Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

She is as white as she is black, yet you never hear her say, ''I'm a white woman''.

Same with Barack Obama.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Padme said:

I did. I posted an article. Just read it dude

That actually wasn't the argument though. The argument was over whether the influential people at the time who were discussing this were placing pressure on Edward to abdicate based on NS sympathies. I still haven't seen any evidence that was part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

She is as white as she is black, yet you never hear her say, ''I'm a white woman''.

Because "blackness" isn't purely a genetic trait but also influenced by culture whereas "whiteness" is. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because "blackness" isn't purely a genetic trait but also influenced by culture whereas "whiteness" is. 

How'd you work that one out?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

How'd you work that one out?

To be "white" was a privelege for those pure of blood. If your skin wasn't white enough, indicating a black ancestor, you weren't allowed to refer to yourself as white. At best you now belonged to the "mixed races" but more likely you were considered "black". An aspect of racism. To be "white" was an exclusive thing and some contamination of the blood, even if it happened generations ago, was disqualifying if it manifested itself in anything but purely white skin. 

This system seems to be in effect today as well. How many of visually mixed ethnicity self-identity as "white"? Few. How many identify as "blacks"? Many. And fortunately it isn't an entirely negative thing. When people like Obama and Megan identify as blacks that can only help with the still ongoing racism along the white/black diagonal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

This system seems to be in effect today as well. How many of visually mixed ethnicity self-identity as "white"? Few. How many identify as "blacks"? Many. And fortunately it isn't an entirely negative thing. When people like Obama and Megan identify as blacks that can only help with the still ongoing racism along the white/black diagonal. 

Either that or it shows that you need a little mayonaise to make that good sandwich :lol:  But nah, yeah, I see your point, especially in regards to the past and that, though we're talking about western culture here specifically.

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

How'd you work that one out?

This, I believe, was what Soul was referring to,

tenor.gif?itemid=4876422

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

To be "white" was a privelege for those pure of blood. If your skin wasn't white enough, indicating a black ancestor, you weren't allowed to refer to yourself as white. At best you now belonged to the "mixed races" but more likely you were considered "black". An aspect of racism. To be "white" was an exclusive thing and some contamination of the blood, even if it happened generations ago, was disqualifying if it manifested itself in anything but purely white skin. 

This system seems to be in effect today as well. How many of visually mixed ethnicity self-identity as "white"? Few. How many identify as "blacks"? Many. And fortunately it isn't an entirely negative thing. When people like Obama and Megan identify as blacks that can only help with the still ongoing racism along the white/black diagonal. 

If anything, it promotes pigeonholing people and I don't like that. If I hadn't read about it, I would never have guessed Meghan was black or half black or whatever. I wonder if she's been confronted with racism as often as people who have darker skin. I would much rather see people not caring about skin colour. It doesn't make anyone better or worse. Maybe it's because I was raised in a time where we were taught skin colour doesn't matter. Look at the Benetton ads or that song by Neneh Cherry and Youssou N'Dour. It seems as though we're getting back from that. You have to be proud to be black, but you mustn't be proud to be white, because that's wrong. As if your skin colour is an accomplishment.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand where it comes from and I do understand people may think it will help with racism. But I doubt that. Talking strictly about women now, I ask myself why don't these black people wear an afro hairdo (I don't know how to properly call it)? I think that would help insecure black girls who feel awful about their hair and do anything to straighten their hair to look more like white people. What kind of an example do all these black celebrities set when saying they're proud to be black, but treat their hair with chemicals just to have the hair of a white woman? It may sound silly, but it's a daily struggle for girls who feel forced to have their hair straightened at a certain age because having afro hair is ugly. I feel sorry every time I see a black woman with weaves or wigs or straightened hair.

In short: I want to see Meghan with an afro :lol:

Edited by Lio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lio said:

If anything, it promotes pigeonholing people and I don't like that. If I hadn't read about it, I would never have guessed Meghan was black or half black or whatever. I wonder if she's been confronted with racism as often as people who have darker skin. I would much rather see people not caring about skin colour. It doesn't make anyone better or worse. Maybe it's because I was raised in a time where we were taught skin colour doesn't matter. Look at the Benetton ads or that song by Neneh Cherry and Youssou N'Dour. It seems as though we're getting back from that. You have to be proud to be black, but you mustn't be proud to be white, because that's wrong. As if your skin colour is an accomplishment.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand where it comes from and I do understand people may think it will help with racism. But I doubt that. Talking strictly about women now, I ask myself why don't these black people wear an afro hairdo (I don't know how to properly call it)? I think that would help insecure black girls who feel awful about their hair and do anything to straighten their hair to look more like white people. What kind of an example do all these black celebrities set when saying they're proud to be black, but treat their hair with chemicals just to have the hair of a white woman? It may sound silly, but it's a daily struggle for girls who feel forced to have their hair straightened at a certain age because having afro hair is ugly. I feel sorry every time I see a black woman with weaves or wigs or straightened hair.

In short: I want to see Meghan with an afro :lol:

Someone who looks like Meghan has no doubt faced less oppression than the average person, because she's attractive. She's probably had many men tripping over themselves trying to please her. Because she has hot woman privilege. She's got a damn royal wrapped around her finger, if that isn't privilege I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Same with Barack Obama.

