This language is not okay .

[The Real Buh 3,480]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Chuck Pepsi. Costa, and Burger King in for a full house?

Mind you, there are seven brands (including McDs) I've avoided as far as possible in years. 

Maybe it’s just a reflection of the vapid, bankrupt culture that we put so much faith and guidance in corporate entities? Are they the new religions? Are people praying at the altar of Instagram nowadays? 
 

I don’t think people shouldn’t be able to enjoy a Coke, or a marvel movie or whatever but let that stuff wash over you, don’t let it define you. Support LGBT people because we live in a society of different people and it’s nice and productive and all round better for a society to be cohesive and accepting. Not because Bacardi told you to.

There’s always going to be people of the fringes of any issue trying to bait you into biting, just ignore that noise and it’ll be fine, honestly.

on LGBT acceptance specifically I always think about it this way. If Alan Turing wasn’t allowed to work on enigma during WW2 because he was gay we’d all be **èd. And I mean double, triple **éd. That’s the shît you should teach in schools lol

[chicken 2,642]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Name the terminology. Marxist is not one. It’s an actual thing. And whilst you lefties are delighting in suggesting my quoting from right wing sources makes it untrue or untrustworthy you simply gloss over the bit where I show how the person I claim is Marxist - said precisely that about themselves!! 

Here's where your argument falls down at step one.

"Lefties" - first of all you assume I am one. Which is incorrect. Secondly it means you aren't the floating voter you claim to be either. Use in the way you do, suggests disdain for the left in general.

Onto the others;

"Woke" as an insult is an Americanism, and is only used by people taking up a right wing position. Now just to clear this up for another poster who has waded in with incorrect opinions...

The right wing isn't a single spectrum. The conservative party, for example, has historically been home to right of centre, moderate right wing (meaning middle ground) and hard right. Hard right as I use it describes those who lean more towards far right (traditionally further right of the Conservatives) and do not like the idea of centre right at all. The hard bit meaning they are far less likely to compromise with their political view.

Lets move on...

Incorrect use of "virtue signalling" to insult support or stances. If I was a pub landlord and put a sign up that said the pub had a zero tollerance on bad language, racist and homophobic language it would not be 'virtue signalling'. If someone was to ask me what my pubs policy on it was and I said zero tollerance, this also isn't virtue signalling. If I was to tell everyone what a great person I was because I do 'x/y/z' to stand against racism/homophobia etc as a way of bragging or boasting, then I would be "virtue signalling". 

You're not fooling anyone DCB, nor is your pal who's joined in and also not quite getting things right.

[1902 1,167]

35 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

You’re very quick to have a view on everything else so I wonder why you don’t on this particular contentious subject?  Some might consider that you’re afraid to admit what you really think.

Straw man much. 

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

Maybe it’s just a reflection of the vapid, bankrupt culture that we put so much faith and guidance in corporate entities? Are they the new religions? Are people praying at the altar of Instagram nowadays? 
 

I don’t think people shouldn’t be able to enjoy a Coke, or a marvel movie or whatever but let that stuff wash over you, don’t let it define you. Support LGBT people because we live in a society of different people and it’s nice and productive and all round better for a society to be cohesive and accepting. Not because Bacardi told you to.

There’s always going to be people of the fringes of any issue trying to bait you into biting, just ignore that noise and it’ll be fine, honestly.

on LGBT acceptance specifically I always think about it this way. If Alan Turing wasn’t allowed to work on enigma during WW2 because he was gay we’d all be **èd. And I mean double, triple **éd. That’s the shît you should teach in schools lol

Again though, whilst in an ideal world I would probably agree and I do like the Turing paragraph, I do think that stance underestimates the potential role major companies and their marketing can have in maintaining awareness of good causes. I don't think this is about putting faith in them, I think this is where corporations realised people could turn away from them if they don't use their reach for causes generally considered to be fair by most members of society across the board.

Think of it as the Henry Ford quote that a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.

If this thread and similar makes one thing abundantly clear, there is a need for repetition as whilst many people do get it, many obviously don't. I pointed that out with the England fans getting arrested in Munich for N-a-z-i salutes. Pretty sure everyone would know you don't do that anywhere. (The fact it is a crime in Germany under what they call Volksverhetzung just made it even more bewildering that someone would do it).

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

You lefties was obviously a gentle poke at you because for all the bluster on this thread it’s pretty obvious, to any impartial reader, that the string defenders are from one side of the culture wars. 

