Extermination through sterilisation - the solution to "skangerism"

jamaamaj

This thread :):mad::P:rolleyes:eek:;):o:cool::p:pac:

April O Neill

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes eugenics is the answer, right? I mean, it's not a problem that can be solved at all, by resolving the underlying socioeconomic problems creating the fúcking skangers in the first place, is it?

Exactly. I believe that every single person on this thread, me included, could have been a skanger if brought up in different circumstances. Any one of us.

thiarfearr

old hippy wrote: »

The only "scumbags" I can see are a few pumpkins on this very thread, calling for sterilisation.

What good does it do to bring children into the world when one or both parents are serial criminals, who are in and out of court more often than not?

Mr Cumulonimbus

Tad extreme there OP. Why not just have abortion on demand, and if you're unemployed have the state pay for it if you want to have one?

Plus get rid of child benefit, or at least only get it for the first child. Why should the lifestyle choice of wanting to have a family be paid for by society at large, especially when one may not have the financial self-sufficiency to do so?

dj jarvis

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

It's not me the working class people would need to disagree with - I don't use the term.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm telling you how I hear this word used daily. The people using it are using it as a catch all for an accent and a look. They are mostly not describing the people as antisocial or criminals, just describing that they fulfil a certain set of characteristics of accent and dress and they often find these characteristics distasteful.

but in reality its describing the working class - and that is just incorrect

as i have said before in a working class area , people know who the skangers are , and by default the two are not the same.
in my world the working class despise skangers as much if not more

I dont know miss lockhart - i give up,
where i come from a skanger is a very definite type of person within a community, no matter the use of the name.

Miss Lockhart

dj jarvis wrote: »

but in reality its describing the working class - and that is just incorrect

as i have said before in a working class area , people know who the skangers are , and by default the two are not the same.
in my world the working class despise skangers as much if not more

I dont know miss lockhart - i give up,
where i come from a skanger is a very definite type of person within a community, no matter the use of the name.

And where I come from it's a term that's never used. The scumbags are just called scumbags.

But the people I hear use the term every day, people who are not working class, are using it not just for scumbags. You might think they're incorrect but that's their understanding of the term. So I'm sorry if you think I'm confused or wrong but that's my experience.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

It's not me the working class people would need to disagree with - I don't use the term.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm telling you how I hear this word used daily. The people using it are using it as a catch all for an accent and a look. They are mostly not describing the people as antisocial or criminals, just describing that they fulfil a certain set of characteristics of accent and dress and they often find these characteristics distasteful.

I'm working class and have been called posh before because of my interests and accents. So with all due respect people who think working class people are skangers need their head examined.

Miss Lockhart

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm working class and have been called posh before because of my interests and accents. So with all due respect people who think working class people are skangers need their head examined.

They don't think working class people are skangers. They think people with a certain accent and a certain dress style are skangers. The collins dictionary definition also seems to back up their understanding of the term.

Like you say, working class people who fall outside those characteristics are not considered skangers.

steddyeddy

Just to explain to people. Working class people work. My parents and relatives are working class and worked all their lives. There is a world of difference between working class and wasters.

shruikan2553

I wouldnt be working class but I still think its insulting to working class people to consider skangers as part of them. Working class people work, skangers dont.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

They don't think working class people are skangers. They think people with a certain accent and a certain dress style are skangers. The collins dictionary definition also seems to back up their understanding of the term.

Like you say, working class people who fall outside those characteristics are not considered skangers.

Oh the Collins dictionary? Well feck me if a dictionary says some people are skangers then they must be!

humbert

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh the Collins dictionary? Well feck me if a dictionary says some people are skangers then they must be!

Casual sports clothes. Presumably the non-skanger working-class wear formal sports clothes to set themselves apart.

Miss Lockhart

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh the Collins dictionary? Well feck me if a dictionary says some people are skangers then they must be!

