Things That are Racist

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

That's alright then...... Unless it is a Tory, or even worse,, Boris Johnson

Anyway. For sadoldgit, thought this might be a good idea for a present to buy yourself.... 

 

See, you’re lying now. No one can genuinely believe that all lies are the same unless they are completely thick. Oh hold on…

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

See, you’re lying now. No one can genuinely believe that all lies are the same unless they are completely thick. Oh hold on…

Excellent.

Will you answer the question I asked previously, before you tied yourself up in knots?

 

12 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is there a quantifiable scale for lies that are better than others?

 

[The Kraken]

It’s not rocket science.

[aintforever]

14 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s not rocket science.

Exactly 

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, aintforever said:

Exactly 

Then the explanation should be easy for you to produce....

[aintforever]

36 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Excellent.

Will you answer the question I asked previously, before you tied yourself up in knots?

 

 

Of course there is, I didn’t feel like I had to explain the obvious. Clearly I do for you.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Of course there is, I didn’t feel like I had to explain the obvious. Clearly I do for you.

Lying about anti-semitism, lying that cost someone their job, lying to the media to save his own skin. Pretty serious things, yes? 

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Lying about anti-semitism, lying that cost someone their job, lying to the media to save his own skin. Pretty serious things, yes? 

She was suspended for what she wrote, it was offensive and wrong even if it wasn’t ant-Semitic. Starmer just expressed his opinion afterwards. No one knows wether he genuinely believes she is anti-Semitic except him. In my opinion he was just being pragmatic to avoid a media shit storm, not a big deal at all.

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Of course there is, I didn’t feel like I had to explain the obvious. Clearly I do for you.

Go on then....

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

She was suspended for what she wrote, it was offensive and wrong even if it wasn’t ant-Semitic. Starmer just expressed his opinion afterwards. No one knows wether he genuinely believes she is anti-Semitic except him. In my opinion he was just being pragmatic to avoid a media shit storm, not a big deal at all.

No one knows if Boris genuinely believed he wasn't attending a party at no.10 except him - according to your twisted logic....

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

She was suspended for what she wrote, it was offensive and wrong even if it wasn’t ant-Semitic. Starmer just expressed his opinion afterwards. No one knows wether he genuinely believes she is anti-Semitic except him. In my opinion he was just being pragmatic to avoid a media shit storm, not a big deal at all.

He said it was, yet you said he only said it was antisemitic and didn’t really believe it was “as that’s what politicians do” and “he was pushed 3 times”  “playing the game as if he said they weren’t antisemitic they’d blow it out of all proportion” “not as dumb as Corbyn” big claims 

why do you believe he lied? Why do you think that is okay? 

[Turkish]

On a lighter note came across this the other day. Don’t make them like this anymore. 🤣🤣

 

 

Edited 29 April, 2023 by Turkish

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

See, you’re lying now. No one can genuinely believe that all lies are the same unless they are completely thick. Oh hold on…

Who decides the severity of a lie. The Guardian? James O'Brien?

[Turkish]

17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

No one knows if Boris genuinely believed he wasn't attending a party at no.10 except him - according to your twisted logic....

Interesting to note here that in soggy and aintclever we have the two of the biggest wokeys on the forum, desperate to jump on any perceived racism every opportunity they get both in their own way defending Abbots comments, denying any anti-semitism whist even the leader of their party has condemned them. Soggy has spent all day trying to prove Jews aren’t a race and aintclever has gone as far as accusing Starmer of lying. Very interesting indeed

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Who decides the severity of a lie. The Guardian? James O'Brien?

I’d say lying about things like racism is far more serious than lying about it you knew you were at a party or not.

[aintforever]

22 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

No one knows if Boris genuinely believed he wasn't attending a party at no.10 except him - according to your twisted logic....

That’s only if you can believe a reasonably intelligent person can attend parties without knowing that there were parties happening.

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Who decides the severity of a lie. The Guardian? James O'Brien?

Make your own mind up.

[aintforever]

37 minutes ago, Turkish said:

they get both in their own way defending Abbots comment

Except right from the start I shave said her remarks were wrong, crass and offensive. I can see how suggesting there is a hierarchy of racism can be anti-Semitic, if it was said with the deliberate aim of offending Jews. In this context I read it as someone trying to highlight how they think the racism they have suffered is worse than others. Wrong and offensive but not anti-Semitic, but only Abbot knows what her intentions were.

The situation with Starmer is simple, he has to appear to be tough on anything that could be perceived as anti-Semitic wether it was or not because of the history under Corbyn.

Edited 29 April, 2023 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

On a lighter note came across this the other day. Don’t make them like this anymore. 🤣🤣

 

 

"Pull into Paradise".

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Except right from the start I shave said her remarks were wrong, crass and offensive. I can see how suggesting there is a hierarchy of racism can be anti-Semitic, if it was said with the deliberate aim of offending Jews. In this context I read it as someone trying to highlight how they think the racism they have suffered is worse than others. Wrong and offensive but not anti-Semitic, but only Abbot knows what her intentions were.

The situation with Starmer is simple, he has to appear to be tough on anything that could be perceived as anti-Semitic wether it was or not because of the history under Corbyn.

Yes but you said you didn’t see anything anti semantic in them and Starmer didn’t either he’s just lying to everyone to look like he’s doing the right thing. Funny how you and soggy seem to be the only one trying to make excuses 

Edited 29 April, 2023 by Turkish

[Weston Super Saint]

27 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes but you said you didn’t see anything anti semantic in them and Starmer didn’t either he’s just lying to everyone to look like he’s doing the right thing. Funny how you and soggy seem to be the only one trying to make excuses 

Maybe there is a hierarchy of lies that goes hand in hand with the hierarchy of racism.

Most of us can see that lies are lies and racism is racism, but aintclever needs to grade both so he can appease himself that sometimes it is less offensive and that justifies defending it 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

That’s only if you can believe a reasonably intelligent person can attend parties without knowing that there were parties happening.

So you think Boris is reasonably intelligent?      🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

[Holmes_and_Watson]

@sadoldgit said “If you still feel that I am an Abbott apologist, there is no more I can say.”

Well that saves me a bit of typing. Thanks. 😊 Sadly, only a bit…

I think you’ve tied yourself up in knots over it, often within the same posts.

You say “In no way was I defending Abbott or her hierarchy of racism, quite the opposite. Keir Starmer made the point that their is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with him.”

Yet, we got “I expected better from you Whelk. If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong.”

And “She was trying to claim the word “racism” for black people” and when the obvious flaws in that were pointed out, ploughed on regardless.

Not only that, but you perpetuate a hierarchy every time you come out with comments such as “How many people did you hear going in to bat for the Irish, travellers and redheads against those who called out her letter for its comments about Jewish people”

That was on the back of, “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice.”  And “Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter.”

So bearing the above in mind…

“Why can’t I or anybody else use the Holocaust to make a point, especially when we are discussing this subject”

I did not say that it could not be discussed. I said that you had been “mentioning the Holocaust as part of arguments for the *second* day in a row, while defending someone who minimises Jewish people in her structure of racism.”

Which as you “don’t believe these remarks are anti/Semitic,” you were. From your own quotes, you think the comments can’t be, because “Can you show me where her response displays hate or hostility towards Jewish people? Can you show me where she denied the Holocaust?”

So despite other posters quickly pointing out the massive flaws in that reasoning, you come out with what comes across as ‘It’s only anti-semitic if it mentions something specific about the holocaust.’ Oh and the old deflection tactic of “…perhaps people are trying to find a way to make her text wholly discriminatory against one specific group of white people” which comes across ‘we’re not discriminatory, despite blatantly being discriminatory, it’s *them*’

Even after a day of research that told you “can be subjected to racism” or even “nothing definitive either way”, you’ve actually decided to ignore either position and conclude “I (and others) didn’t find the contents of this particular letter to be anti-Semitic.” and that any perceived anti-semitism is “it is *just* a reflection to the fallout from the letter.” (my emphasis).

My “Spending much of a day trying to find out something!” line was intended to be combined with the next point of “But despite typing that, in the same paragraph..”. I wondered if that wasn’t clear enough myself after posting. Hopefully, the above clarifies.

It’s a good thing to reach out and learn from as many sources as you can. It’s unfortunate that this didn’t apply to finding out about Abbott’s history, views and track record all of which have a bearing here, as you said “I was only dealing with that one particular letter.” Id’ like to think you at least strayed into reading the article it was in reply to.

And unfortunate that study time didn’t apply to other posters waving giant warning flags, because “I don’t bother to read their posts.”

You said “Deflection? … Why would I want to deflect from that?” Well in the following couple of paragraphs you said “the right wing media would use this for deflection themselves (which some did).” and “Abbott is an unfortunate sideshow, when the Home Secretary talks about “illegal immigrants.” So you could hardly get another couple of sentences in without trying it. 😊

This is likely why your position comes across as such a mess here. You seem to have a massive trigger to defend a political party/ leader. I can’t say “at all costs” but certainly here, very quickly, regardless of the evidence.

Despite not agreeing with certain allegations against Abbott, and disagreeing with Starmer, who did conclude the allegations were correct, you praise his quick action. “She is rightly being dealt” and will be “be one less liability.” That’s at odds with you championing her brave “trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be” and I can’t think of many who would consider her to be “unfortunate.”

I am aware that on forums, such positions to defend parties can be knee jerk in response to others. I’m also aware that you have a posting limit. Having a lot to say, an a few posts, can result in crossed wires and mixed messages.

Because, and you may not like the source, @Turkish said "Interesting to note here that in soggy and aintclever we have the two of the biggest wokeys on the forum, desperate to jump on any perceived racism every opportunity they get both in their own way defending Abbots comments, denying any anti-semitism whist even the leader of their party has condemned them. Soggy has spent all day trying to prove Jews aren’t a race and aintclever has gone as far as accusing Starmer of lying." And that's is exactly how it comes across. I quote him because you've said that you don't read posts from others (not getting into the ignore thing).

Hopefully some of the points discussed, by everyone, will give you pause for thought the next time something like this comes up.

[Weston Super Saint]

The Guardian.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65438581

Quote

The Guardian has apologised after a cartoon depicting BBC chairman Richard Sharp was criticised as antisemitic.

It depicted Mr Sharp, who is Jewish, with exaggerated features and carrying a puppet of Rishi Sunak.

n.b. for the avoidance of any doubt, I firmly believe that Jewish people can be regarded as a 'race' (and don't need to spend two days researching to justify this), therefore antisemitism is also racism.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The Guardian.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65438581

n.b. for the avoidance of any doubt, I firmly believe that Jewish people can be regarded as a 'race' (and don't need to spend two days researching to justify this), therefore antisemitism is also racism.

I had no idea he was Jewish. That’s what I find weird about anti-semitism it is not as if there is some obvious commonality in behaviour to rail against.

Edited 30 April, 2023 by whelk

[sadoldgit]

22 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

@sadoldgit said “If you still feel that I am an Abbott apologist, there is no more I can say.”

Well that saves me a bit of typing. Thanks. 😊 Sadly, only a bit…

I think you’ve tied yourself up in knots over it, often within the same posts.

You say “In no way was I defending Abbott or her hierarchy of racism, quite the opposite. Keir Starmer made the point that their is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with him.”

Yet, we got “I expected better from you Whelk. If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong.”

And “She was trying to claim the word “racism” for black people” and when the obvious flaws in that were pointed out, ploughed on regardless.

Not only that, but you perpetuate a hierarchy every time you come out with comments such as “How many people did you hear going in to bat for the Irish, travellers and redheads against those who called out her letter for its comments about Jewish people”

That was on the back of, “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice.”  And “Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter.”

So bearing the above in mind…

“Why can’t I or anybody else use the Holocaust to make a point, especially when we are discussing this subject”

I did not say that it could not be discussed. I said that you had been “mentioning the Holocaust as part of arguments for the *second* day in a row, while defending someone who minimises Jewish people in her structure of racism.”

Which as you “don’t believe these remarks are anti/Semitic,” you were. From your own quotes, you think the comments can’t be, because “Can you show me where her response displays hate or hostility towards Jewish people? Can you show me where she denied the Holocaust?”