I am not right wing btw- I’m robustly Catholic and into subsidiarity as the best form of governance. Look it up! You might even like it. power to grass roots for accountability, less and less power and budget the higher up you go - the inverse od what we have that people can be held to account. I’m also for level playing fields. Strong families and communities. Not the divisive poison of identity politics which is a creed of envy and retribution for past wrongs real and imagined. 
 

I admire some parts of the left but do have massive disdain for the way they have largely abandoned the poor and taken to pushing favoured ideology of the elites- Notting hill causes over actual social action. Just look at remain campaign and it’s thinly veiled disdain for the working classes. Or look at how the owners of BLM are now accused of spending money on lavish mansions for themselves not the people they claim to care about 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/956343/black-lives-matter-6-million-luxury-mansion?amp

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

 The reality is that rates of clerical abuse are similar to teaching - but I don’t hear you smear the teaching profession?

You just have!

[horsefly 4,310]

41 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/06/fifas-woke-hypocrisy/

Couldn't agree more that FIFA has been guilty of hypocrisy for years. However, I think you will find that this has everything to do with money and corruption, and absolutely sod all to do with so-called "wokeness". Perhaps you might like to tune into the news about the current corruption trials of Blatter and Platini. Qatar was awarded the honour of hosting the world cup because of blatant corruption, and it is indeed a disgrace that such a homophobic, human rights abusing country, employing virtual slave labour should have ever been considered in the first place. But that has nothing to do with the rightness of opposing racism and homophobia and everything to do with corruption. Yes it is completely hypocritical FIFA to support anti-racism and anti-homophobia and then support Qatar's bid, but that hypocrisy has nothing to do with so-called "wokeness"

Do you agree that it is right for FIFA and all football organisations to ensure that their environments are free of racist and homophobic abuse? If so then accuse the organisation concerned of hypocrisy full stop if they fail to act in accordance with those standards. The label "woke hypocrisy" is utterly nonsensical.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

10 minutes ago, Badger said:

You just have!

No I point out a parity to help put something in perspective 

[Badger 2,412]

7 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

1. power to grass roots for accountability, less and less power and budget the higher up you go - the inverse od what we have that people can be held to account.

2. I’m also for level playing fields.

3. Strong families and communities.

4. Not the divisive poison of identity politics which is a creed of envy and retribution for past wrongs real and imagined. 

Funnily enough DCB, this sounds like a communist manifesto! Welcome comrade! 😀

It's as I say in some of the several points I made to you, which you have been unable to answer - you simply don't understand what Marxism is! 

Reading a bit of Marx rather than the far-right propaganda sheets you seem to prefer might help you understand this. 

[Badger 2,412]

2 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

No I point out a parity to help put something in perspective 

You have just slurred teachers! Nobody else raised them - just you!

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

12 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

You lefties was obviously a gentle poke at you because for all the bluster on this thread it’s pretty obvious, to any impartial reader, that the string defenders are from one side of the culture wars. 

I am not right wing btw- I’m robustly Catholic and into subsidiarity as the best form of governance. Look it up! You might even like it. power to grass roots for accountability, less and less power and budget the higher up you go - the inverse od what we have that people can be held to account. I’m also for level playing fields. Strong families and communities. Not the divisive poison of identity politics which is a creed of envy and retribution for past wrongs real and imagined. 
 

I admire some parts of the left but do have massive disdain for the way they have largely abandoned the poor and taken to pushing favoured ideology of the elites- Notting hill causes over actual social action. Just look at remain campaign and it’s thinly veiled disdain for the working classes. Or look at how the owners of BLM are now accused of spending money on lavish mansions for themselves not the people they claim to care about 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/956343/black-lives-matter-6-million-luxury-mansion?amp

Agree with some of this (not the religion side), but I'm very much a PR/full Swiss sort with a preference for much more localised/regional power, a strong preference for popular initiatives setting the tone for political discussion, as anyone could probably work out with my regular criticisms of the electoral model we have.

After that, I'm very much a "let people decide" sort, provided said Swiss-style model remains impartial and not skewed by big money. That has been its weakness over the last ten or twenty years and why, despite the far more involved participation available to the populace, it's not quite as highly democratic as many perceive.

 

[1902 1,167]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree with some of this (not the religion side), but I'm very much a PR/full Swiss sort with a preference for much more localised/regional power, a strong preference for popular initiatives setting the tone for political discussion, as anyone could probably work out with my regular criticisms of the electoral model we have.

