Things That are Racist

[egg]

17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Some of them are justified in my opinion.

Thoughts ?

Wow. He's labelled me a racist before. Others too. I'm satisfied that I didn't deserve that slur, and don't believe that anyone else he labelled were deserving of it. Who's the racists? 

[Millbrook Saint]

On 01/05/2023 at 18:40, sadoldgit said:

Rag?  It wasn’t an article it was a cartoon and the cartoon actually looked like Sharp.  Cartoons exaggerate features and if you look at it Sunak actually had a bigger nose but that was ignored. If you have read any of my posts you will see that I have said that Abbott needs to be sanctioned if found by the inquiry to be at fault and have supported Starmer’s decision to withdraw the whip from her. Other than that, spot on. 

Not worried about the rise of National Conservatism? Perhaps you should be.

Wow, justifying racism now, what a vile human being you, give your head a wobble

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

She doesn’t have a pop you idiot

I disagree, I think some of her comments are unnecessary.

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Wow. He's labelled me a racist before. Others too. I'm satisfied that I didn't deserve that slur, and don't believe that anyone else he labelled were deserving of it. Who's the racists? 

I think you are as rascist as I am, and more posters have accused me of it than you - but who's counting ? SOGgy does himself no favours with his approach, and I think he has probably gone beyond the point where he should have stopped digging.

As for who I think is racist, that is my private opinion of a small number of people and not a label I will bandy about in public, as it will serve no purpose.

Edited 2 May, 2023 by badgerx16

[egg]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think you are as rascist as I am, and more posters have accused me of it than you - but who's counting ? SOGgy does himself no favours with his approach, and I think he has probably gone beyond the point where he should have stopped digging.

As for who I think is racist, that is my private opinion of a small number of people and not a label I will bandy about in public, as it will serve no purpose.

The thing is though, you've gone down the SoG route of throwing that label around. I know this is only a forum, but that's an unpleasant line to have crossed imo. As for SoG, I've resisted joining in the last few rounds of his self inflicted kicking. My personal view is that he likes the attention and knows exactly what he's doing. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

As we get quite a few Guardian links here, I was a little surprised to see the details from the Spectator, as I'd already read something from the Guardian on it. One that, of the artist, "Rowson says that Sharp’s Jewishness was not in his mind" and "however unthinkingly." It's a piece looking to find some balance. 

The article, which surely couldn't have been missed by avid Guardian readers...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/01/richard-sharp-guardian-martin-rowson-cartoon-antisemitism

includes...

"All of which makes it unfathomable that anyone would be so unfamiliar with this anti-Jewish visual lexicon that they would draw and publish a cartoon that depicted Sharp, or any other Jew in public life, in this way: but here we are.

All the component parts were there: the large nose, the lips, the Fagin-like sneer, and, of course, what appears to be money. It’s a racialised depiction of a Jew, and incidentally is another reminder, if Diane Abbott is still wondering, that antisemitism can indeed be a form of racism."

For anyone interested in the artist's view of it, it's on the front page of his website https://www.martinrowson.com/

[AlexLaw76]

56 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Some of them are justified in my opinion.

Thoughts ?

what, like calling people 'coloured'?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

what, like calling people 'coloured'?

Here we go again.

The eager little terrier barking and jumping around.

 

 

Edited 2 May, 2023 by badgerx16

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The one where a completely innocent post can be deliberately misconstrued and instantly leapt upon by a group of posters who can barely hide their eagerness to label anybody they can as a racist or bigot, without any real evidence or justification.

 

An innocent post, or a constant  stream of posts defending Abbots racist letter and then unbelievably, a racist cartoon? Added to his coconuts, “they” & Priti being an immigrant, there’s a pattern forming, a pattern you overlook purely because you agree with his politics. 

I presume you’re being ironic when your defence of Soggy includes the line “posters who can barely hide their eagerness to label anybody they can as a racist or bigot”. 

 

 

[AlexLaw76]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Here we go again.

The eager little terrier barking and jumping around.

 

 

Just merely asking why you seem to never call out the one showing consistent racism over the last few days, without the 'what aboutery'

 

Edited 2 May, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

I presume you’re being ironic when your defence of Soggy includes the line “posters who can barely hide their eagerness to label anybody they can as a racist or bigot”. 

