Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

BLM


miamiwhite

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

To be fair pal, you shouldn't be able to watch porn whilst brewing up for the nurses 😀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I wasn't asking on here, Paul. Who is censoring you?

So far, since I've asked this we've had something about changing the name of an ice cream, eating raw liver in peace and this sort of Woke illuminate you reference.

So, just out of interest who is censoring you? What can't you not say or do that you'd like to, and who is stopping you? Surely if you care that much about this topic as you clearly do, you'd be able to answer these straightforward questions?

As I say, I'm just interested, I'm not trying to have a start an argument with you.

Nobody on here. See previous answer.

I rather suspect your line of argument is based on seeking to say I over-react. As such ....

The Government's inclusion of extra protections for free speech and protection against no platforming and the like in the recent Queen's Speech were clearly plucked from thin air and had no context or rationale.

People like Peter Tatchell, JK Rowling, Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson and others must have imagined being no-platformed/cancelled. The millions who were told they were racists and bigots for wanting to talk about immigration or for voting for Brexit must have imagined it. They can erase it from their brains and carry on as if nothing happened. 

Do you remember when Gordon Brown walked in to a house in 2010 in Rochdale and the lady who lived there (Gillian Duffy) said she wanted to discuss immigration? He dismissed her views as those of a "bigoted woman" and thus sought to marginalise them as unacceptable

You can narrow the definition of censorship down to one that gives you a chance of a momentary triumph on a footy forum. But you can't change the opinions of millions who have observed, become increasingly disgusted and voted accordingly. 

I need hardly add about the 17.4 million who endured two years of being patronised that they were a bit thick and racist and didn't understand what they'd voted for.

Can you begin to see the accumulation? Any chance you can start to see the extent of the hole that liberals have dug for themselves?

Liberals  sneeringly tried to marginalise opinion outside of their own world view. That's a form of censorship. Oh boy has it backfired. 

Never mind though - we're all over-reacting. I'm over-reacting. There's no problem with freedom of speech and liberal intolerance. You win.

Edited by paulhanley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

Aye. I've just given him a big long answer but that's a good reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paulhanley said:

Nobody on here. See previous answer.

I rather suspect your line of argument is based on seeking to say I over-react. As such ....

The Government's inclusion of extra protections for free speech and protection against no platforming and the like in the recent Queen's Speech were clearly plucked from thin air and had no context or rationale.

People like Peter Tatchell, JK Rowling, Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson and others must have imagined being no-platformed/cancelled. The millions who were told they were racists and bigots for wanting to talk about immigration or for voting for Brexit must have imagined it. They can erase it from their brains and carry on as if nothing happened. 

Do you remember when Gordon Brown walked in to a house in 2010 in Rochdale and the lady who lived there (Gillian Duffy) said she wanted to discuss immigration? He dismissed her views as those of a "bigoted woman" and thus sought to marginalise them as unacceptable?

You can narrow the definition of censorship down to one that gives you a chance of a momentary triumph on a footy forum. But you can't change the opinions of millions who have observed, become increasingly disgusted and voted accordingly. 

I need hardly add about the 17.4 million who endured two years of being patronised that they were a bit thick and racist and didn't understand what they'd voted for.

Can you begin to see the accumulation? Any chance you can start to see the extent of the hole that liberals have dug for themselves?

Liberals  sneeringly tried to marginalise opinion outside of their own world view. That's a form of censorship. Oh boy has it backfired. 

Never mind though - we're all over-reacting. I'm over-reacting. There's no problem with freedom of speech and liberal intolerance. You win.

I can never quite work out why they are called "liberal", when they are anything but, or "progressive", which, again, they are plainly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, boltondiver said:

I can never quite work out why they are called "liberal", when they are anything but, or "progressive", which, again, they are plainly not.

There was a time when they genuinely were liberal. Believers in free speech and the whole lot. Not now. They are distinctly illiberal. Their blindness to the problem is evidence in itself.


Progressive? I guess you could say they were in Victorian times when the pressure they brought to be bear led to protections for workers that we now take for granted. Progressive in an economic sense when judged over a long period of time - nah. The opposite of progressive. Probably a debate for another day on another thread is that one! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
6 hours ago, Escobarp said:

How stupid is this woman. And surely she needs to be censored as shit like this is dangerous. 
 

 

Abbott is as thick as an Elephants foreskin & would potentially be dangerous if anybody took her seriously. 

   Let's not address the fact that this was most likely YET ANOTHER black on black gang shooting & jump straight to the agenda we want to push shall we Di? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs Abbot is a fruit loop.

More to be pitied than scolded.

But she is bloody dangerous. 

The young lady who has been shot will hopefully be ok.

Sweeping statement warning. 

There is a vigil being held right now for her in London. By nightfall it is odds on the police will be getting a kicking.

( brushing up complete)

No one right now has any idea who fired the bullet .

But I can guarantee he will be misunderstood and had a deprived childhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Abbott is as thick as an Elephants foreskin & would potentially be dangerous if anybody took her seriously. 

   Let's not address the fact that this was most likely YET ANOTHER black on black gang shooting & jump straight to the agenda we want to push shall we Di? 

He clearly didnt get it either eh?

quote-they-say-it-s-the-white-man-i-shou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

I know you've a distaste for trannies from posts on here, but who else would you like to go after if it wasn't for your job?

I reckon'; Berbers, barbers, Paul Barber (the actor - 'Denzel' in OFAH), Bujumburanians, Bosniaks, bi-curious, Bolivians, the b12 deficient, Basques and the partially blind.

All the 'B's.

You can explore the 'C's at a later date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, athywhite1958 said:

I'm sure her long hair will hide the bullet hole

She's a reet hypocrite - a Cristal Black Nationalist.

Her hairdressing bill must be astronomical.

Her stylist a rich woman.

I saw pictures of her with long black straight hair one week, next minute she had short braids, then it was red mid-length - then fucking long hair again.

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter

Have they started rioting yet in America for this shooting? 
 

Anyway, why are councils lighting up monuments for career criminals? Did they do anything for the Manchester bombing victims or does that not fit their criteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.