Deleted User wrote: » If anything shows us where we are in 2020 it's a couple getting sacked for flying a banner saying white lives matter while a cambridge professor gets promoted days after tweeting white lives don't matter.
Gradius wrote: » It's the rapidity of it all that's astounding. I remember that if you saw a coloured person anywhere, it was like seeing a giraffe walking down the street. Unheard of. To go from that to the likes of your woman in Cambridge declaring that "white lives don't matter" in such short time is genuinely hard to fathom. Granted that Cambridge isn't Ireland of course, but the change in discourse is still awesome in scale. I'm trying to imagine some similarly shocking change in the near future. Watching people go from walking upright to on all fours?? Bizarre.
joe40 wrote: » Such a load of nonsense. I'm 50 and nobody thought Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott were as rare as a giraffe walking down a street. Coloured is incredibly offensive but I'm sure you won't mind. You're entitled to use the term of course, that is your right. But why be offensive deliberately.
Gradius wrote: » There's a big old difference between television and real life. I wouldn't have been amazed to see a spaceship on TV, but I damn well would be if one flew down the street in front of me! So no, not nonsense. Oh so "coloured" is incredibly offensive now, is it? Let me just flagellate myself here for not keeping up with the daily updated list of offences, you sap
joe40 wrote: » No need to flagellate your self, I was expecting a response like that. You use whatever term you wish that is fine. If basic good manners is beyond you so be it.
Gradius wrote: » Of course you expected that kind of response. You had the entire set up by... 1) implying that I'm a liar 2) assuming that I know that some new word has been added to some godforsaken "list" of what you are not allowed say, so I'm bring deliberately offensive 3) that not only is "coloured "offensive", but that it is INCREDIBLY offensive. If you consider that word incredible, you must have grown up under a stone.and lived there until now. Exaggerated bollix, in other words. 4) insinuate that to not follow the mandate passed to you by dopes is to be impolite, an attempt to assert some kind of moral grounding. Also bollix. A 50 year old Irish bloke feigning incredulity on behalf of no doubt some American dope in order to police what another Irish person can and can't say is madness, and in it's own way IS offensive. Offensively stupid, that is. That in itself tells me that my initial observation is still correct, that these are the thoughts of a sap. The good news is that you can stop being that way, it's up to you.
joe40 wrote: » Yeah as I thought, basic good manners is beyond you.http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive Just in the off chance you might be interested, but I doubt you will be
TikTokTim wrote: » BAME. Black African Middle Eastern is my best guess. Seen it mentioned in the football a lot lately
Hunky Monster wrote: » I literally don’t know what to call them. I’ve heard everything is offensive. Coloured, POC and even black! I heard a new one acronym today on the radio. BAM or something. I can’t even remember. Coloured people = racist. People OF colour = not racist. A quick google search suggests the second one is indeed racist. So who knows. Carry on. Absolute clown world.
Hunky Monster wrote: » Thanks. Good to know for the next 6 months til it changes again
Deleted User wrote: » Because the sense of entitlement is so strong. They feel that they're entitled to have everything provided for them, so if they destroy everything, someone else will pick up the bill, and they'll come out on top. It's hardly a surprise. Minority activism has been at play for over two decades now, first with feminism, then LBG, and now with everything else, with race having a particular trump card. (longer than two decades, but its presence has been truly strong over the last two decades) The problem with the encouragment of multiculturalism, is that it feeds into creating minorities, all of whom are entitled to be protected. The NGO's, Charities, lobbyists, and activists have ensured that minorities know that they have this "right" to be provided everything on the backs of the white people. Which is why (as Wibbs has said) we never hear that Ethiopia is too black, or that China is too Asian. Instead, Western nations need other racial (and cultural) groups for them to be successful, dismissing that these nations were far more successful when immigration by other racial groups was extremely limited. This isn't about dealing with reality. This is about reshaping reality. Which is why we have this crap with "chop" going on. Or the PC brigade which continues to reinvent itself, reinforcing a creed that seeks to encourage divisions. PC culture tramples on peoples rights to express themselves... and that encourages bitterness and anger, which feeds into racism, which proves that the activists are needed. With activists who are entitled to protection even when they reject the government or every aspect of society in favor of anarchy. They're not responsible for whatever happens because they are either victims themselves, or they represent victims. So, they'll dismiss the systems that keep people safe, and dismiss any suggestion that they're responsible for any deaths or suffering caused by their movement, because they're still entitled to be protected/provided for.... and they're entitled to act against the system that provides for them. The world has gone full retard. I swear China, Russia, etc must be laughing themselves silly right now at the self-destructive impulses of western society. All they need to do is wait, while we tear ourselves apart...
cooperguy wrote: » Why do people insist on ignoring context and then getting offended at someone "only" saying white lives matter. That phrase did not exist before people used Black Lives Matter as a tag line to talk about racism against black people. Its inherently dismissive of racism and tries to minimise the issues.
take everything wrote: » Have to agree with a lot of this. I keep wondering when people in the West are going to become tired of this bull**** childish behaviour. There are so many stark hypocrisies and absurdities to be pointed out in this stuff that i'm amazed rational people don't just say enough already of this bull****. As you say, why isn't Japan or China vilified for its policies on immigration/multiculturalism. Whats that about. They are laughing at the West. That Chinese term for this bull****/white guilt someone posted is so on the money it's funny. It's almost natural to vilify white people, despite their societies bending over backwards to accommodate and integrate minorities I'm slow to use terms like Clown World but there really is no other way to describe these absurdities.
