Making the news today....

[Khriss]

..... sounds good to me, had those Ableisms live next door fr a while , ****************kin nightmare. K

Edited June 24, 2020 by Khriss
Might have been Amish, they did have horses....

[Sutton]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Look at you with an almost verbatim quote from the Antifa handbook:

You in your happy place yet? ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 minutes ago, Sutton said:

You in your happy place yet? ?

Just waiting for the fire to take the chill off the hot tub then I’m going in with a ? (the ill gotten gains of a capitalist)

 

Thats a happy place!

Edited June 24, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[openspaceman]

5 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I’m not so sure it’s a single, fixed point

Probably isn't but do make your mind up, we either top all the people without callused hands (aka not those with "the perpetual faint whiff of penetrating  oil and diesel") or try and make something of the system we have got

[Youngstu]

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

What are you blathering about You clown?

 

All of that which you seem to have got your panties in a twist about ALREADY has its place in the legal framework. 
 

That not good enough for you? You want “thought law” as well?

 

Bejebus.....

Looks like I missed something in my message so you got yourself a bit confused, I'll give you an example to help you understand.

 

Racism was once acceptable in general but some people including the victims and others objected to it, but many, including those in power didn't "give a toss" about the thoughts, feelings or sensitivities of the victims or the others that felt it was wrong. Over time petitions, demonstrations, reports etc raised awareness and increased the support for victims of racism and made that behaviour generally unacceptable and eventually laws were made protecting people from that behaviour.  If it wasn't for the ongoing persistence of these "sensitive" types those practices would still be widely acceptable and the victims would be suffering from much greater levels of blatant racism in society. 

This applies to sexism, homophobia, disability discrimination etc and unfortunately none of them have gone away, they're just less blatant than they were in the past.

Is being old or from a certain demographic an acceptable excuse for being racist or sexist or homophobic? 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

50 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Probably isn't but do make your mind up, we either top all the people without callused hands (aka not those with "the perpetual faint whiff of penetrating  oil and diesel") or try and make something of the system we have got

I’ll meet you in the middle.... Maybe just top ½ of ‘em....  Think of the space that would generate on the train - no need for HS2 - double bonus no?

[openspaceman]

14 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I’ll meet you in the middle.... Maybe just top ½ of ‘em....  Think of the space that would generate on the train - no need for HS2 - double bonus no?

Okay I'll meet you by the tumbrel

Edited June 24, 2020 by openspaceman
spelling

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

41 minutes ago, Youngstu said:

Looks like I missed something in my message so you got yourself a bit confused, I'll give you an example to help you understand.  I'm sure this will be a treat....  ?

 

Racism was once acceptable in general but some people including the victims and others objected to it, but many, including those in power didn't "give a toss" about the thoughts, feelings or sensitivities of the victims or the others that felt it was wrong. Over time petitions, demonstrations, reports etc raised awareness and increased the support for victims of racism and made that behaviour generally unacceptable and eventually laws were made protecting people from that behaviour.  Actually, we're on the 5th generation of 'equality' law with the latest iteration in the Equality Act 2010 (that's right, we've ALREADY had it for 10 years) and reaching back so far as the first generation in the Race Relations Act 1965.  If it wasn't for the ongoing persistence of these "sensitive" types those practices would still be widely acceptable and the victims would be suffering from much greater levels of blatant racism in society. But they are NOT - because it would be illegal.

This applies to sexism, homophobia, disability discrimination etc and unfortunately none of them have gone away, they're just less blatant than they were in the past.  All of what you describe is ALREADY illegal (if it even happens)  What is it you actually (seem to) WANT?  What part of the Equality Act do you consider to be deficient?

Is being old or from a certain demographic an acceptable excuse for being racist or sexist or homophobic?  You cheeky c*nt, age and race are protected characteristics enshrined within the Equality Act.  What sort of hypocrite are you?  I'll let it slide on this occasion because (if I apply an assumption since you call yourself 'youngstu') that your tender years have yet to provide you the wisdom and experience of your elders.  

I think you are confused.  

 

It's OK, I understand.  

 

You've been subjected to ridiculous levels of media 'slant' and probably been through an education system riddled with Left wing bias - I'm guessing you've exited the system but I've no idea at what point.  

 

All this has bombarded you through your formative years.   It's hardly a surprise.

 

As you mature and travel on the journey of life I'm sure you will gain enlightenment. 

 

It saddens me that you see 'others' as being the 'problem.'  You are making statements that can be seen to be only slightly removed from being a direct quote from the handbook of an organisation (those that claim there is no organisation have their eyes closed the hardest) which is only slightly removed from being designated as a terror organisation.  And yet you appear to want to be taken seriously....  

 

I don't think you are a ½ as enlightened as you might like to think you are....  Hang in there buttercup, it'll come right when you've got a few miles on the clock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sighs knowingly and despairs at the need to explain - this is entirely tongue in cheek, sarcasm and baiting, it's a giggle.  I won't go so far as to say 'it's just banter' and present that as a shallow excuse for causing offence - I genuinely don't give a flying f*ck if you do take offence, just so as you know - but let's not all get our hairy shirts on about it.  We disagree - it's that simple.)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

28 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Okay I'll meet you by the tumbrel

Result!  I had to look up tumbrel....  Not heard that word so far as I can recall.

 

Are you sure it's "tumbrel?"

 

A day without diving into the Oxford English dictionary is a day strangely unfulfilled ?

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Are you sure it's "tumbrel?"

I wasn't and initially wrote tumbril, then had second thoughts.

 

Anyway the French revolution shows us a few things

 

Those who don't learn from history will repeat the mistakes (forgot who I have paraphrased)

 

Let the inequality swing too far and the reaction swings too far the other way

 

The "people" do not benefit from the coup, they are just goaded into revolting by the erstwhile ruling class  who get to depose the current one, i.e. there is not much difference between the current ruling class and the incomers; animal farm anyone

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by openspaceman