Things That are Racist

[Winnersaint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

O’Brien doesn’t work weekends. 

Nor Bank Holidays.

 

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Despite calling everyone sat 1 seat to the right of the Hard-Left a "Tommy Robinson" clone, is our Soggy a rabid racist afterall?

Probably not, but he must have done some serious shit on here to warrant what he appears to get. Apart from inferences and snippets I don't know the back story so he may have brought some of it on himself, but sometimes I confess to feeling a little uneasy about the 'pile on'. 

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Nor Bank Holidays.

 

Probably not, but he must have done some serious shit on here to warrant what he appears to get. Apart from inferences and snippets I don't know the back story so he may have brought some of it on himself, but sometimes I confess to feeling a little uneasy about the 'pile on'. 

Just some of it? 

 

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

.... but sometimes I confess to feeling a little uneasy about the 'pile on'. 

Either SOGgy has a blind spot and cannot see he is feeding the forum 'mob', or he is doing it deliberately and enjoys triggeing them and watching them slaver in outrage.

Edited 1 May, 2023 by badgerx16

[Lord Duckhunter]

18 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Either SOGgy has a blind spot and cannot see he is feeding the forum 'mob', or he is doing it deliberately and enjoys triggeing them and watching them slaver in outrage.

Or he’s a racist. 
 

If I called Diane Abbott an immigrant, called black people “they” & coconuts, defended a Tory that wrote a racist letter and then defended a racist sun cartoon, I doubt you’d be saying I was “triggering “ the “mob”. But then that’s you lefties all over, you don’t judge people by what they write, but on how they vote. 

Edited 1 May, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[Tamesaint]

17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Either SOGgy has a blind spot and cannot see he is feeding the forum 'mob', or he is doing it deliberately and enjoys triggeing them and watching them slaver in outrage.

I think that he loves it and is laughing at them. They cannot see that he is making them look stupid in their immediate response to anything that he posts.

 

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

I think that he loves it and is laughing at them. They cannot see that he is making them look stupid in their immediate response to anything that he posts.

 

Is funny how one person can get so many responses from certain people whatever he posts. Don’t believe he is trolling but has the ability to get under their skin. 
I don’t like piling on to SOG as feels the soft target and he gets enough shit but at times he deserves it

[AlexLaw76]

8 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Or he’s a racist. 
 

If I called Diane Abbott an immigrant, called black people “they” & coconuts, defended a Tory that wrote a racist letter and then defended a racist sun cartoon, I doubt you’d be saying I was “triggering “ the “mob”. But then that’s you lefties all over, you don’t judge people by what they write, but on how they vote. 

nutshell

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Either SOGgy has a blind spot and cannot see he is feeding the forum 'mob', or he is doing it deliberately and enjoys triggeing them and watching them slaver in outrage.

The only ones being 'triggered' are the clowns like Tamesaint and Aintclever who 'feel sorry' for Soggy.  Soggy posts his Guardian articles and James O'Brien 'original' thoughts and tries to put his spin on them because he thinks he's being 'edgy' and 'thought provoking'.  Unfortunately, his mask has slipped far too often.

He reminds me of Arthur Daley from Minder.  Always on the lookout for a 'nice little earner' but behind the 'nice guy' mask lie some very prehistoric views and opinions.

Edited 2 May, 2023 by Weston Super Saint

[sadoldgit]

12 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

I think that he loves it and is laughing at them. They cannot see that he is making them look stupid in their immediate response to anything that he posts.

 

It’s not difficult to laugh at them is it?

Seriously though, a caricature of Richard Sharp looks like Richard Sharp and a caricature of Rishi Sunak looks like Rishi Sunak and people get in a lather about one but not the other. Silly really isn’t it, but if you make that point you get labelled a rabid racist apparently.

I saw a caricature  of Suella Braverman last week that was far worse (if you get upset by over exaggeration of certain features) and no one made a squeak about that.