 

 

You know full well what that phrase is referring to, and that it is not anything SOG posted.

 

Also, I fail to see how posting " SOGgy does himself no favours with his approach, and I think he has probably gone beyond the point where he should have stopped digging" is defending him.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just merely asking why you seem to never call out the one showing consistent racism over the last few days, without the 'what aboutery'

 

Because I do not think that SOG is by nature racist, and some of the things he has posted have been deliberately misconstrued. SOG's main problem is that he persists in finding new points of access into his personal rabbit hole, and his selection of 'evidence' and justification is flawed. However, he knows full well how his entries to this thread will be received, and it is his choice to continue.

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thats funny because various Google searches including Jews and octopus bring up these results….

 

 

 

 

 

Go you  The original sad old git can use google. We’ll done. Except the term used was squid not octopus and putting in ‘Jewish’  and ‘squid’ only brought up the current story, as I said.  If only you were half as smart as you like to pretend 

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, buctootim said:

Go you  The original sad old git can use google. We’ll done. Except the term used was squid not octopus and putting in ‘Jewish’  and ‘squid’ only brought up the current story, as I said.  If only you were half as smart as you like to pretend 

If you'd have used 'squid' and 'Jewish' instead of the other way round you would have got the following results as well as plenty of others regarding the current story :

https://www.radicalismoffools.com/the-origins-of-the-giant-vampire-squid/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/01/chaotic-world-comforting-imagine-evil-jewish-squid-charge/

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zfxaEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=squid+jewish&source=bl&ots=9gHMImekGY&sig=ACfU3U1O4dy3bwVdAGsTojaqNzejpkbwTg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii2NShvtj-AhXmREEAHVkeAY8Q6AF6BAhFEAM#v=onepage&q=squid jewish&f=false

Those in glass houses....

[hypochondriac]

13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The one where a completely innocent post can be deliberately misconstrued and instantly leapt upon by a group of posters who can barely hide their eagerness to label anybody they can as a racist or bigot, without any real evidence or justification.

 

I don't think the cartoon was intentionally anti-semitic. I think once it was pointed out they removed it and apologised which is all good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not so sure the same courtesy would be extended to more right leaning publications had they done something similar though. I think that both sides can be as bad as each other. 

[hypochondriac]

13 hours ago, aintforever said:

Maybe, the only time I ever hear her views is when she’s having a pop at transsexuals. My point was that the Gringots bankers are loaded with anti-semitic tropes every bit as bad as the Guardian’s cartoon. 

I expect that's because you've on;ly really received a distorted picture from weirdos on twitter. There was a very balanced and interesting podcast on her recently by one of the Roper children of Westboro Baptist infamy. Worth a listen to discover some of her views on the subject. 

[hypochondriac]

12 hours ago, aintforever said:

I disagree, I think some of her comments are unnecessary.

I don't think you've really looked into it. Her primary concern is keeping sex segregated spaces which is a goal that everyone should be supporting. 

[sadoldgit]

22 hours ago, whelk said:

Screen shot of your ignore list SOG please? I can’t remember how to do it but have done so before as some link to an old thread showed I had Glasgow on ignore. Now there was an annoying cunt

I have managed to get a screen shot but can’t PM it to you as I am not a subscriber nor can I upload it for the same reason.

I think I found a work around though although it is only shows the first screen. However it shows my current and previous stalkers so here you go…

https://imgur.com/a/u0fPsCL

12 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Wow, justifying racism now, what a vile human being you, give your head a wobble

Justifying racism? Please do me the courtesy of telling me how you come to that conclusion. Before you do though please read the article by Fraser Nelson published in The Spectator that I posted earlier. He has a far greater insight into this issue than either you or I. Then perhaps give your own head a wobble.

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think the cartoon was intentionally anti-semitic. I think once it was pointed out they removed it and apologised which is all good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not so sure the same courtesy would be extended to more right leaning publications had they done something similar though. I think that both sides can be as bad as each other. 

Yep. Artist even acknowledged the issue and apologised for the unintended racism.

