dholliday
deconstructed rep
*Moralistic
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
*Moralistic
larrygobfiend
Player Valuation: £40m
I'd much rather make a spelling mistake than be a monumental bellend.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
One is a fact, the other an opinion. You'd rather factually be wrong, than be seen by a random stranger as a bellend.
That says quite a bit about you, and your posts. It means most of what you write isn't your own, but fed from groupthink. It's a facet of human psychology, interesting stuff. Let me know if you'd like further reading.
Mate if you want to go through this thread correcting spelling mistakes , I’d make sure you’ve cleared the afternoon first .
Mate, we have to be better than that. Argue the points, not the man.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
I'm not really doing that, am I.
No I know I was merely suggesting it happens , this thread is full of them .
Of course you do Pete. His response avoided the actual point being made, which you are famous on here for doing.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
The point you made was you love white people playing the race card:
So it's not much of a point, is it? There's nothing to engage with there, except a downward spiral into stupidity.
The point is that there was absolutely nothing racist in that post. Got it now?
There's a match on fellas 
Ffs EvertonThere's a match on fellas
dholliday
deconstructed rep
The acid test is swapping the words to see if it sounds racist or not. Let's say someone posts the below picture in a debate about social issues:
Then someone writes: Black. Loud. Unemployed and generally angry at the world.
To be classed as "a bit racist", there needs to be a negative focus on the skin colour within the comment. The negative focus is implied in the general negativity of the sentiment: i.e. all young black people are unemployed & unnecessarily angry with the world.
@Charlie Sweet's implication was that all old white people are unfit & unnecessarily angry with the world. We'd have to ask him why he felt the need to make that comment. His subsequent defence of it wasn't very convincing, for the two negative words of "unfit" & "angry" damned the comment as hateful rather than observant (because there is no proof these people are "unfit" or "angry"), just as in the above example "unemployed" & "angry" would damn it as hateful.
The acid test is swapping the words to see if it sounds racist or not. Let's say someone posts the below picture in a debate about social issues:
Then someone writes: Black. Loud. Unemployed and generally angry at the world.
To be classed as "a bit racist", there needs to be a negative focus on the skin colour within the comment. The negative focus is implied in the general negativity of the sentiment: i.e. all young black people are unemployed & unnecessarily angry with the world.
@Charlie Sweet's implication was that all old white people are unfit & unnecessarily angry with the world. We'd have to ask him why he felt the need to make that comment. His subsequent defence of it wasn't very convincing, for the two negative words of "unfit" & "angry" damned the comment as hateful rather than observant (because there is no proof these people are "unfit" or "angry"), just as in the above example "unemployed" & "angry" would damn it as hateful.
That's a false equivalency.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
And then, lest we forget, once someone writes "that's a bit racist", he gets a reply which looks like this:
Which arguably is also a racist comment, as there's negative implication of people behaving wrongly due to the colour of their skin.
The merry-go-round thus goes round and round.
Understanding this brings one a step forward to understanding, and healing, divisions. I think we in Europe are a little wiser to this, despite what the media (social & otherwise) might portray.
- Status