You also have to chuckle when you see the same people making digs at me for listening to a radio show then spend even more of their time waiting for me to post so that they can have their daily pile on. Oh the irony.

By the way boys, I spent years listening to Hawksbee and Jacobs, do you have an issue with that too?

PS I don’t usually read the posts from the Usual Subjects unless they appear in quotes from others, but I do find it amusing how quickly their names appear beneath my posts, especially as you would imagine that most of them have full time jobs 😉

Edited 2 May, 2023 by sadoldgit
Add text and spelling correction

[Turkish]

14 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Despite calling everyone sat 1 seat to the right of the Hard-Left a "Tommy Robinson" clone, is our Soggy a rabid racist afterall?

I always said that he is trying to over compensate for something. Looks like i was right, once again.

[Weston Super Saint]

Things that are racist...

Defending a racist cartoon as not racist, even though the artist who drew the cartoon has apologised for the inadvertent racism.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

 

PS I don’t usually read the posts from the Usual Subjects unless they appear in quotes from others, but I do find it amusing how quickly their names appear beneath my posts, especially as you would imagine that most of them have full time jobs 😉

We know. You tell us every fucking day.

Makes you wonder whose benefit you ARE posting for though if you couldn't care less what most people think of your posts - certainly disproves Tamesaint's suggestion that you only do it to trigger a reaction if you tell everyone over and over that you don't bother to read the reactions....

Some of us are able to hold down a full time job and post shit on the innernetz, consider it multi tasking

[whelk]

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

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Things that are racist...

Defending a racist cartoon as not racist, even though the artist who drew the cartoon has apologised for the inadvertent racism.

Unbelievable isn’t it. He’s either an incredibly ignorant man or a racist. The cartoon isn’t about the exaggerated features of the people drawn, it’s the Jewish tropes. Had I drawn Diane Abbott with “slightly exaggerated” features in a jungle or a tree, everyone would get what I was hinting at, same with the Jewish octopus here. He spent “most of the day” researching to defend Abbott but won’t spend 10 seconds educating himself on this subject. A quick glance would have given him this, “The Jewish Octopus trope has 19th century roots but was most fully exploited in Nazi Germany.”

It maybe that some of his defenders are right, and it’s a big fucking wind up, but you’ve got to be a pretty sick individual to think this is a subject to wind people up over. Shame on Soggy and shame on the people defending him. It says a lot about them. 

[Turkish]

15 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

I think that he loves it and is laughing at them. They cannot see that he is making them look stupid in their immediate response to anything that he posts.

 

How is he making "them" look stupid? This is the guy that has recently exposed himself and a racist and liar, plus he regularly ties himself up in knots. I laugh at him Every. Single. Day.

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

How is he making "them" look stupid? This is the guy that has recently exposed himself and a racist and liar, plus he regularly ties himself up in knots. I laugh at him Every. Single. Day.

It is stupid because regular as clockwork, as soon as he posts you, Batman, sometimes Duckie  but always Piggy from Weston jump on anything that he posts. It doesn't really matter what he posts , you will disagree with it. 

Why not let SOG state his views and wait to see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion?  At the moment he is just winding you lot up and is amused at the instant reactions to everything he posts. Can't you see it??

 

[Weston Super Saint]

48 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

 

Why not let SOG state his views and wait to see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion? 

 

That'll be the day. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

It is stupid because regular as clockwork, as soon as he posts you, Batman, sometimes Duckie  but always Piggy from Weston jump on anything that he posts. It doesn't really matter what he posts , you will disagree with it. 

Why not let SOG state his views and wait to see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion?  At the moment he is just winding you lot up and is amused at the instant reactions to everything he posts. Can't you see it??

 

why can't Soggy let others post their views and wait and see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion? 

No, impossible.  He is straight on the far-right, Tommy Robinson bingo card.