Odd then that some people still go to extraordinary lengths to defend it and deny it is racist!!

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have managed to get a screen shot but can’t PM it to you as I am not a subscriber nor can I upload it for the same reason.

I think I found a work around though although it is only shows the first screen. However it shows my current and previous stalkers so here you go…

https://imgur.com/a/u0fPsCL

Justifying racism? Please do me the courtesy of telling me how you come to that conclusion. Before you do though please read the article by Fraser Nelson published in The Spectator that I posted earlier. He has a far greater insight into this issue than either you or I. Then perhaps give your own head a wobble.

Lol you absolute loser going to those lengths to show who you had on ignore. I'm supposedly on ignore yet you responded directly to one of my posts just a couple of weeks ago. Either you were lying and you didn't have me on ignore then or you did have me on ignore and decided to show my post and read it anyway before replying. I'm not sure which one is more pathetic. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yep. Artist even acknowledged the issue and apologised for the unintended racism.

Odd then that some people still go to extraordinary lengths to defend it and deny it is racist!!

Kind of like Badger on here, which is fair enough

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have managed to get a screen shot but can’t PM it to you as I am not a subscriber nor can I upload it for the same reason.

I think I found a work around though although it is only shows the first screen. However it shows my current and previous stalkers so here you go…

https://imgur.com/a/u0fPsCL

Justifying racism? Please do me the courtesy of telling me how you come to that conclusion. Before you do though please read the article by Fraser Nelson published in The Spectator that I posted earlier. He has a far greater insight into this issue than either you or I. Then perhaps give your own head a wobble.

 

I just randomly added 5 users to the ignore list and had no problems showing all of them and doing a simple copy and paste screen shot here, nothing about also showing the first page. Me thinks you're talking shit again. (you're all back off ignore by the way)

@Weston Super Saint seems like he was lying about having you on ignore. 

Hilariously sad that he would do this

Edited 3 May, 2023 by Turkish

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think you've really looked into it. Her primary concern is keeping sex segregated spaces which is a goal that everyone should be supporting. 

Wrong, there have been a few things she has said that I felt unnecessary that were not to do with segregated spaces, but that's just my opinion. I'm not really interested in Rowling TBH, just thought her antisemitic creations were relevant.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

22 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

I just randomly added 5 users to the ignore list and had no problems showing all of them and doing a simple copy and paste screen shot here, nothing about also showing the first page. Me thinks you're talking shit again. (you're all back off ignore by the way)

@Weston Super Saint seems like he was lying about having you on ignore. 

Hilariously sad that he would do this

Not a surprise really, he's desperate to know my thoughts

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have managed to get a screen shot but can’t PM it to you as I am not a subscriber nor can I upload it for the same reason.

I think I found a work around though although it is only shows the first screen. However it shows my current and previous stalkers so here you go…

https://imgur.com/a/

😂😂😂

Outstanding 👏 👏 👏 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wrong, there have been a few things she has said that I felt unnecessary that were not to do with segregated spaces, but that's just my opinion. I'm not really interested in Rowling TBH, just thought her antisemitic creations were relevant.

 

What few things? I know you've said you're not really interested, but the reason I ask is because she's routinely characterised by a certain group of people online as transphobic, racist, far-right etc when I've yet to see any evidence for any of those things. Considering she could have just stayed silent and continued to rake in billions, I think she's very brave to speak out for what she believes in, even if I disagree with her on almost everything else. 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wrong, there have been a few things she has said that I felt unnecessary that were not to do with segregated spaces, but that's just my opinion. I'm not really interested in Rowling TBH, just thought her antisemitic creations were relevant.

 

Aren't they Goblins - not sure they really exist so I guess there is a little artistic licence in describing their features?

[whelk]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What few things? I know you've said you're not really interested, but the reason I ask is because she's routinely characterised by a certain group of people online as transphobic, racist, far-right etc when I've yet to see any evidence for any of those things. Considering she could have just stayed silent and continued to rake in billions, I think she's very brave to speak out for what she believes in, even if I disagree with her on almost everything else. 