Wibbs wrote: » Because Eastern Europeans are White Europeans. Simple as that. White faces don't look good in HR department posters or NGO front pages. They're not the Right sort of immigrant or multicultural. Same for the thousands of German, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, British etc White folks living here. Most people don't realise there are over 100,000 British people living here, over 10,000 each of Germans, French, Spanish and Italians. You won't see them in posters glorifying our diversity. They may as well be invisible to the progressives. Like I noted earlier, none of these multiculturalist muppets would dream of suggesting a Black nation is in need of the "diversity" of a large influx of White people, but they're very particular about what kind of "diversity" they want and it's only White people who need it. So Ireland could be one of the most multicultural places on Earth, but if those sub cultures were only pale of face White Europeans that wouldn't cut it. Not even close. You'll note East Asian folks don't get so much of a look in either and are definitely down the hierarchy of what is Correct Diversity. Like I also noted before there is very much a hierarchy of "race" with your progressive types and it exactly follows the hierarchy of out and out racists. They're both just as obsessed by it. TL;DR? the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice of attention and virtue.
cooperguy wrote: » I don't. Are we saying that we didnt need gay and feminist activism a few decades ago? Or is it just now that its "reinvented itself" its no longer needed. It basically plays on lazy stereotypes. Minorities coming here to be provided with something on the back of the white man. The minorities I actually meet have no interest in that, they just want to work. I havent been particularly stopped from expressing myself either. It can be vaguely annoying when a phrase comes in that's either now on trend or not allowed. But its really doesn't impact me particularly hard...
cooperguy wrote: » It basically plays on lazy stereotypes. Minorities coming here to be provided with something on the back of the white man. The minorities I actually meet have no interest in that, they just want to work. .
joe40 wrote: » I really don't understand why you find it complicated. I wouldn't call someone from Pakistan a "Paki" Irish people don't like been called "paddy" definitely wouldn't call a black person a Ni**er ( don't think you would either) it really is not complicated. The term coloured has a lot of links to segregation, so if people don't like I won't use. Kids with learning difficulties used to be called retarded, that term isn't used any more. Would you still call a child retarded if they had a learning difficulty. Some people present this as some sort of PC control thing. I honestly don't get that at all. For me it does come down to basic manners. If black people don't want to be called coloured I honestly don't see the problem. Why insist on using the term just to make a point. Nothing to do with chastisement or whatever. But ultimately do your own thing, it's still a free world.
take everything wrote: » But is it a stereotype. Why aren't masses of people from the US and Europe emigrating to Africa, parts of the Middle East or South/Central America, availing of all the things their cultures provide and giving out endlessly about how racist they are. It seems to be one way and a very definite pattern. Does the actual overall evidence chime with your anecdotal data. In terms of benefits to economies, crime etc.
Kaybaykwah wrote: » The fact that someone in this thread posted about feminists sticking up for a minority speaks volumes.
Also, the idea that the White Western Civilization turning on itself, jumping off a cliff is ludicrous.
You are just as likely to read about some ****ed up happening in Africa, Asia, in a liberal rag like the Guardian, than you are about something amiss in the US, UK, elsewhere in the West. The take away is that there have always been issues to confront, and the process of demanding justice is a continued one, that this continuum is daunting for some who are on the defensive when confronted with a changing environment.
Deleted User wrote: » Ok, explain to me how the identity politics and racial divisions we are seeing in the US, and which are being transplanted into the UK, are a good thing. This should be good, if you can be bothered to actually engage with the discussion being held.
Deleted User wrote: » You realise you got the point about feminism completely wrong? That speaks volumes, in itself. Ok, explain to me how the identity politics and racial divisions we are seeing in the US, and which are being transplanted into the UK, are a good thing. This should be good, if you can be bothered to actually engage with the discussion being held. Gobbledygook. Come on. Rather than simply dismissing the points made by various posters, how about actually making a stand and discussing them? Refute them.
Kaybaykwah wrote: » The Irish had a lot of these reflexes of self deprecation because of a long winded exposure to humiliation, and impotence in their own country. I think that the arrival of many ethnicities has been a boon to Ireland, economically and socially. I remember the Italian and Chinese and Eastern European Jewish population were the most prevalent, and numbered below ten thousand each. You cannot tell me the influx of many tens of thousands of immigrants hasn't been stimulating for the Irish Nation. How can it not be? What is bad about mixing ethnicities, and why would it be scary to you from the outset?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