 

Edited 2 May, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

It is stupid because regular as clockwork, as soon as he posts you, Batman, sometimes Duckie  but always Piggy from Weston jump on anything that he posts. It doesn't really matter what he posts , you will disagree with it. 

Why not let SOG state his views and wait to see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion?  At the moment he is just winding you lot up and is amused at the instant reactions to everything he posts. Can't you see it??

 

Okay maybe we are all wrong and Sog is some master wind up merchant who throws these daily tirades out across multiple football forums as some sort of genius mind game to lure everyone into his trap, then sits back and laughs as we all fall for it. 

Or maybe he's just a old boy bitter at how his life has turned out and wasting his days trying to prove things that are racist aren't.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

It is stupid because regular as clockwork, as soon as he posts you, Batman, sometimes Duckie  but always Piggy from Weston jump on anything that he posts. It doesn't really matter what he posts , you will disagree with it. 

Why not let SOG state his views and wait to see if anyone else on the forum has an opinion?  At the moment he is just winding you lot up and is amused at the instant reactions to everything he posts. Can't you see it??

 

To be fair, there was a substantial period of time (months) where he was ignored by almost everyone a few years back. It made absolutely no difference to the frequency or inanity of his posts. I suspect that he mostly believes what he posts but exaggerates it for his own amusement. I don't really think anyone is getting particularly angry at anything he writes- other than when he tries to slur people. Most of his posts are rightly ridiculed so it's mildly entertaining if anything. I believe him when he says he's retired and he probably writes what he does on here to get a reaction or to while away the hours. I know his wife had left him so maybe he's retired and alone who knows? Those are the most likely motivations though I reckon. 

[sadoldgit]

Defence of Martin Rowson in, of all places, The Spectator.

Well worth reading for those with more than a couple of brain cells.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-defence-of-martin-rowson/

Being a cartoonist is a high-risk job nowadays. Your job is to satirise and caricature, to exaggerate bodily features. Every week, we do this at The Spectator in our cover art drawn by the peerless Morten Morland. Kim Jong Un is rather short: Morten makes him minuscule. Donald Trump has small hands and feet; Morten shrinks them even further.

If someone has a prominent feature, then you exaggerate the feature. It’s the way cartooning works. If the subject has slightly big ears, you make them massive – as we have for the King in our coming coronation cover. It’s comic, teasing and, yes, sometimes brutal. But if you do this to a religious figure or an ethnic minority, you can be easily accused of bigotry. As the Guardian has just found out.

Rowson made an honest mistake, but he’s no anti-Semite – and no one is pretending otherwise

I had no idea that Richard Sharp, who last week quit as BBC chairman, is Jewish. I do know him a bit: we’re both on the board of the Centre for Policy Studies but I didn’t and would not expect to know if he is Jewish any more than he’d know what I get up to on Sunday mornings. Martin Rowson did know, having been to school with Sharp, but fatally gave this no thought when drawing the cartoon that has landed the Guardian in such trouble. To lampoon a Jewish man with an squid, Goldman Sachs box etc is obviously beyond what anyone (I suspect Rowson himself) would regard as acceptable. But this did not occur to Rowson or, I suspect, to anyone else at the Guardian who saw that cartoon. The idea that anyone at this newspaper was cackling at an anti-Semitic joke is plainly absurd: they will be as horrified as Rowson now is at this simple, explainable and tragic mistake.

So why was it drawn that way? Sharp used to be Rishi Sunak’s boss at Goldman Sachs – which is why Rowson added a Goldman Sachs-branded box in the illustration, with a miniature Sunak inside it. The bank was famously derided as an omnipresent ‘vampire squid sucking the face of humanity’ (a famous reference Guardian readers know and love) which is why Rowson depicted a squid in a box Sharp is carrying. Sharp is stonkingly rich and helped to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson but failed to properly disclose that when Johnson made him BBC chairman. Should Sharp have disclosed this to the parliamentary committee? Of course. His failure to do so led to his resignation.