My point is there are many, the dictionary included, who use the word to describe a strong accent and a certain dress style (wearing tracksuits, heavy gold jewellery, precariously balanced baseball caps etc) that they find distasteful and think of as "common", and nothing more. It is not being used to describe these people as antisocial or as scumbags. People here are saying the word is synonymous with scumbags. I'm saying that in my world it us most definitely not.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

My point is there are many, the dictionary included, who use the word to describe a strong accent and a certain dress style (wearing tracksuits, heavy gold jewellery, precariously balanced baseball caps etc) that they find distasteful and think of as "common", and nothing more. It is not being used to describe these people as antisocial or as scumbags. People here are saying the word is synonymous with scumbags. I'm saying that in my world it us most definitely not.

And so what if they think it? Many people think people of different color skin to them are inferior to them. Some people are just not very clever and that's the discrimination and labels are the end result of that.

Miss Lockhart

steddyeddy wrote: »

And so what if they think it? Many people think people of different color skin to them are inferior to them. Some people are just not very clever and that's the discrimination and labels are the end result of that.

There is no so what. I'm merely pointing out that the term, which is being used to label those the OP thinks are worthy of forced sterilisation, is not synonymous with scumbags - in my experience and according to the dictionary.

steddyeddy

wexie wrote: »

I see what you're getting at, what's the solution though? You can hardly deprive those parents that want to give their kids the best start they can, and any available advantage, the right to do so?

You could argue there shouldn't be a need for private schools and you'd be right. However there will always be a market for private schools, with the best teachers available, the best teaching aids etc. etc. This won't change as long as there are people that do see the value in education, or even just people (lets be honest) that don't want their kids mingling with the plebs.

Essentially what we're getting to is that life isn't fair, which it isn't and it will never be. That does not however, give anyone the right to display any of the behaviours so widely discussed in this thread and so widely observed in this country.

Do I think the choice of a minority of parents should defeat the purpose of a standardized test? No I don't. Life isn't fair if you don't fix the things that make it unfair. Finland removed private schools and the gaps between the rich and poor in terms of education shrank.

At the moment we have a system where the dumb can get extra support and get in because they come from a better off family than a poorer family that may have a more intelligent kid.

Here's a mental idea. How about get rid of private schools like Finland did and if one kid shows promise give him a scholarship. Let the kid earn it rather than get an educational advantage of the back of others.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

There is no so what. I'm merely pointing out that the term, which is being used to label those the OP thinks are worthy of forced sterilisation, is not synonymous with scumbags - in my experience and according to the dictionary.

Well in fairness Miss-Lockhart as someone who comes from a family where some members have strong Dublin accents I would find the term skanger offensive.

sock puppet

Not sure if it's been brought up before but I was on that Pearse to Maynooth train and a lot of the kids drinking and fighting weren't what you'd typically describe as knackers/scumbags.

Perhaps a reasonable solution might be to ban groups of more than say 4 unsupervised minors from the beach. Probably be difficult to enforce in practice though as by drinking on the beach they're already breaking multiple laws.

Miss Lockhart

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well in fairness Miss-Lockhart as someone who comes from a family where some members have strong Dublin accents I would find the term skanger offensive.

And in fairness steddyeddy, as someone who comes from a family who fulfil all the stereotypes of a skanger including accent, dress and lack of work ethic, I would also find it offensive. But that's wholly irrelevant to my point that the term is not considered synonymous with the term scumbag by the vast majority of the people I hear using it, including the OP whose list of defining skanger characteristics would encompass many ordinary working class people.

alphabeat

the kettle agrees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9ntPQVroaQ

The King of Moo

I don't see the logic behind this. Who's going to benefit? There'd justifiably be riots over enforced sterilisation, and the logistics of identifying targets and implementing the programme would be a nightmare. It'd also probably hard to ensure that wealthy, influential scumbags get sterilised. And it'd have to be a costly, ongoing process if the roots of anti-social behaviour such as unemployment and social exclusion aren't tackled?

OP, did you think this through at all?

I'd genuinely love to see the world from some of you people's perspectives for a day. I'd love to experience that combination of impotent fear and rage when you see someone with a Celtic jersey, and the later combination of shame, frustration and hatred when you mash your paws against your keyboards, as you try to mask your fear behind exaggerated accounts of imagined barbarity.