After that, I'm very much a "let people decide" sort, provided said Swiss-style model remains impartial and not skewed by big money. That has been its weakness over the last ten or twenty years and why, despite the far more involved participation available to the populace, it's not quite as highly democratic as many perceive.

 

Couldn't disagree more about the Swiss model. Sometimes people claim I'm an elitist for saying this (and perhaps I am) but some decisions are best left to representatives.

That's not because I don't think people are capable of making good decisions about complex issues, just that by and large, we don't have time to fully inform ourselves. Far too many of California and Switzerland's referendums come down to a few catchy slogans about insanely complex issues. It's like any complex job, be it an electrician or a doctor.

Generally I'm pro a more proportionate electoral system though.

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

8 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Couldn't disagree more about the Swiss model. Sometimes people claim I'm an elitist for saying this (and perhaps I am) but some decisions are best left to representatives.

That's not because I don't think people are capable of making good decisions about complex issues, just that by and large, we don't have time to fully inform ourselves. Far too many of California and Switzerland's referendums come down to a few catchy slogans about insanely complex issues. It's like any complex job, be it an electrician or a doctor.

Generally I'm pro a more proportionate electoral system though.

Not many, with Switzerland, when you consider the number of matters that occur. As a rule, three to four referendums per year is about the going rate so even with increased participation, the overwhelming majority of political work is determined by representatives. Also, the bit that gets missed (and indeed I didn't mention it in the previous) is the ability to call a referendum within 90 days of a bill becoming law if 50,000 signatures are collected for that bill to be put to the populace again. That's probably my favourite feature of the whole model.

I see the point about lay people often being less informed, but will point out that participation is often not as high. I'd actually surmise that those participants are more likely to be those who are relatively well-informed as those who aren't can realise that there will be another referendum coming along soonish on a matter they may be more au fait with.

The real advantage of that is it means politicians do their work more thoroughly and look for compromise with others not in their parties. The real disadvantage (in some opinions) is that reform tends to be far slower. I tend to be happy with this trade-off, but can see why others are not.

Edited June 9, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[The Real Buh 3,480]

32 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Again though, whilst in an ideal world I would probably agree and I do like the Turing paragraph, I do think that stance underestimates the potential role major companies and their marketing can have in maintaining awareness of good causes. I don't think this is about putting faith in them, I think this is where corporations realised people could turn away from them if they don't use their reach for causes generally considered to be fair by most members of society across the board.

Think of it as the Henry Ford quote that a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.

If this thread and similar makes one thing abundantly clear, there is a need for repetition as whilst many people do get it, many obviously don't. I pointed that out with the England fans getting arrested in Munich for N-a-z-i salutes. Pretty sure everyone would know you don't do that anywhere. (The fact it is a crime in Germany under what they call Volksverhetzung just made it even more bewildering that someone would do it).

The issue with this is, as you say, companies are worried that if they don’t do enough people will turn away from them (this is where my “insurance” argument comes in)

if this is the case, which I suspect it is, are the reasons they are doing it genuine or a mix of trying to cash in and also having an imaginary gun to their head if they don’t do enough so they just push some stuff out to make it look like they care.

it seems to lead to all this militancy (I mean, look at this thread. It’s a right mess. Pat on the back for me and you for being able to actually discuss things btw) as well which leads to clicks which leads to money. I can’t shake the feeling for disingenuous nature from corporations.

it shouldn’t be hard to do something that isn’t disingenuous. In this case, you’ve got proud canaries right there. Do something with them. Put some money into Norwich pride or something. They went alone, there was clearly no consultation and now they’ve got a fat L on their hands. They deserve it. 
 

I don’t know mate, it’s a tough one.

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

Just now, The Real Buh said:

The issue with this is, as you say, companies are worried that if they don’t do enough people will turn away from them (this is where my “insurance” argument comes in)

if this is the case, which I suspect it is, are the reasons they are doing it genuine or a mix of trying to cash in and also having an imaginary gun to their head if they don’t do enough so they just push some stuff out to make it look like they care.

it seems to lead to all this militancy (I mean, look at this thread. It’s a right mess. Pat on the back for me and you for being able to actually discuss things btw) as well which leads to clicks which leads to money. I can’t shake the feeling for disingenuous nature from corporations.

it shouldn’t be hard to do something that isn’t disingenuous. In this case, you’ve got proud canaries right there. Do something with them. Put some money into Norwich pride or something. They went alone, there was clearly no consultation and now they’ve got a fat L on their hands. They deserve it. 
 