All this is rich material for any satirist, especially one on the left. So Rowson depicted all of this in a cartoon (above) in which Sharp’s face is a tiny part. It’s not a sympathetic portrayal: he looks like a venal millionaire, which is consistent with the Guardian’s line and Rowson’s oeuvre. So Rowson’s explanation, which he has given at length, makes sense:

I was trying to draw him looking silently furious, by implication with Johnson, in the standard caricatural way common to all political cartoons of exaggerating various of his features (most prominently, I thought, his large forehead and rather hooded, baggy eyes). I thought, at the time, it was a fairly mild caricature compared with how I’d draw Johnson. But I’d also never drawn Sharp before, so maybe overworked it to satisfy myself I’d ‘caught him; in David Low’s famous phrase, made him look more like him than he does.

As an editor of a magazine that runs humour and satire, I’ve been through similar storms over the years. Cartoons can now cause more controversy than any story. Post-Charlie Hebdo the police even came to visit me to explain that I am now deemed a terrorist target due to the fact that we publish satire. But cartoonists lampoon everyone and everything and have done for centuries: if you self-censor through fear of a mob, then satire bows to the mob. To run satire means you are likely to be the target of outrage squads who deploy various misrepresentation techniques. A zoomed-in clip of Sharp was passed around Twitter, for example, out of context from the overall image. A Twitter storm then started, as they often do in holiday weekends.

 

Twitter storms tend to have five stages. 1) General, often confected outrage 2) Someone in public office joins in, making it a reportable news story 3) The target can make the mistake of responding, either with a statement or by removing the offending joke/cartoon, thinking it will relieve rather than add pressure 4) A resignation hunt then starts – especially if a publication’s staff join in the attack until 5) someone is fired, to assuage the mob, usually because the commercial people (who have less stomach for fights) say it’s damaging business.

At The Spectator, we’re lucky. We’re family-owned, so don’t have woke shareholders worrying about their Twitter feeds. When advertisers were persuaded by Twitter trolls to boycott us due to a Matthew Parris article on trans issues, Andrew Neil banned the advertiser. I often think of the protection that the model of family ownership offers against such forces: what publication, anywhere, has actually banned advertisers?

The biggest, greatest publications in the world have ended up yielding to the trolls. Twitter storms led to Kevin Myers being fired as a Sunday Times columnist, Ian Buruma as editor of the New York Review of Books, Kelvin MacKenzie from the Sun, Iain Macwhirter from the Herald and many more. Even David Remnick, one of the most successful magazine editors ever, had to cancel his interview with Steve Bannon after a Cat-4 Twitter storm. 

But what’s odd, with the Rowson row, is seeing those who normally abhor cancel culture getting stuck in now that the victim is the Guardian. Yes, this fraction of this cartoon can be made to look very bad if cropped in a certain way – but does anyone seriously, genuinely believe that Rowson was motivated by anti-Semitism? That the squid he drew was not the ‘vampire squid’ of lore but in fact a dog-whistle reference to a notorious Nazi squid cartoon 1938? 

The cartoon certainly was dangerously open to misinterpretation. Like most editors, I like to think our checks would have spotted this. But systems sometimes fail: that’s an occupational hazard in publishing. And the penalties for these failures are higher in the digital age. To complain about it would be like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea.

 

This risk has emerged since I have been editor – and adapting to that risk is now a major part of our editing furniture. In a digital age where jokes are twisted and fed into a confected-outrage machine, the editing process must now mean more checks, minimising scope for the misinterpretations of jokes while protecting the range and daring of publications. And protecting our contributors, who cannot be expected to see everything they draw or write through the perspective of their most twisted critic. We don’t want them to worry about the mad world out there, or the new tactics used by the outrage squad (using headline screengrabs, no links, making sure context is not given etc).