So despite other posters quickly pointing out the massive flaws in that reasoning, you come out with what comes across as ‘It’s only anti-semitic if it mentions something specific about the holocaust.’ Oh and the old deflection tactic of “…perhaps people are trying to find a way to make her text wholly discriminatory against one specific group of white people” which comes across ‘we’re not discriminatory, despite blatantly being discriminatory, it’s *them*’

Even after a day of research that told you “can be subjected to racism” or even “nothing definitive either way”, you’ve actually decided to ignore either position and conclude “I (and others) didn’t find the contents of this particular letter to be anti-Semitic.” and that any perceived anti-semitism is “it is *just* a reflection to the fallout from the letter.” (my emphasis).

My “Spending much of a day trying to find out something!” line was intended to be combined with the next point of “But despite typing that, in the same paragraph..”. I wondered if that wasn’t clear enough myself after posting. Hopefully, the above clarifies.

It’s a good thing to reach out and learn from as many sources as you can. It’s unfortunate that this didn’t apply to finding out about Abbott’s history, views and track record all of which have a bearing here, as you said “I was only dealing with that one particular letter.” Id’ like to think you at least strayed into reading the article it was in reply to.

And unfortunate that study time didn’t apply to other posters waving giant warning flags, because “I don’t bother to read their posts.”

You said “Deflection? … Why would I want to deflect from that?” Well in the following couple of paragraphs you said “the right wing media would use this for deflection themselves (which some did).” and “Abbott is an unfortunate sideshow, when the Home Secretary talks about “illegal immigrants.” So you could hardly get another couple of sentences in without trying it. 😊

This is likely why your position comes across as such a mess here. You seem to have a massive trigger to defend a political party/ leader. I can’t say “at all costs” but certainly here, very quickly, regardless of the evidence.

Despite not agreeing with certain allegations against Abbott, and disagreeing with Starmer, who did conclude the allegations were correct, you praise his quick action. “She is rightly being dealt” and will be “be one less liability.” That’s at odds with you championing her brave “trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be” and I can’t think of many who would consider her to be “unfortunate.”

I am aware that on forums, such positions to defend parties can be knee jerk in response to others. I’m also aware that you have a posting limit. Having a lot to say, an a few posts, can result in crossed wires and mixed messages.

Because, and you may not like the source, @Turkish said "Interesting to note here that in soggy and aintclever we have the two of the biggest wokeys on the forum, desperate to jump on any perceived racism every opportunity they get both in their own way defending Abbots comments, denying any anti-semitism whist even the leader of their party has condemned them. Soggy has spent all day trying to prove Jews aren’t a race and aintclever has gone as far as accusing Starmer of lying." And that's is exactly how it comes across. I quote him because you've said that you don't read posts from others (not getting into the ignore thing).

Hopefully some of the points discussed, by everyone, will give you pause for thought the next time something like this comes up.

Nothing better to do? I am not going to bore the readers of this thread any more by responding to your every point as you seem determine to misrepresent what I say, but I will respond to a few.

I said I didn’t think that her words in that letter were anti-Semitic. It was my opinion and we are all entitled to that. I did accept that others thought otherwise but have yet to see why, Keir Starmer has not qualified his statement yet other than to say it is a “gut feeling”. As he will know, that does not stand up in court. It is down to the inquiry to decide and I await their comments with interest.

I certainly did not spend all day try to prove that Jewish people are not a race. Looking for a definitive answer shows that I was  open to a “definitive answer”. I still don’t know what the definitive answer is. Only a very stupid or deliberately obtuse person would misinterpret what I had said. What is clear is that there probably is no definitive answer and that the issue is more nuanced and not black and white (pun intended).

Sadly you made the big mistake of quoting Turkish. Anyone reading this forum for any length of time will know that he is a WUM and is not worth bothering with. The best definition of being woke that I have found so far is “not being an a-hole”. Given that Turkish is the complete antithesis of being woke, that gives you a fair indication of what he is and from where his posts come from.

Enjoy the rest of your day and hopefully this has given you pause for thought too.

[Weston Super Saint]

21 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Enjoy the rest of your day and hopefully this has given you pause for thought too.

Crusaders never stop crusading.  You keep fighting the good fight soggy, persuading people, one by one, that Diane isn't a racist.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Nothing better to do? I am not going to bore the readers of this thread any more 

If only……..

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

.