I don’t know mate, it’s a tough one.

The bit in bold is precisely why I say it's a reinforcer rather than an agent of positive change.

The question to ask there is "do we think the notions they're claiming to support are likely to be beneficial?" From your Turing example, I think we basically agree that this is the case. 

That last bit is a matter of execution, so different story, probably worth a separate thread.

[Naturalcynic 662]

53 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Straw man much. 

Strawman not.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

Going back to the original post snd the comments about the club getting some grief for it I think this is another case of poor communications causing the club a bit of a PR issue. I believe that there is a video of the whole “stunt” which shows the offensive terms being covered in rainbow paint thrown at the wall and eventually by a club badge with “home for everyone”. I assume the intended message is “we are wiping out such abuse” or something along those lines. The problem though is that the club appears to have at some point just tweeted a still of the offensive terms which has then been more widely circulated on social media without the full context. 
 

All a bit amateur. 

 

[Pete Raven 276]

https://twitter.com/proudcanaries/status/1534821116803424264

 

[Naturalcynic 662]

12 minutes ago, Pete Raven said:

https://twitter.com/proudcanaries/status/1534821116803424264

 

Oh God, this all reminds me of Arthur Atkinson from The Fast Show.  Loved by the adoring crowds who applauded wildly his every witticism until one night he uttered what they perceived to be a bad word during his performance and from then on he was shunned and cancelled.  Poor old NCFC.  Trying to do the right thing but now forced to either make a grovelling apology for trying to do what they thought was the right thing or risk becoming a pariah amongst the socially aware.  Hot dog anyone?

Edited June 9, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[horsefly 4,310]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

You claim Catholic Church harbours nazis and protects murderers. That’s quite the claim and the smear for a global church which does enormous good each day. Are you talking about WW2 - if so then look beyond the propaganda and explain why the chief rabbi of Rome converted at the end of the war having made a close personal friendship with the Pope and having been so moved at the heroic underground effort of the church to get Jews to safety.  But sure you know more than him based on your own biased sources!! 

https://jewinthepew.org/2015/02/20/20-february-2010-anna-foa-reviews-the-nazarene-by-israel-zolli-romes-chief-rabbi-who-became-a-catholic-in-1945/amp/

you also stereotype by dragging up the abuse crisis. This is like claiming all black people do X or all gays do Y.  The reality is that rates of clerical abuse are similar to teaching - but I don’t hear you smear the teaching profession? Why is that? And of course the church apologised for its historic poor handling of such cases - so it should. But they were no different from all other institutions in the 50s, 60s and 70s (when most cases are from) cf Jimmy Saville at the BBC. Society was at fault and looked the other way and nobody had heard of safeguarding etc. it’s easy to judge old cases by modern standards but not exactly fair. In several historic cases the church went to police and psychiatrists and they suggested moving them to a new parish as rehabilitation! 

And how is Crisis magazine extreme? It’s editorial board is made up of well known mainstream Catholic writers like Antony Esolen and Fr Rutter. Both of whom I have met - fairly bog standard but devout men. What do you know about them that I don’t?

or were you just employing the tactic of discrediting my sources because you can’t argue against the points they make? 

Utter piffle as usual. The Catholic church did indeed provide the main source of channelling Na*zi war criminals out of Germany in order to help them avoid facing justice for their grotesque crimes. Are you seriously claiming that this organised complicity with Nazi war criminals hasn't been proved time and again by thousands of sources? If you're happy with that, that is your business. I  consider that to have brought disgrace upon the church. Pope Pius XII's relationship with the Nazi's was to say the least dodgy as revealed in the release of documents from the Vatican's own archives (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/vatican-documents-show-secret-back-channel-between-pope-pius-xii-and-adolph-hitler for a balanced assessment). You might like to read Guardian article too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents. Of course there were examples of extremely brave Catholic clergymen who resisted Na*zi persecution, but that doesn't negate the fact that the church did little to stop the Na*zi sympathisers in their ranks assisting Na*zi war criminals.

The Catholic church's record in supporting Latin American dictatorships really needs little comment (but I can provide many examples if you so wish).

Strange that you ignore the fact that the Vatican has admitted that it has a history of systematic cover-ups for thousands of cases of child abuse. Even more strange is that you seek to blame psychiatrists and the police for the church's failings. As for your shameless "whataboutery" of citing other institutions as being guilty of covering up child abuse; does it really not occur to you that it doesn't lessen the crime and depravity of any such examples to point out that others are guilty too?  I thought it was rather the point of the Catholic church to guide and lead our moral lives through instruction and example, not to seek to cover up gross immorality in its own ranks, or make excuses for such depravity.