We have a system of checking for this, of recognising when a topic (jihadi finance, climate change, trans, religion) is in a high-risk category. We then go through it from a prosecutorial point of view, trying to anticipate the inevitable IPSO complaint, malicious screen-grabbing or malicious misinterpretation. It’s important that this is done after the writing is submitted as we don’t want writers choking their art by trying to think of what trolls might say. Anyone who crafts every sentence worried about being ratioed on Twitter ceases to become a writer. Our red-team process is intended to protect our writers and readers, so the new era of online madness makes no impact on the boldness, humour or cartoons of The Spectator. 

Such systems are needed, now, to protect anyone who publishes satire or against-the-grain comment. This involves lots of borderline decisions. If you’re too censorious, you rob your publication of its edge and identity. If you’re too lax, you risk stumbling into battles that you cannot win. Cartoonists are very aware of this risk, and most would acknowledge a caricature of anyone of an ethnic minority background is high risk. This process is not watertight. Such slips are inevitable, But when they happen, there’s a difference between a cartoon slip made in good faith and catching the Guardian staff in a secret screening of Triumph of the Will. 

The Spectator’s cartoon editor, Michael Heath, has been drawing cartoons since the 1950s and speaks eloquently about how dangerous it has now become. The more censorious society becomes, the greater flak comics, satirists and cartoonists come under. Twitter has put rocket boosters on this trend as it allows the selective editing of jokes or cartoons to fuel its outrage machine. So people in Pakistan can now see cartoons published in Denmark and protest accordingly. Charlie Hebdo changed the debate once again. We can see, here, attempts to install a secular sharia: to put certain religious figures and themes beyond depiction or satire.

And we can see paler reflections of this in the hounding of other satirists. Mark Knight, an acclaimed Australian cartoonist, had to go into hiding after a Level-3 Twitter storm over his Serena Williams cartoon. It took an adjudication by the Australian Press Council to show that he was not referencing Jim Crow cartoons in his cartoon of her. His Serena was uncontroversial to those who know his style (he’s famous in Australia) but was seen as racist by those in the UK and US. Knight ended up having to move house for his own safety. When satirists and cartoonists end up being targeted in this way, anyone who values free speech ought to be concerned – regardless of what political side you are on.

An offer fit for a King

Get the next 10 weeks for the price of one – plus a free commemorative coronation mug

CLAIM OFFER

And yes, the Guardian would have joined the pile-on if this were any other newspaper in any other country. No other publication gives such energetic coverage to cartoon Twitter storms: in the Times, New York Post, Boston Herald etc. The Guardian was covering a Twitter storm over a Der Spiegelcartoonist only last week, but those who deplore all this should not join the pile-on now just because the Guardian itself lies at the centre. Back to Rowson:

The cartoon was a failure and on many levels: I offended the wrong people, Sharp wasn’t the main target of the satire, I rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider things with the depth and care they require, and thereby letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to be something I never intended.

He made a terrible but honest mistake. Rowson is no anti-Semite and no one is seriously pretending otherwise. If the Guardian didn’t spot this, that’s in part because we’re moving towards a liberal era where people are less obsessed by faith, sexuality and other such identity markers that the people themselves never mention. When I first came to London 25 years ago, I was shocked to find out people did make mental lists of who in public life is Jewish and who was not. Happily, now, almost no one gives it a second thought. Which was Rowson’s undoing, in this case. 

He’ll feel awful about this. Any cartoonist would. He has become the latest victim of a trend in digital life where cartoonists are flayed, apologies are not accepted and forgiveness is not offered. No one who cares about satire and its role in our public debate should draw any satisfaction from the storm he now finds himself in.

—————————————

As regards a screen shot Whelk, I am afraid that the list is rather long now and could probably do with some pruning. I would prefer not to publish it on here as, apart from the right wing anti woke brigade, I prefer to keep the other names to myself. Suffice to say that if I did regularly read their posts I would be tempted to reply. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss!