From Article from a Trans person in the Spectator 

[aintforever]

47 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Aren't they Goblins - not sure they really exist so I guess there is a little artistic licence in describing their features?

True, but she portrayed them as a secretive cabal of hook-nosed bankers who look very similar to the caricatures in Nazi propaganda. Plus there was even a pattern similar to the Star of David on the floor of Gringotts Bank.

I only pointed it out because I went to Harry Potter World with my daughter and one of the characters there looked uncanily like a spitting image puppet of a former Jewish boss of mine. Of course there is artistic licence but same can be said of cartoon artists. Why is one cancelled and not the other?

[tdmickey3]

The obsession with sadoldgit proving to be as sad as it is funny

🤣

Cue being accused of being someone that they want me to be...odd bods

[Weston Super Saint]

56 minutes ago, aintforever said:

True, but she portrayed them as a secretive cabal of hook-nosed bankers who look very similar to the caricatures in Nazi propaganda. Plus there was even a pattern similar to the Star of David on the floor of Gringotts Bank.

I only pointed it out because I went to Harry Potter World with my daughter and one of the characters there looked uncanily like a spitting image puppet of a former Jewish boss of mine. Of course there is artistic licence but same can be said of cartoon artists. Why is one cancelled and not the other?

Do a Google image search for goblins, pretty much every depiction has them with hooked noses, big ears and round eyes.

Wasn't the pattern on the bank floor only there because that's what is on the floor where they filmed?  Not really sure Rowling is to blame for that?

Sometimes a coincidence can be a coincidence can't it?

[aintforever]

27 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sometimes a coincidence can be a coincidence can't it?

Yep, same can be said of the cartoon.

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yep, same can be said of the cartoon.

Not really.  The guy that drew it went to school with the subject and knew he was Jewish.  Subconcious or accidental racism maybe, but not a coincidence.

[aintforever]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Subconcious or accidental racism maybe, but not a coincidence.

Same could be said of JK Rowlings Goblin Bankers.

The set was build from scratch so any Star of David was put there for a reason and the bankers could have been any type of creature.

Stop making excuses for antisemitism, blah blah blah.

Edited 3 May, 2023 by aintforever

[Weston Super Saint]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Same could be said of JK Rowlings Goblin Bankers.

The set was build from scratch so any Star of David was put there for a reason and the bankers could have been any type of creature.

Stop making excuses for antisemitism, blah blah blah.

Really?  They built Australia House from scratch (in 1913 FFS!) just for the Harry Potter film and deliberately put the star of David in it?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/31/inside-australia-house-gringotts-bank-sacred-londons-oldest/

Surely there's enough 'actual' racism out there to rage against rather than blatantly making shit up?

Edited 3 May, 2023 by Weston Super Saint

[aintforever]

32 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Really?  They built Australia House from scratch (in 1913 FFS!) just for the Harry Potter film and deliberately put the star of David in it?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/31/inside-australia-house-gringotts-bank-sacred-londons-oldest/

Surely there's enough 'actual' racism out there to rage against rather than blatantly making shit up?

The set looked different to that and the tour said they were the original sets, but I guess it explains the star if they were replicating that. The Goblin bankers still have a wiff of antisemitism about them though.

Edited 3 May, 2023 by aintforever

[sadoldgit]

When the Guardian cartoon thing first kicked off the graphic I saw was cropped and just showed the Richard Sharp caricature. Anyone cognisant of Rowson’s work will know how brutal his depictions of his targets are and I thought his cartoon of Sharp was quite tame in comparison to those of the likes of Johnson, Sunak, Braverman, Raab etc.

However, there is a lot more going on in the complete cartoon though and as Rowson has said himself, his actual intention and target has been sidelined by the anti-Semitism row.

Anyway to get to the main point, I knew nothing about the origin of the pink squid reference in the Goldman Sachs box carried by Sharp nor the whole vampire squid thing that was aimed at that bank until enlightened by The Spectator piece.

For those who are curious this is where it comes from, Rolling Stone magazine in 2010. An interesting (but very long) read.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/amp/

 

[Weston Super Saint]

If only you'd bothered to educate yourself in the first place, you wouldn't have spent a week trying to justify why you believed a racist cartoon wasn't racist.