As for your claim that Crisis is a "bog standard" Catholic publication; it's interesting that you think it is bog standard for a Catholic publication to be a Trump supporting rag. Or are you claiming that Trump represents a paragon of Catholic virtue? (You could also try reading the link you actually posted, if you think that's bog standard Catholicism then again I guess we have very different views of what counts as standard Catholic doctrine).

 

[Nora's Ghost 157]

And the 'sport' of football hammers yet another nail into it's PC coffin.

 

Soon there will be no luvvies going to the ballet or opera anymore.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Oh God, this all reminds me of Arthur Atkinson from The Fast Show.  Loved by the adoring crowds who applauded wildly his every witticism until one night he uttered what they perceived to be a bad word during his performance and from then on he was shunned and cancelled.  Poor old NCFC.  Trying to do the right thing but now forced to either make a grovelling apology for trying to do what they thought was the right thing or risk becoming a pariah amongst the socially aware.

Club tries to make a point objecting to homophobia and gets the tone wrong. It then apologises for that. And your problem with that is???? 

[jaberry2 556]

20 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

 

I heard you do kick like a girl Cambridge

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

20 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Utter piffle as usual. The Catholic church did indeed provide the main source of channelling Na*zi war criminals out of Germany in order to help them avoid facing justice for their grotesque crimes. Are you seriously claiming that this organised complicity with Nazi war criminals hasn't been proved time and again by thousands of sources? If you're happy with that, that is your business. I  consider that to have brought disgrace upon the church. Pope Pius XII's relationship with the Nazi's was to say the least dodgy as revealed in the release of documents from the Vatican's own archives (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/vatican-documents-show-secret-back-channel-between-pope-pius-xii-and-adolph-hitler for a balanced assessment). You might like to read Guardian article too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents. Of course there were examples of extremely brave Catholic clergymen who resisted Na*zi persecution, but that doesn't negate the fact that the church did little to stop the Na*zi sympathisers in their ranks assisting Na*zi war criminals.

The Catholic church's record in supporting Latin American dictatorships really needs little comment (but I can provide many examples if you so wish).

Strange that you ignore the fact that the Vatican has admitted that it has a history of systematic cover-ups for thousands of cases of child abuse. Even more strange is that you seek to blame psychiatrists and the police for the church's failings. As for your shameless "whataboutery" of citing other institutions as being guilty of covering up child abuse; does it really not occur to you that it doesn't lessen the crime and depravity of any such examples to point out that others are guilty too?  I thought it was rather the point of the Catholic church to guide and lead our moral lives through instruction and example, not to seek to cover up gross immorality in its own ranks, or make excuses for such depravity.

As for your claim that Crisis is a "bog standard" Catholic publication; it's interesting that you think it is bog standard for a Catholic publication to be a Trump supporting rag. Or are you claiming that Trump represents a paragon of Catholic virtue? (You could also try reading the link you actually posted, if you think that's bog standard Catholicism then again I guess we have very different views of what counts as standard Catholic doctrine).

 

All I see here is a very bitter hatred of Catholicism and an animus against the church. Bigotry in other words. You speak of a body of 1.4 billion Christians, disregarding the enormous good they do (Catholic church feeds, shelters, educates and medicates more impoverished people each day than any other organisation on earth) You give no credit for the enormous good they have done in founding Western Civilisation and promoting human rights and you instead choose to present the entire thing as a shady horror book caricature of cynical darkness. I say own your hatred and admit you too are in need of learning tolerance and better inclusivity. You might be nice to lgbt people but you do Christians a monstrous disservice 

[horsefly 4,310]

3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Name the terminology. Marxist is not one. It’s an actual thing. And whilst you lefties are delighting in suggesting my quoting from right wing sources makes it untrue or untrustworthy you simply gloss over the bit where I show how the person I claim is Marxist - said precisely that about themselves!! 

FFS! How many times do you need to be told that BLM is a decentralised political and social movement. That one individual tags herself as a BLM organiser, and also describes herself as a Marxist does not remotely imply BLM is a Marxist organisation. Your logic involves a child-like non sequitur.

Here is how "Black Lives Matter UK" describe themselves; feel free to demonstrate its Marxist commitments:

"We stand together as a social civil rights movement in solidarity in the UK and across the globe to change the world. We kneel together for peace and unity asserting Black Lives Matter, and that Black people are treated as humanely and fairly as White people. It is a human right to receive racial equality, social and criminal justice in the societies where we live, and to receive parity as full citizens of the country and as a nation. 