Edited 2 May, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[whelk]

SOG is now selling Coronation mugs?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

To lampoon a Jewish man with an squid, Goldman Sachs box etc is obviously beyond what anyone (I suspect Rowson himself) would regard as acceptable.

You found it acceptable. 
 

As I said earlier, you’re either ignorant or a racist…..
 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Ignorance, as they say, is bliss!

You must be as happy as a pig in shite. 

[AlexLaw76]

I guess Gary Linekar has gone blind and/or deaf.  He just can't see the antisemitism comparisons with 1930s Germany.

Very odd

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I guess Gary Linekar has gone blind and/or deaf.  He just can't see the antisemitism comparisons with 1930s Germany.

Very odd

To be fair, I think he got bored and doesn't read soggy's posts any more.

[buctootim]

What's the link between being Jewish and squid?  Genuinely have no idea. 

[badgerx16]

21 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

But then that’s you lefties all over, you don’t judge people by what they write, but on how they vote. 

And by defining people as "lefties" you are doing exactly the same thing. There are many left of centre voters I disagree with on a wide range of topics, some I cannot abide, and there are also right of centre folks who I would gladly spend many hours in the company of.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, buctootim said:

What's the link between being Jewish and squid?  Genuinely have no idea. 

It is a trope, favoured especially by the Nazis, who created images of tentacled beasts grasping the Earth under a Star of David.

( I was going to post a link to an example, taken from the Holocaust Museum, but given the climate on here at present I think it better that if you want to see the images then GOOGLE them yourself, and don't mention it on here ).

Edited 2 May, 2023 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It is a trope, favoured especially by the Nazis, who created images of tentacled beasts grasping the Earth under a Star of David.

( I was going to post a link to an example, taken from the Holocaust Museum, but given the climate on here at present I think it better that if you want to see the images then GOOGLE them yourself, and don't mention it on here ).

Ah ta. I did google first but only saw links and references to the current cartoon controversy, with no reference to why. 

[aintforever]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It is a trope, favoured especially by the Nazis, who created images of tentacled beasts grasping the Earth under a Star of David.

( I was going to post a link to an example, taken from the Holocaust Museum, but given the climate on here at present I think it better that if you want to see the images then GOOGLE them yourself, and don't mention it on here ).

Wasn’t that an octopus?

[Manuel]

I think in this case though, it's confused by the "vampire squid" description of Goldman Sachs which has been around for a while.  Was the author referring to that?  Perhaps.  But you'll notice the squid's tentacles reaching towards Sunak in a familiar "Jewish tenticles around the establishment" that can't be ignored, in my opinion.  

Also, notice that the Goldman Sachs box reads "Gold Sack" with the CV covering certain letters?  Obsession with money?  I doubt that's accidental.  

[saint1977]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And by defining people as "lefties" you are doing exactly the same thing. There are many left of centre voters I disagree with on a wide range of topics, some I cannot abide, and there are also right of centre folks who I would gladly spend many hours in the company of.

People have tried to explain this to him before. There’s a world of difference between say Dianne Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn, and say Ed Davey or Alan Johnson, same as there is in Conservative terms between say Greg Clark or Chris Skidmore, and Suella Braverman/Nadine Dorries. 

[sadoldgit]

25 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wasn’t that an octopus?

 

21 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I think in this case though, it's confused by the "vampire squid" description of Goldman Sachs which has been around for a while.  Was the author referring to that?  Perhaps.  But you'll notice the squid's tentacles reaching towards Sunak in a familiar "Jewish tenticles around the establishment" that can't be ignored, in my opinion.  

Also, notice that the Goldman Sachs box reads "Gold Sack" with the CV covering certain letters?  Obsession with money?  I doubt that's accidental.  

Yes it was an octopus. If you read the article from The Spectator above it explains the imagery and might help a few from going down a particular rabbit hole.

