|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:Just an observation here..............................
Why do the "right" constantly whinge about the "left" for having a different view to them? Seems highly hypocritical. that's not what i am saying here......but no surprise you don't get it..... Why can't people accept these people being elected?????? EG: clive palmer, Jackie Landy, Glen Lazarus, Pauline Hanson ETC What's your definition of accept? I see people complaining about the fact that people voted for them because they disagree with their opinions and that they can be a destructive influence. That to me doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. :shock: :shock: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. I personally wouldn't call Sonia Kruger racist but the whole "Islam is not a race therefore it's not racist" is a huge oversimplification. Really not interested in discussing definitions of these things because "the right" like to manipulate them to allow them to say things that aren't generally acceptable in today's society. fuck you are full of shit
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. I personally wouldn't call Sonia Kruger racist but the whole "Islam is not a race therefore it's not racist" is a huge oversimplification. Really not interested in discussing definitions of these things because "the right" like to manipulate them to allow them to say things that aren't generally acceptable in today's society. fuck you are full of shit Right back at you buddy :shock: :shock: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Honestly throwing the race card into a debate about Islam seems to be used too often to stifle said debate.
In saying that it's not hard to criticise any major religion without resorting to any kind of skin colour or cultural traditions......
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. I personally wouldn't call Sonia Kruger racist but the whole "Islam is not a race therefore it's not racist" is a huge oversimplification. Really not interested in discussing definitions of these things because "the right" like to manipulate them to allow them to say things that aren't generally acceptable in today's society. fuck you are full of shit Right back at you buddy :shock: :shock: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :lol: water off a ducks back.......carry on with your delusions
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:Honestly throwing the race card into a debate about Islam seems to be used too often to stifle said debate.
In saying that it's not hard to criticise any major religion without resorting to any kind of skin colour or cultural traditions...... The issue is that it often does end up in "cultural traditions". Skin colour isn't as openly mentioned for obvious reasons.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. I personally wouldn't call Sonia Kruger racist but the whole "Islam is not a race therefore it's not racist" is a huge oversimplification. Really not interested in discussing definitions of these things because "the right" like to manipulate them to allow them to say things that aren't generally acceptable in today's society. fuck you are full of shit Right back at you buddy :shock: :shock: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :lol: water off a ducks back.......carry on with your delusions Right back at you buddy :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. Look at what I missed out on on Friday night. McJules being outdebated by Rusty :lol: I don't often agree with Rusty but (s)he was bang on for every point. Edited by vanlassen: 25/7/2016 09:43:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
vanlassen wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. Look at what I missed out on on Friday night. McJules being outdebated by Rusty :lol: I don't often agree with Rusty but (s)he was bang on for every point. Edited by vanlassen: 25/7/2016 09:43:42 AM Yes well done his point of view is the same as yours on this one =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:Honestly throwing the race card into a debate about Islam seems to be used too often to stifle said debate.
In saying that it's not hard to criticise any major religion without resorting to any kind of skin colour or cultural traditions...... The issue is that it often does end up in "cultural traditions". Skin colour isn't as openly mentioned for obvious reasons. It is frustrating to have to refrain from criticising the Koran, Torah, Bible in case you offend someone who isn't white by pointing out that their outdated book of horrors isn't as peaceful as they make it out to be. We had a bloke at work who was as fundamentalist Christian as I've ever met in person and he was super offended by me asking him not to talk about god at work. The insistence that he was trying to help me and my negative response to that was unacceptable to him. He could not accept that his 'help' could be taken as offensive by others because he was apparently doing the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:Honestly throwing the race card into a debate about Islam seems to be used too often to stifle said debate.
In saying that it's not hard to criticise any major religion without resorting to any kind of skin colour or cultural traditions...... The issue is that it often does end up in "cultural traditions". Skin colour isn't as openly mentioned for obvious reasons. It is frustrating to have to refrain from criticising the Koran, Torah, Bible in case you offend someone who isn't white by pointing out that their outdated book of horrors isn't as peaceful as they make it out to be. We had a bloke at work who was as fundamentalist Christian as I've ever met in person and he was super offended by me asking him not to talk about god at work. The insistence that he was trying to help me and my negative response to that was unacceptable to him. He could not accept that his 'help' could be taken as offensive by others because he was apparently doing the right thing. I've never had an issue with your posts on religion. There's a difference with what you post compared to some of the "edgy" alt-right types post on here.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:Honestly throwing the race card into a debate about Islam seems to be used too often to stifle said debate.