We are apolitcal -  Meaning this is a non-political, non-partisan, non-violence platform. Some content published on this website may have limited political content by the very nature of a state governed country, and system of democracy.

We operate in a humanitarian capacity and concern first and foremost. We believe racism transcends politics and endeavour to avoid distractions that attempt to get in the way of dismantling racist systems and harm that racism causes right across and around the world."

 

 

 

 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

yes and the national front always claim they aren’t racist! Yet the truth is fairly obvious. Only a really dumb person would argue BLM are not political!! And nobody, but nobody, places them on the right…. 

At the local level, official Black Lives Matter chapters are essentially far-left front groups that use racial justice as a Trojan horse for leftist policy and ideology. For example, the official organization Black Lives Matter DC openly dedicates itself to “creating the conditions for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism.”

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Dean Coneys boots

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

44 minutes ago, Pete Raven said:

https://twitter.com/proudcanaries/status/1534821116803424264

 

I can see their point. I don't know if I would have dealt with it by way of a public statement, demand for a public apology etc though. Suspect it would have been better to try and communicate with the club how they felt having seen the end product of the campaign. 

[shefcanary 2,447]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I can see their point. I don't know if I would have dealt with it by way of a public statement, demand for a public apology etc though. Suspect it would have been better to try and communicate with the club how they felt having seen the end product of the campaign. 

Another symptom of the lack of Chairperson and CEO not being in place.  Too much working in silos and initiatives going off half ****.  Come on Smith & Jones, sort it out.

[horsefly 4,310]

45 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

All I see here is a very bitter hatred of Catholicism and an animus against the church. Bigotry in other words. You speak of a body of 1.4 billion Christians, disregarding the enormous good they do (Catholic church feeds, shelters, educates and medicates more impoverished people each day than any other organisation on earth) You give no credit for the enormous good they have done in founding Western Civilisation and promoting human rights and you instead choose to present the entire thing as a shady horror book caricature of cynical darkness. I say own your hatred and admit you too are in need of learning tolerance and better inclusivity. You might be nice to lgbt people but you do Christians a monstrous disservice 

And, of course I have done NOTHING of the sort. It was YOU that linked an article from an extremist Catholic rag (Crisis) claiming that BLM is a "Marxist terrorist organisation". I merely pointed out that not only is that blatantly a lie, but that also it was remarkable that the author could make such claims given the Catholic church's recent poor history concerning prolific cases of child sex abuse and other ignominies that the Vatican ITSELF has owned up to. Perhaps, then,  you should have a word with the Vatican for displaying such "bitter hatred of Catholicism". Yet again you completely fail to distinguish between Catholicism and the institutions which claim to enact Catholic doctrine. To point out that the institution has been guilty of covering up some of the most grievous crimes committed by its own clergy, is to say nothing at all about the worth or otherwise of  Catholicism as a religion. That you don't possess the logical grasp to see this is quite astonishing (poor old Aquinas will be turning in his grave). So please point out which one of my claims about those crimes is false, and please point out where I express a "bitter hatred of Catholicism". To express a hatred of child abuse, support of dictatorships, and helping Na*zi war criminals escape justice is NOT to express a hatred of Catholicism. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,310]

31 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

yes and the national front always claim they aren’t racist! Yet the truth is fairly obvious. Only a really dumb person would argue BLM are not political!! And nobody, but nobody, places them on the right…. 

At the local level, official Black Lives Matter chapters are essentially far-left front groups that use racial justice as a Trojan horse for leftist policy and ideology. For example, the official organization Black Lives Matter DC openly dedicates itself to “creating the conditions for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism.”

 

 

 

You really are acting like a buffoon. Do you really not understand the difference between being party political affiliated, and holding views that might imply political consequences (for example necessitating equality laws)? And what is it that you don't  understand by the term, "decentralised political and social organisation"? There is no such thing as an "official" BLM organisation that determines the rules under which all those who identify with the BLM tag must operate. "BLM DC" has exactly the same status as the "official NCFC supporters club". NO NCFC fan is compelled to support any particular political viewpoint to be entitled to call themselves an NCFC fan, just as no supporter of racial equality who also wishes to align with the tag BLM is obliged to support any particular political doctrine. It really isn't difficult to understand, just try.

Edited June 9, 2022 by horsefly