You haven't been clear, are you now backing down on your original defence?

[Miltonaggro]

21 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Do a Google image search for goblins, pretty much every depiction has them with hooked noses, big ears and round eyes.

Wasn't the pattern on the bank floor only there because that's what is on the floor where they filmed?  Not really sure Rowling is to blame for that?

Sometimes a coincidence can be a coincidence can't it?

My parents had a Goblin Teasmade throughout much of the 70s, clearly I was being indoctrinated into the Hitler Youth, Southampton East division.  I am now awake...

[The Kraken]

Jesus. That soggy ‘excuse’ follows a scarily similar pattern to Corbyn when he defended the artist behind the antisemitic Jewish monopoly mural; Corbyn later said “I regret not looking more closely at the image”. Pitiful stuff.

[sadoldgit]

On 04/05/2023 at 12:15, The Kraken said:

Jesus. That soggy ‘excuse’ follows a scarily similar pattern to Corbyn when he defended the artist behind the antisemitic Jewish monopoly mural; Corbyn later said “I regret not looking more closely at the image”. Pitiful stuff.

It happens to be true and not an excuse, but knock yourself out.

[Lord Duckhunter]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It happens to be true 

Load of old pony. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

It happens to be true and not an excuse, but knock yourself out.

Maybe so for the first couple of hours, but even after a number of days being rinsed on here you were still defending it.

Let me guess, you didn't bother to check the rest of the cartoon, even though you knew the one you'd seen was cropped...

Almost as pathetic as the "I didn't inhale" excuse.

[tdmickey3]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Load of old pony. 

 

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe so for the first couple of hours, but even after a number of days being rinsed on here you were still defending it.

Let me guess, you didn't bother to check the rest of the cartoon, even though you knew the one you'd seen was cropped...

Almost as pathetic as the "I didn't inhale" excuse.

Only 3 more to be triggered for a full house 🤣

Edited 5 May, 2023 by tdmickey3
Forgot about the Hypercon bloke

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

 

Only 2 more to be triggered for a full house 🤣

Triggered 

[tdmickey3]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Triggered 

What does it mean to be triggered?

 

 

: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger. Triggered people often feel guilt or anger at themselves afterwards, so don't contribute to that cycle of thought.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

What does it mean to be triggered?

 

 

: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger. Triggered people often feel guilt or anger at themselves afterwards, so don't contribute to that cycle of thought.

Define 'intense', then explain how you know that either I or LD have 'intense feelings'.

I suspect you have completely misunderstood what 'triggered' actually means and are applying it incorrectly.

Merely posting a reply is not 'being triggered'.  Your definition even makes it clear that 'triggered people..... don't contribute to that cycle of thought', so are highly unlikely to elicit a response.

Nice try though, you keep on defending the racist  

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

explain how you know that either I or LD have 'intense feelings'.

 

Hilarious.

If you didn't have intense feelings about this subject why have you filled this thread with all your guff?

Spring is coming, it is a nice day outside. Why not leave the forum and enjoy life outside instead of sitting on a computer , posting on s mong board all day about a subject for which you apparently have no "intense feelings"?

 

 

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Hilarious.

If you didn't have intense feelings about this subject why have you filled this thread with all your guff?

Spring is coming, it is a nice day outside. Why not leave the forum and enjoy life outside instead of sitting on a computer , posting on s mong board all day about a subject for which you apparently have no "intense feelings"?

 

 

 

 

Intense : "having or showing strong feelings or opinions; extremely earnest or serious".

You mistake prolific for serious, but then you usually miss the point.

It's most certainly not a nice day outside either, it's absolutely fucking it down - on that I DO have intense feelings as I need to walk to the shops.

[Tamesaint]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Intense : "having or showing strong feelings or opinions; extremely earnest or serious".

You mistake prolific for serious, but then you usually miss the point.

It's most certainly not a nice day outside either, it's absolutely fucking it down - on that I DO have intense feelings as I need to walk to the shops.

I see. So you admit that your posts are on subjects about which you don't care . Weird.Why bother?

Move out of the west country. It is lovely in central England !!😁😁