, if the person you call racist thinks they've done nothing wrong, it's perfectly legitimate for them to argue their case.

 

Not a fan of free speech, ate you?

I’m not a free speech absolutist, no.  That’s fucking mental. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Nationalisation of industry (you can't control what you don't own) is a left ideology pure and simple, yet according to you it comes under fascism. You can't say I think it means they are fascist but if a number of elements combine then you can definitely point it out as leaning.

 

A key factor in Germany losing the war was Hitlers opposition to using free markets and foreign imports becuase he associated it with Jewish ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • It was the gimp, I think. 
    • They’re really milking this deal. 
    • I know there’s no time for two club cunts on here but Sporting just need 4 points to clinch the Premeira. Three years ago they were known as the worst run club in world football, when their president paid supporters to attack players at the training ground. Just goes to show anything is possible and you are never as far away as you think. All done on a shoestring budget, with a rookie manager and a bunch of punk kids. Big Seb Coates finally came good.
    • The irony is that almost every other club would kill to be in the position that City and Chelsea are in.
      Everton would be top of that list, yet proudly spout about how they “called out” the breakaway six and spoke for every other club when they called for sanctions against them. The purpose of those sanctions were to allow themselves to be bumped into a position where they could “qualify” for a European place that they hadn’t actually earned as much as anything else and to claim differently is basically a lie.
      West Ham, Brighton and Crystal Palace, with rent-a-quote chairman Steve Parrish, again pontificating about how these teams should be brought to book, yet wanting to null and void last season to protect themselves against possible relegation whilst saying it was morally wrong to play on given lives were being lost. They refuse to see that in applauding City and Chelsea for breaking away, and back into the Premier League, all that is guaranteeing is they strengthen those clubs with Oligarchs or Oil States as owners to continue dominating every competition they are in, effectively taking the competitiveness away from those very same competitions!
      The ESL wasn’t handled very well in its timing or proposed implementation, but the general idea that it would possibly limit the massive money teams and allow others to challenge them was a sound one, but the blinkers were on from the time the announcement was made and the “little 14”, as opposed to the “big 6”, basically decided to hold onto what they had rather than what they might have had. It won’t go away though and they must know that, even if the current voting regulations in the Premier League give them the whip hand, and effectively a veto, for anything the top teams might want to bring in. A quick look at who has won the major prizes in European competition and domestic leagues over the past few seasons will show them why the current system needs changes to be made. They’re all hypocrites though, and will bury their collective heads in the sand while the really big boys dry bum them.
    • Talk that we have agreed terms with Konate
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • top casino sites
  • new UK casino
×