I certainly did not spend all day try to prove that Jewish people are not a race. Looking for a definitive answer shows that I was  open to a “definitive answer”. I still don’t know what the definitive answer is. Only a very stupid or deliberately obtuse person would misinterpret what I had said. What is clear is that there probably is no definitive answer and that the issue is more nuanced and not black and white (pun intended).

Sadly you made the big mistake of quoting Turkish. Anyone reading this forum for any length of time will know that he is a WUM and is not worth bothering with. The best definition of being woke that I have found so far is “not being an a-hole”. Given that Turkish is the complete antithesis of being woke, that gives you a fair indication of what he is and from where his posts come from.

Enjoy the rest of your day and hopefully this has given you pause for thought too.

 

oops 

On 26/04/2023 at 17:55, sadoldgit said:

I have read some Baddiel on the subject. I have spent much of today trying to find out definitively whether the Jewish people are a race, a religion, an ethnicity,  a heritage…what precisely. Plenty of well written articles but nothing definitive either way. The closest I have come is a legal ruling by an American judge stating that the Jewish people are not a race, but can be subjected to racism (for reasons that are too longwinded to get into here). Make of that what you will!

Back to the infamous letter. Abbott was responding to an article that put it that white people could experience racism too. The way I read her reply was that whilst certain types of white people, Jews, travellers, Irish, redheads experienced discriminatory behaviour, only black people experienced “racism” and seemed to be trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be.

The dictionary definition of antisemitism is “displaying hatred or hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people”. I didn’t read any hatred or hostility towards Jewish people in her reply. Prejudice? Hmmm. She mentioned a number of white groups that have also faced bigotry, persecution, discrimination, but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish,travellers or redheads. She didn’t single out Jewish people she singled out white people. Does that constitute prejudice towards Jewish people or prejudice against white people?

You mention Corbyn. I don’t think being pro Palestinian automatically makes you an anti- Semite and I don’t believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I do believe he handle the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party very poorly though.

We can bat this stuff back and forth all day long, but the main point is that Starmer dealt with it as soon as it kicked off and hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the nextelection

Edited 30 April, 2023 by Turkish

[The Kraken]

Hang on a minute, are you saying that SoG isn’t quite telling the truth every time he posts on here? And it can easily verified just by trawling through his recent posts?  Shocked, I tell you.

The geezer’s about the biggest liar on here. 

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Crusaders never stop crusading.  You keep fighting the good fight soggy, persuading people, one by one, that Diane isn't a racist.

How many has he persuaded so far ?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

@sadoldgitsaid “Nothing better to do?” I do a fair bit of posting while I’m cooking. A bit of multi tasking. Instead of testing the water for a personal shot, you could have asked yourself why someone who isn’t normally active in this part of the forum taking the time to point things out? Could it be you?

“I am not going to bore the readers of this thread any more by responding…” or to paraphrase this fallacy, you don’t have a leg to stand on, so you’re appealing to what you consider an audience you’ve not asked to want. If people are bored, there’s the block function I believe you can tell them about.

“…you seem determine to misrepresent what I say…” and “Only a very stupid or deliberately obtuse person would misinterpret what I had said.” I couldn’t have gone out of my way more to use your quotes. Your posts misinterpret themselves. When it looks like you have got it, you back peddle in defence. The personal slight there was a classy touch, considering your stance on other posters’ attitudes.

“I said I didn’t think that her words in that letter were anti-Semitic. It was my opinion and we are all entitled to that.”

You also initially suggested that there really was a hierarchy of racism and that Abbott was somehow being brave, and deliberately so, in redefining racism for the rest of us. I think you’ve at least read the article that her letter was in response to, which does include specific groups that Abbott feels should be lower down her structure of discrimination. You’ve said it’s not anti-semetic because she’d have to mention it specifically, or the Holocaust, for it to really count.  All in your quotes in my previous post.

Even despite any number of people, impacted by this, saying that the comments were anti-semitic. Even when your own research tells you that Jewish people “can be subjected to racism.” Even if there’s doubt, you just ignore all that and consider the comments not to be.

I’ve not misinterpreted a thing here. Trying to justify your opinion because Keir Starmer, who you were praising for quick, decisive action isn’t clear on what he’s being quick and decisive about is weak. Even if he was sure, you’d still be disagreeing with him apparently.