In saying that it's not hard to criticise any major religion without resorting to any kind of skin colour or cultural traditions...... The issue is that it often does end up in "cultural traditions". Skin colour isn't as openly mentioned for obvious reasons. It is frustrating to have to refrain from criticising the Koran, Torah, Bible in case you offend someone who isn't white by pointing out that their outdated book of horrors isn't as peaceful as they make it out to be. We had a bloke at work who was as fundamentalist Christian as I've ever met in person and he was super offended by me asking him not to talk about god at work. The insistence that he was trying to help me and my negative response to that was unacceptable to him. He could not accept that his 'help' could be taken as offensive by others because he was apparently doing the right thing. I've never had an issue with your posts on religion. There's a difference with what you post compared to some of the "edgy" alt-right types post on here. I have no bias on religion. It's hard to debate with people who count hits and ignore misses. Regarding Islam in particular, it would be nice to have a debate with people without them feeling targeted about their race or country. Islam seems to be 'more fundamentalist' in a way. My observation is that you cannot pick on little things about Islam in the same way you can pick on little things in the bible. In the bible, most Christians would laugh it off and say 'yeh that's pretty stupid' whereas our Islamic friends tend to get upset about any kind of criticism about anything.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Toughlove wrote:Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
Agreed. From what I have seen though, it seems that most of the abuse is from the twitterati - which always seems the way. I think in the TV and newspaper media, even those who have contradicted what Kruger has said have been generally tame. Along the lines of Waleed's article. But, that is just what I saw. Maybe I have it wrong. I always think the best principle to live by is that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech, not less. The more you suppress even blatantly offensive speech (eg neo-Nazis) the more that feeds into their delusions of conspiracy and martyrdom. Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 10:56:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Toughlove wrote:Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
Agreed. From what I have seen though, it seems that most of the abuse is from the twitterati - which always seems the way. I think in the TV and newspaper media, even those who have contradicted what Kruger has said have been generally tame. Along the lines of Waleed's article. But, that is just what I saw. Maybe I have it wrong. I always think the best principle to live by is that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech, not less. The more you suppress even blatantly offensive speech (eg neo-Nazis) the more that feeds into their delusions of conspiracy and martyrdom. I agree with all this and I think the way some have attacked Kruger is wrong. My point before though is calling something "racist" isn't necessarily wrong if the speech is actually racist.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Toughlove wrote:Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
Agreed. From what I have seen though, it seems that most of the abuse is from the twitterati - which always seems the way. I think in the TV and newspaper media, even those who have contradicted what Kruger has said have been generally tame. Along the lines of Waleed's article. But, that is just what I saw. Maybe I have it wrong. I always think the best principle to live by is that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech, not less. The more you suppress even blatantly offensive speech (eg neo-Nazis) the more that feeds into their delusions of conspiracy and martyrdom. I agree with all this and I think the way some have attacked Kruger is wrong. My point before though is calling something "racist" isn't necessarily wrong if the speech is actually racist. Your ilk have made the term "racist" lose its meaning ...it's just a counter to anything that doesn't agree with Left Wing persuasion...most of you lot have probably never experienced a case of racism in your life whereas I have and would have to have more than two hands to tell you how many numbers of times I've been racially abused. But you just hurl that term around if someone disagrees with you on any issue...regardless of whether the argument is race insuiated or not Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 11:18:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:mcjules wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Toughlove wrote:Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