Edited 2 May, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[aintforever]

9 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I think in this case though, it's confused by the "vampire squid" description of Goldman Sachs which has been around for a while.  Was the author referring to that?  Perhaps.  But you'll notice the squid's tentacles reaching towards Sunak in a familiar "Jewish tenticles around the establishment" that can't be ignored, in my opinion.  

Also, notice that the Goldman Sachs box reads "Gold Sack" with the CV covering certain letters?  Obsession with money?  I doubt that's accidental.  

If you read the artist’s apology he explains in detail what he was thinking. Regardless of the intention it should not have gone to print though and they were right to cancel it and apologise.

Which sort of begs the question why the Daily Mail’s anti-woke hero JK Rowling banker creations haven’t been cancelled. Look as just bad IMO.

Edited 2 May, 2023 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wasn’t that an octopus?

Most people would see no difference between the various species of Cephalopod. A tentacle is a tentacle.

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

If you read the artist’s apology he explains in detail what he was thinking. Regardless of the intention it should not have gone to print though and they were right to cancel it and apologise.

Which sort of begs the question why the Daily Mail’s anti-woke hero JK Rowling banker creations haven’t been cancelled. Look as just bad IMO.

Is jk Rowling an anti woke hero? She's a pretty radical feminist who believes in most woke stuff, she just doesn't want men in women's spaces. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

57 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Ah ta. I did google first but only saw links and references to the current cartoon controversy, with no reference to why. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

45 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 

Yes it was an octopus. If you read the article from The Spectator above it explains the imagery and might help a few from going down a particular rabbit hole.

It’s not a “rabbit hole”. Why on Earth would a cartoon about a bbc bloke contain an octopus, if he was’t Jewish it wouldn’t have done. Had a sun cartoon of Abbott had a gorilla in you wouldn’t have been posting defensively about it. The double standards of the left is unbelievable, be abuse  you don’t really count Jews as victims. That’s why you defended Abbott and that’s why you’re defending this pony. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

 

( I was going to post a link to an example, taken from the Holocaust Museum, but given the climate on here at present I think it better that if you want to see the images then GOOGLE them yourself, and don't mention it on here ).

What climate? The one where some posters object to anti semitic letters and cartoons, or the one where people defend them.

Im surprised at you, you clearly understand what was being hinted at, yet don’t seem to want to call out others that pretend they don’t. 

Edited 2 May, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Is jk Rowling an anti woke hero? She's a pretty radical feminist who believes in most woke stuff, she just doesn't want men in women's spaces. 

JK hates the Daily Mail

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What climate? The one where some posters object to anti semitic letters and cartoons, or the one where people defend them.

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.

 

[aintforever]

58 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Is jk Rowling an anti woke hero? She's a pretty radical feminist who believes in most woke stuff, she just doesn't want men in women's spaces. 

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. 

Edited 2 May, 2023 by aintforever

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes 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.

 

Sounds like the m.o. of soggy to be honest.

Although I'd add rape apologists to his list of labelling as well as racists, bigots and far right loons.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Maybe, the only time I ever hear her goes 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. 

Wait until you read the merchant of Venice, it'll blow your mind.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes 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.

 

Soggy has been throwing accusations at others for a while....thoughts?

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Soggy has been throwing accusations at others for a while....thoughts?

Some of them are justified in my opinion.

Thoughts ?

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sounds like the m.o. of soggy to be honest.

Although I'd add rape apologists to his list of labelling as well as racists, bigots and far right loons.

"Far right loons" vs pinko, leftist, remoaner, traitor ( to be strung up with piano wire ), moron........

Sticks and Stones on a mongboard.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

"Far right loons" vs pinko, leftist, remoaner, traitor ( to be strung up with piano wire ), moron........

Sticks and Stones on a mongboard.

So you agree it's also soggy's m.o. then...

[whelk]

43 minutes 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. 

She doesn’t have a pop you idiot