“I certainly did not spend all day try to prove that Jewish people are not a race.” This is true. You “spent much of today” doing that, and followed it up with a number of phone-ins, that you may well have been multi tasking while listening to.

 

“Sadly you made the big mistake of quoting Turkish. Anyone reading this forum for any length of time will know that he is a WUM and is not worth bothering with. The best definition of being woke that I have found so far is “not being an a-hole”.”

I used @Turkish quote quite deliberately, as I knew it would be a trigger. It looks like I should have picked out what I thought was the clear message, given what’s being talked about. Here it is:- “…desperate to jump on any perceived racism every opportunity they get both in their own way defending Abbots comments, denying any anti-semitism whist even the leader of their party has condemned them. Soggy has spent all day trying to prove Jews aren’t a race …"

Now clearly, that should have been “much of a day” in there, just for accuracy. But you’ve ignored all the points in the quote that relate to the topic at hand. Trying to following up your time spent defending anti-semitism through semantics with your time spent finding the definition of wokeness wasn’t the issue. It was the bits about racism and anti-semitism.

Hopefully, that’s clearer and you do take it on board, rather than just dismiss it along with a group of posters who you’ve said “I don’t bother to read their posts” and at least one of which is “not worth bothering with.”

Like the opening paragraph in this post, what you could have been asking yourself is why someone who doesn’t post much in this part of the forum thinks you sound exactly like someone whose views you completely dismiss and dislike thinks? That’s partly what I was going for there.

Helpful Hint (I noticed on a thread while I was typing): You’ll notice I didn’t describe a section of other posters as “they.” These are words, bearing in mind the sensitive topics, that are divisive and dismissive going all the way to dehumanising. It’s another racism issue that you’ve somehow wandered into, although it couldn’t possibly be anything to do with you. Could it?

[Weston Super Saint]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How many has he persuaded so far ?

Just aintclever so far, but that doesn't mean he should give up.  So many more to persuade.

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

How many has he persuaded so far ?

The problem is he has the potential to quite easily switch people the other way, not just Abbott but much more so when it comes to his constant electioneering . Take me, for instance, literally zero chance of me voting blue at the next GE, and Starmer (while quite uninspiring) seems like a trustworthy man to me. Yet with every SoG post I read about politics I begin to wonder how i feel that my probable vote aligns with a bigot with some too-often quite unpleasant racist tropes in his posts. His Abbott stuff has been extremely bizarre, spending hours of his time trying to defend someone who rightly got booted out of their own party.

Doesn’t sit well. 

Edited 30 April, 2023 by The Kraken

[whelk]

I don’t view SOG as unpleasant just someone who seems to have views of the Guardian at all times and easily sucked into causes. Then quick to label anyone who opposes as far right. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just aintclever so far, but that doesn't mean he should give up.  So many more to persuade.

He should tweet Starmer with the link to this thread to show him how wrong he is and staunch labour supporters think he’s a liar. That’ll learn him.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Hang on a minute, are you saying that SoG isn’t quite telling the truth every time he posts on here? And it can easily verified just by trawling through his recent posts?  Shocked, I tell you.

The geezer’s about the biggest liar on here. 

Regularly gets caught out, if lying was an Olympic sport he’s Usain Bolt

 

his little ignore act when he sometimes forgets and makes out he replied because people quote those he’s got on ignore is funny
 

I enjoyed the posts he made about when he worked in the CPS and once claimed he spent a lot of his career prosecuting knife crime, a few months later claimed he spent a lot of his career prosecuting rape and domestic violence inferring his was some sort of legal hot shot. Only for it to turn out he worked as an administrative manager in a department that was no longer needed so got given the Spanish archer. 

Edited 30 April, 2023 by Turkish

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

He should tweet Starmer with the link to this thread to show him how wrong he is and staunch labour supporters think he’s a liar. That’ll learn him.

Yeah brilliant, except I’ve never voted Labour in my life. Spot on as usual.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yeah brilliant, except I’ve never voted Labour in my life. Spot on as usual.