Agreed. From what I have seen though, it seems that most of the abuse is from the twitterati - which always seems the way. I think in the TV and newspaper media, even those who have contradicted what Kruger has said have been generally tame. Along the lines of Waleed's article. But, that is just what I saw. Maybe I have it wrong. I always think the best principle to live by is that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech, not less. The more you suppress even blatantly offensive speech (eg neo-Nazis) the more that feeds into their delusions of conspiracy and martyrdom. I agree with all this and I think the way some have attacked Kruger is wrong. My point before though is calling something "racist" isn't necessarily wrong if the speech is actually racist. Your ilk have made the term "racist" lose its meaning ...it's just a counter to anything that doesn't agree with Left Wing persuasion...most of you lot have probably never experienced a case of racism in your life whereas I have and would have to have more than two hands to tell you how many numbers of times I've been racially abused. But you just hurl that term around if someone disagrees with you on any issue...regardless of whether the argument is race insuiated or not I've done nothing of the sort.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Toughlove wrote:https://twitter.com/CatherineDeveny/status/754969632545452032
Said tweet. lol who the fuck is that slag? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:vanlassen wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. Look at what I missed out on on Friday night. McJules being outdebated by Rusty :lol: I don't often agree with Rusty but (s)he was bang on for every point. Edited by vanlassen: 25/7/2016 09:43:42 AM Yes well done his point of view is the same as yours on this one =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> what a sharp response:^o :^o sharp as a bowling ball, mind like a steel trap
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:mcjules wrote:vanlassen wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:no they're not, they're terms used to describe a person with a particular opinion. They're only "slurs" because it's widely accepted that it's a bad thing to be those things. This leads to a bizarre phenomenon where people with clearly racist/homophobic/misogynistic views claim that they aren't.
Personally I think some people try and shut down debate by saying words like racist are out of bounds. I have no time for fuckwits (that's a slur) that hurl abuse at people for having a different opinion but to call that opinion any number of valid terms to describe that opinion is not abuse. Well fuck really? You really think that hurling allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia are commonly justified, and not instead employed for their usefulness in silencing, ostracizing and shaming alternative points of view? So when Sonia Kruger said they should stop Islamic migration, that vindicated calling her a racist, even though Islam is not a religion and not a race? What about the "great" misogyny speech by Gillard, that was heralded by the left media as one of the worlds great speeches, is Tony Abbott really a hate misogynist who hates women, or is it more likely that particular term was hijacked by the left because it had power in making Tony look bad and would be effective in eroding his political stocks? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage really hate and fear homosexuals? As you can see from the lefts point of view, words are just tools to bend out of shape to manipulate and exploit the masses into falling for their political and social cons. They have no regard for truth, no respect for the essence and integrity of language, which infers they lack strong coherent arguments for their causes, and therefore resort to misappropriating and redefining the English language to give their cons traction. Look at what I missed out on on Friday night. McJules being outdebated by Rusty :lol: I don't often agree with Rusty but (s)he was bang on for every point. Edited by vanlassen: 25/7/2016 09:43:42 AM Yes well done his point of view is the same as yours on this one =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> what a sharp response:^o :^o sharp as a bowling ball, mind like a steel trap I'll give the you the benefit of the doubt that you used one saying to insinuate that I am slow witted and then immediately used another that insinuates that I am quick witted straight after on purpose. I just need to find a good reason why someone would do that.... o:)
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:mcjules wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Toughlove wrote:Intolerance / tolerance is what disappoints me in the Kruger (etc) 'debates'.
Expresses an opinion on Islam and Mussies and rather than debate said opinion she gets all sorts of abuse.
Seems tolerance is a one way street for those 'on the left' hurling abuse.
Catherine Deveney covering herself in glory yet again calling Kruger a 'rolled gold c_unt' on her twitter account. Just charming.