Basically if you drop a thimble of diarrhoea in to a bath full of milk......

:lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Basically if you drop a thimble of diarrhoea in to a bath full of milk......

:lol: 

I have no idea mate, I've just heard he was half caste, I don't know to what degree or anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I have no idea mate, I've just heard he was half caste, I don't know to what degree or anything. 

Me either, I was just joking. I think his dad was black Kenyan and his mom was white American. Basically half and half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2020 at 7:31 AM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Back in the 40's when a royal married a divorced American woman, he was out! Thank goodness things have changed. lol

I say Harry and Megan should do what they feel is right for their family, but Megan should have realized how much her life would change being in the royal family and having certain duties that you are supposed to do. 

I hope the Queen lives for her retirement and has some peace in her last days. Charles will be King and the family will go on.

Think charles would pass the kingship to william. Charles is to old.....at least the royalty would go to william as i think the monarcy cares about youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fair enough. That is the main objections removed as far as I'm concerned,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51163865

7 hours ago, Dazey said:

Basically if you drop a thimble of diarrhoea in to a bath full of milk......

:lol: 

In the older segments of my family it used to be called, ''...having a touch of the tar brush''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is a real thing. :lol: @soon

ZI3iev5.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

These Corbynistas don't even hide their anti-democratic tendencies,

That's ironic coming from you :lol:

Still, you don't want racism and sexism in the press to be stopped? That's "free speech" to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2020 at 7:43 PM, DieselDaisy said:

This is fair enough. That is the main objections removed as far as I'm concerned,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51163865

what are they gonna pay it back with, their savings they earned off of taxpayers money? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That's ironic coming from you :lol:

Still, you don't want racism and sexism in the press to be stopped? That's "free speech" to you?

In a manner, yes. A free society should permit the voicing of all political beliefs, however repugnant. 

But this is academic as firstly the idea of the mainstream British press being ''racist/sexist'' is basically a fabrication, and secondly, this is coming from somebody (Long-Bailey) whose own political wing (Momentum) of her party is embedded in antisemitism, and whose party (Labour) has not possessed a female party leader in their entire history (the Tories in comparison have had two female party leaders) - this trend will continue if they elect Starmer. Returning to the racist nature of the British press, which is a belief which seems to have transpired in remainer/Woke/green circles (and disappointingly, the US press have even recycled this notion, extending it to the idea that the entire country is racist).; the trigger of this is the Duchess of Sussex, that the media here pilfered racism, hounding her out (vis-a-vis Kate Middleton who is depicted as the ''perfect princess'', white and English). 

Utter bollocks,

83248481_10212112564167712_1930259195899

Britain is probably the most tolerant non-racist country on earth. Our cities are amalgamations of differing people living - for the most part - harmoniously. 

 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In a manner, yes. A free society should permit the voicing of all political beliefs, however repugnant. 

Even free speech has its limitations, e.g. libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, etc. So the question is, do these right-wing media that she talks about break any preexisting laws that limit their right to free speech? I don't know. But if so, this politician using preexisting laws to stop them from spreading racism and sexism would not constitute a violation of democratic principles, unless you think that any limitations to free speech is such a violation (to which I, and just about every politician in most democracies, would disagree).

Besides, she didn't say she was going to make it illegal for them to spread racism and sexism - neither by creating new, stricter laws or enforcing existing - just that she would fight to stop it, and that could easily be within normal democratic principles of engaging with them in discussion, changing the society as a whole where such media would lose customers, or simply using her platform as a politician to create discussions around the subject of racism and sexism that might change their ways. Not saying any of this is easy, but it should be entirely within the mindset of any progressive politician to think long-term about societal changes.

Personally, I think it is great she points the finger at racism and sexism in the media and I applaud her efforts to fight it since I trust it will all happen within the frameworks of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

what are they gonna pay it back with, their savings they earned off of taxpayers money? :lol:

Good point, but he gets a wad of cash from the Prince of Wales, from the Duchy of Cornwell estate, selling jams and so forth (as a tax dodge). He probably inherited money from Diana also but this is conjecture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Britain is probably the most tolerant non-racist country on earth. Our cities are amalgamations of differing people living - for the most part - harmoniously. 

You haven't been to many countries, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Personally, I think it is great she points the finger at racism and sexism in the media

Pity she didn't do more to tackle the racism in her own political movement - see above, edited reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EvanG said:

You haven't been to many countries, have you?

I have been to nearly every country in Europe, and a fair bit of Asia also.

Name a more cosmopolitan city than London? You might say New York is its equal but then you would struggle. And for the most party, it ticks along harmoniously.

- and I could also cite other cities, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In a manner, yes. A free society should permit the voicing of all political beliefs, however repugnant. 

If "sexism" and "racism" are political beliefs in modern UK, then anything can be considered a political belief and what you are basically saying is that any uttering, however vile, should be legal. Which is fine but it has nothing to do with this politician using her democratic right to fight racism and sexism.

 

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Pity she didn't do more to tackle the racism in her own political movement - see above, edited reply.

That's funny. You will applaud her if she fights racism in her own party but attack her if she fights racism in the media. Seems you just don't like her and hence say whatever to attack her even if it leaves you morally inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×