Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Fairytale of New York

123468

Comments

  • I read somewhere that Kirsty MacColl before she passed away when singing live changed the wording as she didnt like to say it either.

    Also Shane MacGowan apparently doesnt like the word and only used it because it fitted the narrative of 2 arseholes arguing.

    But as I said if The Pogues whose song it is don't care then why should it matter
    Because I don't  want some PC near do well trying to tell me I may be shocked by something that didn't even shock Maggie Thatcher in the 80's  is moralistic and rewriting history to there moral stand point to which we should  never now, frankly. 
    So you rule to live by is if it didnt shock Maggie Thatcher its fine with you 🤣🤣
    Not a bad rule to live by, the lady was a saint
  • PaddyP17 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.
  • PaddyP17 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.
  • Huskaris said:
    Addickted said:
    What a depressing thread.
    Just as so many are.

    Constantly and deliberately headed off on a tangent where a good percentage of posters really don't want to hear anymore. A steady stream of white noise, derailing subjects and starting to get irritating on a football forum. The constant pontificating doesn't really seem to change peoples opinions as 95% posters here are decent, honest people who really do have a sense of humility and justice - even the Millwall posters.

    We get it. Life isn't fair and then you die.
    White noise? I hope noise of colour is suitably included.

    I think what these threads do for me is make me realise that some people are so unhealthily obsessed with race (even though they are coming from a good place) that it can come up at literally any turn, and it will. 

    Unfortunately it is best to leave people like that to it, because it really is an obsession. They're not bad people, just terribly misguided and really don't understand what life is about. 
    I'm going to assume this is partially aimed at me. Unless I am hugely mistaken, which I don't think I am, I wasn't the one to bring it up - I just didn't want to allow someone being so derisive about "white privilege" and then "wokeness" et al to go unchecked. My "obsession" with race isn't obsession, so much as what I live, 24/7.

    I'd like to profusely apologise for my part in thread derailment, and let's stop singing the word f*ggot.
  • PaddyP17 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.
  • PaddyP17 said:
    PaddyP17 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? 
  • PaddyP17 said:
    PaddyP17 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).
  • Sponsored links:


  • They're treating this exactly how they'd treat a song with swearing in. 

    A lot of fuss over nothing. 
  • The dictionary is full of abusive words it’s not censored.there all in there.but are they abusive just as a word.
    I don’t think so it’s only how they are used in a sentence that makes it abusive to me as I tried to explain before. 
    Have any of you seen the abuse some shop workers are getting now for doing there job. 
    We were clapping them a few months back now we are abusing them verbally and physically and it’s not depending on the colour of our skin or skin of colour if that’s better. 
    It’s because there’s no bags of pasta or something. 
    The world gets worse not better.  

  • Quite intriguing how various posts can send a thread on a tangent. 

    It prompted me to think about many lyrics which would not be acceptable today, but whilst googling some to remind myself, I came across a song I have never heard before with some unbelievably intense and grisly lyrics ... all the more surprising because it is over 80 years old ... Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday. 

    "Southern trees bear a strange fruit."   Check out the rest of the song yourself to understand the context  

    Doing some more research, surprised to find it was written by a Jewish communist in 1937. 

    Apologies for taking my own thread on yet another road  :)


  • stonemuse said:
    The phrase virtue-signalling just seems to be an opportunity for the left and right to play a game of political football. 

    I prefer the old days when we called someone a hypocrite regardless of political persuasion. 

    Been very amusing to watch how this thread has evolved since I started it 24 hours ago  :D


    It literally means being nice in public.  And is very much a right wing phrase, the spectator I believe is it’s origin.  Mental to think it’s an insult.
  • stonemuse said:
    The phrase virtue-signalling just seems to be an opportunity for the left and right to play a game of political football. 

    I prefer the old days when we called someone a hypocrite regardless of political persuasion. 

    Been very amusing to watch how this thread has evolved since I started it 24 hours ago  :D


    It literally means being nice in public.  And is very much a right wing phrase, the spectator I believe is it’s origin.  Mental to think it’s an insult.
    Yup, started in the Spectator five years back. 

    But ... as I said ... it existed anyway in one word ... hypocrite. 
  • 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
  • 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
    Hugs

    Love and Peace
    xxx
  • Every fecking year!

    IGNORE!

    I’m still fuming over Mike Reid banning Frankie Goes to Hollywood.
    The swine! 😠
  • Sponsored links:


  • 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. 
  • 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!
  • edited November 2020
    PaddyP17 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?

  • Let's wait and see which dictionary is now permitted to be used.
  • I just googled to see which dictionary we should be using, but realised I may be being racist.

    So I googled who invented google and see it was apparently 2 white guys Larry Page and Sergey Brin, so I apologise for that and I'd better not use google again.

    Does anyone know which search engine we can use that wasn't invested by a racist (someone white)?
  • Huskaris said:
    PaddyP17 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. 

    PaddyP17 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!