Agreed. From what I have seen though, it seems that most of the abuse is from the twitterati - which always seems the way. I think in the TV and newspaper media, even those who have contradicted what Kruger has said have been generally tame. Along the lines of Waleed's article. But, that is just what I saw. Maybe I have it wrong. I always think the best principle to live by is that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech, not less. The more you suppress even blatantly offensive speech (eg neo-Nazis) the more that feeds into their delusions of conspiracy and martyrdom. I agree with all this and I think the way some have attacked Kruger is wrong. My point before though is calling something "racist" isn't necessarily wrong if the speech is actually racist. Your ilk have made the term "racist" lose its meaning ...it's just a counter to anything that doesn't agree with Left Wing persuasion...most of you lot have probably never experienced a case of racism in your life whereas I have and would have to have more than two hands to tell you how many numbers of times I've been racially abused. But you just hurl that term around if someone disagrees with you on any issue...regardless of whether the argument is race insuiated or not I've done nothing of the sort. I said people of your ilk. I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down. The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM If you are feeling suicidal, never read New Matilda, it will cause you to lose all hope in humanity :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM If you are feeling suicidal, never read New Matilda, it will cause you to lose all hope in humanity :lol: Likewise for /r/the_donald or a number of other subreddits :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Toughlove wrote:https://twitter.com/CatherineDeveny/status/754969632545452032
Said tweet. lol who the fuck is that slag? -PB The same 2-bit who tweeted in reference to a 12 year old Bindi Irwin that she 'needed to get laid'. She lost her job at the Age after that nicety. Does not seemed to have slowed her down though. Needless to say she's a favourite of the intelligentsia and, no surprise, the ABC. Tomato
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM If you are feeling suicidal, never read New Matilda, it will cause you to lose all hope in humanity :lol: Likewise for /r/the_donald or a number of other subreddits :lol: I have no idea what that even is? Some kind of gun-toting right wing hysteria? I opened New Matilda. From page one of the headlines: - Without Video Evidence, Australians Find It Hard To Believe That Black Lives Matter; - When Will We Stop and Realise That The West Has The Bloodiest Hands of All; - Why do Left Wing Men Fail to See Their Own Misogyny; - Who Does a Surplus Serve. Bugger me that's about as left wing as you can get. I would love to talk to some of these writers but they'd be just like the environmental scientists at uni who are so convinced by their own convictions that everything else is wrong and creates climate change :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM when did I say there wasn't ? ...I'm not doubting there is ...but you deflect my point to talk about something else
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:SocaWho wrote:
I said people of your ilk.
I jump on SMH Facebook page everyday and the moment that someone asks a question to raise debate over something they are instantly shouted down and called a bigot or a racist. Most of those dickheads wouldn't know what racism is , because they've never copped it and they jump on their moral high horse to shout people down.
The term racist and bigot has lost its meaning ...because you're brethren use it to win arguments rather than use it for what it was originally intended
Edited by Socawho: 25/7/2016 03:27:59 PM
I think your first mistake is to read the comments of a newspaper page on FB. Have a read of the comments on the Herald Scum or Daily Terror - you will find some truly horrendous racism and bigotry there. Will balance out your concerns on the SMH page! Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/7/2016 04:29:24 PM If you are feeling suicidal, never read New Matilda, it will cause you to lose all hope in humanity :lol: Likewise for /r/the_donald or a number of other subreddits :lol: I have no idea what that even is? Some kind of gun-toting right wing hysteria? Yes and it's peddled by a few of the kids on here too. BETHFC wrote:I opened New Matilda. From page one of the headlines:
- Without Video Evidence, Australians Find It Hard To Believe That Black Lives Matter;
- When Will We Stop and Realise That The West Has The Bloodiest Hands of All;
- Why do Left Wing Men Fail to See Their Own Misogyny;
- Who Does a Surplus Serve.
Bugger me that's about as left wing as you can get. I would love to talk to some of these writers but they'd be just like the environmental scientists at uni who are so convinced by their own convictions that everything else is wrong and creates climate change :lol: Not your cup of tea, fair enough. A lot of the opinion isn't for me either.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
Fuck Q and A.
Question.
'What about the survey that 30% of British and French (43%) muslims believe suicide bombings can be justified.'
Answer 1. (Shireen Morris) Waffle. Doesn't address the question. Not even close. Off on a tangent.
Answer 2. (Ed Husic or Craih Landry. Can't remember) More waffle, doesn't answer question.
Host. 'OK, next question'
Very next question. 'Are some questions not able to be discussed?'
Host: 'Nothing is off the table. Certainly not on Q and A otherwise we wouldn't have a program.'
Fucking idiots.
What a joke.
|
|
|
|