Good point, you seem incapable of making any sort of decision or opinion For yourself so you probably shit yourself when you get anywhere near a voting booth 

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Good point, you seem incapable of making any sort of decision or opinion For yourself so you probably shit yourself when you get anywhere near a voting booth 

Yeah, scary things voting booths.

weirdo

Edited 30 April, 2023 by aintforever

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Yeah, scary things voting booths.

weirdo

Is it as scary as reporting someone you work with for being racist? Oh that’s right you wouldn’t know 🤣🤣🤣

[aintforever]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Is it as scary as reporting someone you work with for being racist? Oh that’s right you wouldn’t know 🤣🤣🤣

Yeah brilliant, maybe I should have called 999 and got them arrested for allegedly saying something that might be racist. Good one.

Fucking weirdo.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yeah brilliant, maybe I should have called 999 and got them arrested for allegedly saying something that might be racist. Good one.

Fucking weirdo.

You never fail to amuse me my little friend. It’s posters like you that keep me coming back. Don’t ever change aintclever, you unknownly provide so much entertainment to so many 😀

[sadoldgit]

So the current Tory Party are a bunch of pinkos? Perhaps not…

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/national-conservatism-far-right-divisive-tories

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh God, he’s posting Guardian articles again. Soggy, If people want to read The Guardian they can do so, there’s no need to constantly post articles from their opinion pages as if they’re some sort of tablets of stone. I can understand why you don’t post your own opinions because you get rinsed by ordinary folk. But forums should be about posters opinions, not James O fucking Brian’s or some leftie Guardianistas, give it a friggin rest man. 

[Millbrook Saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Oh God, he’s posting Guardian articles again. Soggy, If people want to read The Guardian they can do so, there’s no need to constantly post articles from their opinion pages as if they’re some sort of tablets of stone. I can understand why you don’t post your own opinions because you get rinsed by ordinary folk. But forums should be about posters opinions, not James O fucking Brian’s or some leftie Guardianistas, give it a friggin rest man. 

You mean the racist Guardian, as exposed after their article just the other day, I'm sure SOG will be calling for heads to roll at that rag and for dianne abbot to be sacked as  vociferously as I suspect he was when Boris Johnson was sat in his office having a birthday cake delivered.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Millbrook Saint said:

You mean the racist Guardian, as exposed after their article just the other day, I'm sure SOG will be calling for heads to roll at that rag 

Don’t forget the cartoon they had to pull for being anti semitic. Despite reading the Guardian religiously Soggy seems to have ignored that. Maybe he’s spending most of the day researching it, or more likely O’Brien doesn’t work weekends and SOG needs his help in forming an opinion. 

[sadoldgit]

5 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

You mean the racist Guardian, as exposed after their article just the other day, I'm sure SOG will be calling for heads to roll at that rag and for dianne abbot to be sacked as  vociferously as I suspect he was when Boris Johnson was sat in his office having a birthday cake delivered.

Rag?  It wasn’t an article it was a cartoon and the cartoon actually looked like Sharp.  Cartoons exaggerate features and if you look at it Sunak actually had a bigger nose but that was ignored. If you have read any of my posts you will see that I have said that Abbott needs to be sanctioned if found by the inquiry to be at fault and have supported Starmer’s decision to withdraw the whip from her. Other than that, spot on. 

Not worried about the rise of National Conservatism? Perhaps you should be.

Edited 1 May, 2023 by sadoldgit
Text change

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 It wasn’t an article it was a cartoon and the cartoon actually looked like the person it was representing.  Cartoons exaggerate features and if you look at it Sunak actually had a bigger nose but that was ignored.

He’s defending an anti semitic cartoon now. A cartoon that The Guardian pulled, the cartoonist himself apologised for  and said “The cartoon was a failure and on many levels”, the Jewish Board of Deputies condemned it and it’s “antisemitic tropes, and it was also criticised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s chief executive.

Posting on Twitter on Saturday, author David Rich, who has written books about antisemitism, explained animals with tentacles among other “tropes” are used in negative drawings about Jewish people.

He wrote: “You might argue that outsized facial features and tentacles are common to other topics too, so it’s just a cartoon thing.Except where something has a long and familiar antisemitic history, it takes on a different meaning when you apply it to Jews.”

 

Unbelievable, how low can he go? 
 

Educate yourself man, take the sheet off your face. 

Edited 1 May, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[AlexLaw76]

Despite calling everyone sat 1 seat to the right of the Hard-Left a "Tommy Robinson" clone, is our Soggy a rabid racist afterall?