To be honest, I'd be most curious about how some of you manage to stumble out of bed in the morning and figure out how to put your trousers on correctly.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ironically enough, it's usually the people who defend them who apply the term to working class people. In fact, assuming that a thread about scumbags refers to working class folk betrays more about your own prejudices than about anyone elses!

I don't think that's entirely true. While some people do acknowledge that thuggery isn't solely the preserve of the lower classes, plenty of people also reveal their prejudices in the form of snide little "jokes" about Dutch Gold and accents and Celtic jerseys (see below), and nonsensical drivel about food stamps and so on, without really mentioning anti-social behaviour.
The fact is that some people just can't stand the poor. I think for many of them it's because they're disturbed by the knowledge that we're products of our environments to a large extent, and that they could have ended up in similar circumstances if their lives had been different.

Cienciano wrote: »

We could do a questionaire to weed them out.
Do you drink Dutch Gold
Do you own a sovereign ring?
Do you own a celtic jersey?
Do you have a celtic tattoo?
Do you have one of those knacker haircuts with the greasy brushed down fringe?
Do you say "staaarrryy bud" to greet people?
For men: When it's warm, do you walk around in public with no top on?
For women: Do you have a tattoo on your lower back?

humbert

Would I be interpreting Miss Lockhart correctly if I said skangers look and sound like working class scumbags (as opposed to wealthy scumbags or simply working class. In general I'd say the working classes look just as respectable as anyone else you might pass on the street) but may not act like scumbags?

humbert

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd genuinely love to see the world from some of you people's perspectives for a day. I'd love to experience that combination of impotent fear and rage when you see someone with a Celtic jersey, and the later combination of shame, frustration and hatred when you mash your paws against your keyboards, as you try to mask your fear behind exaggerated accounts of imagined barbarity.

Why do you assume there is fear? I can follow the impotence, any law abiding citizen would feel that, and I'd say rage might be too strong a word but I'll accept it, the fear I don't understand.

kraggy

How about proper, long sentences so they can't reproduce. Or cause havoc.

And proper confinement so they can't mingle with other prisoners only to stir more **** on the outside, from the inside.

Kichote

I keep seeing a "final" in the thread title that isn't there

The King of Moo

humbert wrote: »

Why do you assume there is fear? I can follow the impotence, any law abiding citizen would feel that, and I'd say rage might be too strong a word but I'll accept it, the fear I don't understand.

It just seems the most logical reason for the absurd posturing of some posters. It's like when you see drunk guys "fighting" who don't really want to fight. The guy making the most noise, saying "Hold me back lads, I don't want to kill him!" is only doing so as a poor attempt to mask his fear of being beaten up.
Likewise, it seems logical that the bizarrely excessive fantasies of sterilisation and violence also stem from such a fear.

Scruffles

sterilizing is a preventative method which works for crims such as sexual abusers and paedophiles who want to help themselves,however all beings are born a blank slate, the anti social/chav attitude and behavior comes through environment,a hatred of authority,who they hang around with,parents who werent the mothering/fathering type and never gave them proper boundaries or attention-those are things sterilizing doesnt stop- tougher laws on housing-no sht taken for anti social behavior legaly have them thrown out and moved to special 'half way' hostels which coud rehabilitate them in many different ways;eg-attitude,their treatment and respect of other people, jobs,education etc.

its simply not right to blame a being for the shtty behavior of their parents which is what sterilizing chavs woud be doing.

pennypocket

is it time to just acknowledge
that there is a strata of society that will never be reformed

Brett Fast Neurology wrote: »

This part is bollocks...

FYI OP, stratum. There is a stratum.

space_man

funny a friend of mine from Sweden has exactly the same 'er solution to their recent riots. I said it might be less expensive to not let them in to start with. Too late for that it seems.

This might catch on yet .........?:D

PopePalpatine

Why not put them in all in the Hunger Games or a Battle Royale? :rolleyes: