My daughter has experienced her first incidence of racism towards her. - General Discussion Discussion

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15110) a year ago

When I was 10, I was getting beat up and harassed by black kids while the white liberal teachers punished me and let them get away with the bullying.

Trust me when I say this, what she experienced is nothing by comparison.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Oh no, I realise that in the great scheme of things, this is quite insignificant. I was just a little disappointed that something like this still exists.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15110) a year ago

At least she understands that elderly people still think in stereotypes. I've seen angels in artwork that came in many races and both genders. They aren't all white, blond, and blue-eyed.

reply

[–] Mustang (5571) a year ago

True. I don’t even see racism in this more the idea that the woman sees angels a particular way.

It’s not like the woman said Angels are white.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15110) a year ago

Obviously she never watched, "Touched by an Angel," because they introduced the idea of angels not all being white, but that makes them no less helpful towards the people who need them than the angels that look like Caucasians.

To be fair, a lot of really old artwork showing angels are based on European Renaissance and Victorian artwork, and in those days, most of the people in religious artwork were white, despite the events of the Bible taking place in Israel and other parts of the Mediterranean and Middle-East. The Victorian stuff had a much longer influence than people realize, some of it being used as recently as the 1960s, when some of those old ladies were young, probably.

reply

[–] Mustang (5571) a year ago

There was also the film City of Angels which I am sure how a diverse looking range of Angels as well as the Travolta film Michael which had a rather slovenly and non blonde angel.

Even though the events of the Bible were mainly in the Mid East and Israel those areas were parts of the Roman Empire and probably more white than people today think they were, so who knows in the end. A bit like there being large percentages of Whites in South Africa and Rhodesia at one stage.

In the end we don't know what this lady was thinking or basing her beliefs on as there are plenty of non blonde angels in classic artworks.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15110) a year ago

If she's in her 70s now, that means 50 years ago, when she was in her 20s, it was the 1970s, which also indicates that she was a child in the 1950s. She is probably a Boomer that was raised in a pro-white culture that saw blue eyes and blond hair as beautiful and the ideal look in America, and only saw angels in artwork that looked like that. It's not rocket science thinking about what kind of POV she came from.

reply

[–] Mustang (5571) a year ago

To be really honest I’m sceptical about the thread. A 70 year old Cub Scout leader asking the cubs to draw angels?

But yes she grew up in a pro white world which was more religious than now.

Blonde hair also is associated with goodliness and purity.

She has her way of what an angel looks like but does make her racist? I don’t think so.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

I haven’t made anything up, however, if you choose to believe otherwise, then that’s ok too.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2241) a year ago

Oh shut up American bridge troll, no one cares about your white problems you narcissistic attention goblin!
How DARE you even sharing this information in a thread about a 10 year old girl almost dying to racism!! *holds back tears*

I am being sarcastic, obviously (I hope).

Seriously, calling that racism or acting as if it was a big deal would be funny if it would not be so sad to see how thin-skinned people are these days and how indoctrinated they are to perceive absolutely EVERYTHING as racist.

But, alas, I am just a white man, I must not speak, for I know no hardships.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

“a 10 year old girl almost dying to racism!!”

It was touch and go for a while 😮‍💨

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4185) a year ago

Why are they drawing angels as Cub Scouts?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

No idea 🤷‍♂️

reply

[–] parkerbot (10724) a year ago

The Rainbow people aren't the only ones trying to indoctrinate children.

reply

[–] BKB (11305) a year ago

A recent task was to draw an angel, so she drew one that had brown eyes and dark hair, like herself. One of the leaders told her to do it again because, “angels only have blonde hair and blue eyes.”

Now, the women who run this are in their 70's and that's probably how they interpret what an Angel is because of it being more of a Generational thing and they don't know any better?? Another example would be Paula Deen, formerly of the Food Network who was terminated for referring to people from the South as "Boy" or "Niggers" and while 98% of people would be appalled at this, she felt it was normal based on her upbringing from the South..

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

This is our take on it, yes.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

It's not "generational". It's racist.

reply

[–] BKB (11305) a year ago

No, it's generational and you can claim it's Racist all you like and I know you will, but you're not 70 either and you weren't born in a time when things were alot different too, in level of thinking and all?? This is how these elderly women were taught is angels have blond hair and blue eyes, so be it..

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21718) a year ago

You know, these same 70 year old women have experienced the current times also, and they are involved in the welfare of impressionable kids. They should not be stuck in the 1960s. As human beings we are the product of what we are exposed to over our entire lives, not just what we were taught when we were young.

reply

[–] BKB (11305) a year ago

Well some people don't evolve and these 2 women were one of them I suppose

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21718) a year ago

Then whoever is above them in the scouts needs to be made aware of their evolutionary deficiencies do they can get help.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Dude, I know of no church on earth, Christian or otherwise, which teaches that angels must be blond. It has nothing to do with a person's age. No church taught that when she was a kid. It's just White Anglo-Saxon arrogance.

When in the U.S. or Britain has every child ever had blond hair? Even most whites don't have blond hair.

Dude, she's looking at a brown skinned child and she doesn't have the empathy and the decency to understand what she said would hurt the child? You can't excuse this based on age.

She needs to be removed from a position of authority over children.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Even most whites don't have blond hair.

You tangentially raise a point that I was wondering about earlier. What did the white kids in the class draw? Because -- as Andy suggests in his OP -- the natural tendency for a lot of kids would be to draw an angel that resembled the artist (although, admittedly, not necessarily so.)

I doubt all the white kids in the group were blonde-haired and blue-eyed, because this is the UK and that would be unlikely. So what did they draw? Did they all draw blue-eyed, blonde angels that didn't therefore need to be 'corrected'? I suppose we'll never know. But it's worth wondering about, isn't it?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Yes, the fact that this was addressed to an Asian child is suspicious. C'mon, anybody with any awareness would know that such a rule would be a troubling for a dark-haired child of any race. Who would do such a thing to a child? I don't think age is an excuse, unless she has dementia.

reply

[–] Theman (1262) a year ago

Excuse me, but the things you don’t know could fill a good sized book. Do better.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

This is insanely patronising. A 70 year old now was born in the early 1950s. They would have been middle-aged in the 90s.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

It’s NOT Racist! It’s NOT generational! I’m, oh lordy me, 80 1/2 years old and I know better. It’s IGNORANCE & STEREOTYPING! It’s NOT even bigotry. Please stop with the RAAAACIST crap! 🤷🏼‍♀️ You people have thrown that word around to the point of it being watered down.

Racism:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
The belief that one race is superior to all others.
Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.
Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.
The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Uh, it's racist by all your criteria:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Angels are superior beings. All angels are white and blond. Therefore there is something superior about being white and blond.

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Are you kidding me? The child cannot draw an angel which looks like her race. How is that not discrimination based on race?

The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.

Angels are blond and white. Blond whites are distinctly "angelic". No one but a blond white can be an angel.

The belief that one race is superior to all others.

Haha. Blond whites must be superior. What color hair do have devils have?

Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

You can't draw an angel which is not white and blond!

Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

An Asian child's drawing is unacceptable and must be redone to look more white. Rather abusive to a child, is it not?

The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

Angels are superior supernatural beings. All angels are blond and white. There must be some intrinsic superiority to blondness and whiteness.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

Oh, good lord! I don’t suffer fools lightly. Nit picking! Just nit picking!

” Angels are superior beings. All angels are white and blond. Therefore there is something superior about being white and blond.”

I repeat it’s ignorance. It’s NOT RAAACISM! This is apparently all this woman knew to be! She believed angels were White. You can believe it if that’s all you’ve witnessed. Believing it doesn’t make someone believe Whites are superior.

Case in point:When people first heard Elvis singing “That’s Alright Mama” in 1954 they assumed he was Black. After all NO WHITE person sings like that!

Was it RAAAISM believing Elvis was Black? No, it was ignorance. They believed it because that’s all they knew. They were in for a shock of their life!

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Oh JFC I'm not one to cry racism about everything. But this is clearly racist to tell a nonwhite child she must draw a blond white angel, not one which looks like her. It's textbook racism for crying out loud.

And "Nit picking"? Lol. I tediously addressed every item on your list. It's racism. Just admit it, correct the woman's ignorance, and move on.

Folks can definitely be racist and not realize it.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

I really can't believe anyone could be that ignorant.

It's really not an insult to only nonwhite folks, but to Italians, Greeks and any other child who is not a blond blue-eyed WASP.

It's really a glaring example of almost Nazi Aryan WASP arrogance. And this woman's age is no excuse. She grew up in the goddamn 60's for crying out loud.

I say a formal complaint should be made.

reply

[–] VinceD (10408) a year ago

+1

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

If a white teacher said that to a black child she'd be fired. I see a lot of dumbasses on this thread making excuses for racism and discrimination. Oh, just ignore it. Hell no, not if it was my kid.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

My daughter’s friend at Scouts has Indian parents - she was made to do the same.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Like I said, this is unacceptable racism directed at children. You don't ignore it. You call the Scouts and get this racist woman removed from a position of authority. She should not be in charge of children.

Sorry, I know women over 70 and none of them would ever say something like that to a child. It's not "generational". It's racist.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Also, I doubt the dark-haired folks who wrote the Bible had blond angels. Ask this woman to quote chapter and verse in the Bible where it says angels are blond.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

She may get a shock if she realised what Jesus probably looked like.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

” It's really a glaring example of almost Nazi Aryan WASP arrogance.”

Oh, GOOD GRIEF! In your mind being ignorant & stereotyping is akin to Nazism? Please stop it! BTW, the Civil Rights Movement was from 1954-1968. Even if they were born in 1954 that would make them 18 in 1972. “In their 70’s”. Say they’re 75, that would make them 18 in 1967. Hardly growing up in the ‘60’s.

They truly believed angels has blonde hair & blue eyes. That’s all they’ve ever known and believed. That belief is ignorance, NOT racist!

I didn’t understand the Civil Rights Movement when I was 18. I was too busy being a teenager. We moved to Florida when I was 15 in 1958. The town we moved to didn’t permit Blacks to be in town after dark. At that time I was relieved because we came from the North where I was accosted by Blacks. I didn’t realize how stupid and silly it was to not permit Blacks to sit with us White folks in a restaurant…yet they were in the kitchen cooking our food!!

Then we had the “colored” water fountains. The “colored” restrooms. I didn’t pay attention to politics in those days so I didn’t know Blacks weren’t permitted to vote. I didn’t notice there were only white dolls in the toy store. I was aware of the KKK in the South, but I didn’t know how strong they were. They murdered 4 Whites from the North who travelled to the South in order to assist Blacks in voting. I recall saying “They should have stayed where they belong!”

The point is we were ignorant. We weren’t Racists, but we didn’t realize the fact we were Bigots! We were Bigots!! Ignorant Bigots!

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

They truly believed angels has blonde hair & blue eyes. That’s all they’ve ever known and believed. That belief is ignorance, NOT racist!

You are aware you're talking as though angels are real and that there can therefore be a sincerely held belief about what angels might look like and how they should therefore be depicted? Take angels out of the equation for a moment. Let's pretend a group of young kids were asked to draw mermaids. And now let's imagine some of the children were 'corrected' for drawing mermaids that were not blonde and blue-eyed. Do you now see why it's an issue now?

You don't 'correct' kids for drawing mythical beings any way they like. Because they don't exist, so it's impossible to draw them inaccurately.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

It doesn’t matter if one believes angels exist or not. I wholeheartedly believe they do. Ask a 4 year old child “What is an angel?” The child will most likely say “It’s somebody with wings.”

Doing an analogy of using a mermaid is inane! We don’t put mermaids on top of Christmas trees. We don’t use mermaids as memorial figurines. We’ve believed in angels since time immortal. You may think of a mermaid when discussing angels, but 99.9% of people think of angels in human form with wings! This 10 year old drew what she believes an angel should look like with a skin tone akin to hers.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

It kind of does matter if one believes angels exist or not - for the reasons that I've already given. There is no 'correct' way to draw something that doesn't exist.

And in the vanishingly unlikely circumstances in which these scout leaders believe in the literal existence of angels, they have absolutely no right to impose their fringe religious views on children. You do your own thing in the USA. We don't stand for that kind of religiosity in Britain.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

”… they have absolutely no right to impose their fringe religious views on children.”

Here is the U.S. we have a document titled “The Constitution of the United States”

The First Amendment deals with Freedom of Speech…which we have. They absolutely do have the right to proselytize to whomever as long as it’s not in a government setting. It’s one of the reasons we broke away from and fought a war against Britain to obtain that right! Thank God Almighty! 🙏🏻🙏🏻

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

No idea what you're babbling about now.

I'm telling you about the UK -- where the incident occurred.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

” You do your own thing in the USA. We don't stand for that kind of religiosity in Britain.”

You’re the one who first mentioned the USA. I was explaining why we have the right to “impose” our view on whomever, be it political or faith based.

BTW, I wasn’t babbling. The only times I did babble was when I imbibed the “good stuff” out of my red Solo cup. 🥴 🍻🥂 Here’s to you, Toby Keith! Taken too soon.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Well, no, you're the one who first mentioned the USA when you went into a long spiel about the USA's civil rights movement as if that had any relevance to the subject. That's how I knew you were in the USA. That's why I said 'You do you own thing in the USA. We don't stand for that kind of religiosity in Britain.'

I'm fully aware of your constitutional rights in the USA. But we're talking about Britain. Andy is in Britain. This incident happened in Britain. So the USA is irrelevant to the discussion. We're culturally different in Britain. We're fairly non-religious. Anyone declaring a belief in literal angels will probably be looked at as if they're a time-traveller from the 17th century. We've moved on. We believe in science now. And we don't stand for fringe beliefs being imposed on children.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

I did not mention the USA in the debate with you. You interjected yourself into a prior confab.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

*Sigh* You mentioned the USA in the post I initially responded to.

But I'm ending this now. You're obtuse and exasperating.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

I may be exasperating, but I am not obtuse by any means. If you’re referring to my post about the Civil Rights Movement, which happens to be your first response to me, I did not use USA in my post. You feel superior to me and relish making that point by insulting me.

Excuse me: “Sigh”

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I did not realize it was in the uk.

Could you have the old ladies arrested for this?

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

No. It's the UK. It's not the USSR. No-one's talking about having them arrested, just like nobody was talking about 'bullying' them. Andy considered putting in a complaint, but decided to let it go on this occasion.

That's it. That's the whole story.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

But, they are violating those social norms you talked about. I know that people have been arrested for such things there before.

What if one of those kids said that they felt "unsafe"? That is pretty much all it would take at that point, right?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

No, people do not get arrested for that here. People might get arrested for hurling racial abuse or inciting violence - but this does not rise remotely to that level.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

But, it depends on how the minority or upset lefty "interprets" hte comment that decides whether it was abuse or inciting, doesn't it?

If one of the children, or even one of the kid's parents, said that one of the children felt unsafe, that would justify an arrest, would it not?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>But, it depends on how the minority or upset lefty "interprets" hte comment that decides whether it was abuse or inciting, doesn't it?

No, it does not.

>If one of the children, or even one of the kid's parents, said that one of the children felt unsafe, that would justify an arrest, would it not?

No, it would not.

Stop Amerisplaining to me how my own country works, thanks.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I've seen vids from your country, people getting arrested for...very subjective reasons.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Show me these videos please.

Name these examples.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

I know that people have been arrested for such things there before.

No. You don't.

What if one of those kids said that they felt "unsafe"? That is pretty much all it would take at that point, right?

No. it wouldn't.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

What about the autistic kid that got arrested for saying that the lesbian cop looked like her lesbian aunt?

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Stop being a twat.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Yeah. And?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

So, one phobic comment and the kid was arrested.

Homophobia in that example. And a damn weak ass example.

So, RACISM? You telling me that if a child can be arrested for commenting that a lesbian cop looked like a lesbian, that a complaint of racism couldn't lead to an arrest?

Not buying it, not for a second.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>So, RACISM? You telling me that if a child can be arrested for commenting that a lesbian cop looked like a lesbian, that a complaint of racism couldn't lead to an arrest?

The cop was out of line. She took it upon herself to do it. And she was rebuked for it.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

All the cops with her backed her up. The initial response from the force showed that they were seriously considering supporting the officer.

Your denial is less impressive than the arrest of a child over nothing.

If that autistic child can be arrested becasue a lesbian cop is a vile bitch who likes to terrorize citizens,

why could not an old lady or two?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>All the cops with her backed her up. The initial response from the force showed that they were seriously considering supporting the officer.

And the very quick public outrage showed that this wasn't going to work.

>why could not an old lady or two?

Mostly because he would actually have to make a criminal charge, genius. Which he's said he wouldn't do and never was going to anyway. Not that it would stand up anyway.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Which is nice. But what if they didn't have a video to go viral? What if there was some other story to distract people?

The arrest would have stood. The cop would have been supported.

AND, really, I see nothing of the cop being disiplined. And the law remains teh same. Next time some lesbian cop takes offense that someone comments on her looking like a lesbian, BOOM, that opens the person jup to arrest.

A theme though this entire thread, the point I've been making, is the expecation of people like you, that you have the right to demand conformity to your world view.

THe arrest of children for speaking the truth, is the nature end of such thinking.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Which is nice. But what if they didn't have a video to go viral? What if there was some other story to distract people?

There were plenty of stories. This was not some headline grabbing week defining story. It was never a huge story. They apologised anyway dude.

This has happened before, in even smaller stories where some overzealous police officer has arrested someone, and they were released because it was nonsense.

>The arrest would have stood. The cop would have been supported.

No it wouldn't. You are greatly overhyping the relevance of this story.

>AND, really, I see nothing of the cop being disiplined. And the law remains teh same. Next time some lesbian cop takes offense that someone comments on her looking like a lesbian, BOOM, that opens the person jup to arrest.

Except it does not, because it did not end in her favour:

"Police watchdogs ruled the West Yorkshire Police (WYP) must write a letter of apology to the girl after an officer used 'inappropriate language' during the arrest which occurred in the early hours of Monday, August 7, last year.

The Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) has said the officer must reflect over their part in the arrest. The arrest occurred after a 'potentially homophobic comment' was made by the girl to an officer."

"The investigation found that the officer did not have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. However, the IOPC decided that it would be appropriate for the officer to undertake reflective practice – to reflect and learn from the incident to prevent any issues identified from re-occurring, as their actions fell short of the expectations of the public and the police service as set out in the Code of Ethics."

>A theme though this entire thread, the point I've been making, is the expecation of people like you, that you have the right to demand conformity to your world view.

When did I demand anyone "conform" to my worldview? What are you on about?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

No, you accused me of claiming he bullied her.

As did several of the other posters.

That is you people being batshit crazy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

I did no such thing. I'll await a direct quote from me where I said that.

>That is you people being batshit crazy.

Is everyone here "troll bois"? Are we all worthy of you telling us to kill ourselves, and then playing shrink and claiming to want to help us when we push back?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

yes you did, and no, I'm not jumping though your troll boi hoop. YOu want to review your own words, go right ahead.

When people act like brain damanged or troll bois, I will call them/you on it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>yes you did, and no, I'm not jumping though your troll boi hoop. YOu want to review your own words, go right ahead.

No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

So what now?

>When people act like brain damanged or troll bois, I will call them/you on it.

So should we all kill ourselves?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1.Yes, you did.

2. you should stop it. Unless you are actually retarded, don't act retarded. And never be a troll boi. It's disgusting.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. I have no reason to take your whiny, bitchy pathetic little baby complaints about how mean everyone is to you. I already know you think you're right about everything and anyone who disagrees with you on anything is always wrong. I'll play shrink now: You are a manipulative narcissist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Yes, you did.

2. You asked me if you should all kill yourselves. I expressed my desire for people to stop acting retarded or troling. That that enraged you... lol.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. But you repeatedly claimed I should kill myself in other comments not here. Why do you behave differently now?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Yes you did.

2. You had managed to troll me to the point of anger "in other comments". My true feelings are that I wish you would cease being a soulless troll. My request for you to kill yourself was me being angry.

Normal people get angry when someone is increadbly rude to them, lke you so often are.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. I am not responsible for your baby temper. I did not troll, I don't as a rule troll ever.

>Normal people get angry when someone is increadbly rude to them, lke you so often are.

I have faced way more abuse than you ever have on this forum and I have been far more composed than you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Yes you did.

2. I'm not interested in whatever silly justifications you have for your trolling.

3. Trolls are not normal. Studies show that you are generally sociopathic and sadistic. So you not caring about other people is not surprising.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. I haven't provided a justification for trolling, because I don't troll. Not bound to accept your claims.

3. Again: Not a troll. And when did I say I don't care about other people?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Yes, you did.

2. irrelevant

3. You say "Racism" like it is magic word that justifies anything or everything.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. No, it's not. At all. You are continually claiming to know how the UK works better than British people, in addition, you don't even know the nationality of most people pushing back on you in this thread.

3. That's not answering my question. And when did I say "racism" justifies anything or everything? I've said, repeatedly, that the scenario the OP presents does not justify any form of arrest and would not result in any form of arrest.

reply

[–] Melton (5577) a year ago

What a surprise, Skavau is on a gaslighting mission to convince you that the UK police haven’t been corrupted into a woke authoritarian force who are more concerned with punishing innocent citizens for wrongthink and wrongspeak than dealing with actual crimes. Of course they have.

The police, along with education, the media, pretty much any UK institution you can mention has been captured by Skavau’s Leftist allies and he’s here to convince you there’s-nothing-to-see-here so that it can continue. Same principle as Holocaust denial.

He’s a fascist wokist and he’s now resorting to nagging the Mods on here to shut down people who call out his BS, check it out: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d76a73975e4250196051d2/Why-are-woke-shows-and-movies-still-getting-made?reply=65e6f736a8568b231f123aa7

Skavau, impulsively fart out a mindless response in which you deploy more strawmanning, Hatchling questions and lies in an attempt to absolve yourself of your shitty behaviour. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>What a surprise, Skavau is on a gaslighting mission to convince you that the UK police haven’t been corrupted into a woke authoritarian force who are more concerned with punishing innocent citizens for wrongthink and wrongspeak than dealing with actual crimes. Of course they have.

Are you going to note the fact that Corbell has been clowned on repeatedly by everyone in this thread, not just me? He's being criticised and made fun of by almost everyone in here.

Like if your goal here is to gloat about how everyone disagrees with me, or hates me, this was a very silly thread to post it in. Read the room. Everyone is rebuking Corbell.

>The police, along with education, the media, pretty much any UK institution you can mention has been captured by Skavau’s Leftist allies and he’s here to convince you there’s-nothing-to-see-here so that it can continue. Same principle as Holocaust denial.

Provide evidence for any of these claims please. I live here, and are the police perfect? Of course not. Our hate speech laws that are sometimes misunderstood or interpreted overbearingly by local branches of the police long predate any wokism, and that is broadly how they operate. Most shit like this that Corbell is referring to result in the person being released, and the police slapped on the wrist.

The wider point that the UK has hate speech laws is nothing new. Most of Europe does.

>He’s a fascist wokist and he’s now resorting to nagging the Mods on here to shut down people who call out his BS, check it out: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d76a73975e4250196051d2/Why-are-woke-shows-and-movies-still-getting-made?reply=65e6f736a8568b231f123aa7

No, I've contacted the moderators because of your abusive, harassing behaviour - most notable focused around your hateful accusations of me being a pedophile.

And what is your definition of fascism, please?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I have been "clowned on" as you put it by the mob...

But the reasons are... quite delusional.

Such as attacking me for claiming something I did not claim or for not beingi aware of a clarification made AFTER my statement.

And my point, that this beahavior supports my point about bullying, is clearly true.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I have been "clowned on" as you put it by the mob...

Oh yes, the world is wrong and you are right.

>But the reasons are... quite delusional.

You assumed that the OP meant he would report the woman to the police, and then assumed that even if he didn't she could be arrested. You do not fucking live here dude.

>And my point, that this beahavior supports my point about bullying, is clearly true.

Oh yes, it's bullying when you're corrected by multiple people about claims you've made but it's not bullying when I get accused, completely baselessly, of being a pedophile. Is that right?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Sometimes the mob is wrong and the lone guy is right. Your pretense that that was absurd is just you being a troll.

2. Except I gave examples of how delusional the reasons were and you did not address them. So, that was you being evasive and cowardly.

3. My point about bullying was well explained and your counterpoint didn't address any of it. So... thanks for nothing.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. Ah yes, the mob is conveniently wrong when you're at the end of it. But it's always right when someone like me might be at the end of it.

2. Address what? This woman would not be arrested over this, flat-out, nor did Andy ever want that.

3. You are a pathetic little baby who cries when any level of pushback is given but completely indifferent to the abuse others might get.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Blah, blah, blah. Your appeal to popularity logical fallacy is invalid.

2. Except I gave examples of how delusional the reasons were and you did not address them. So, that was you being evasive and cowardly.

3. My point about bullying was well explained and your counterpoint didn't address any of it. So... thanks for nothing.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. I assume you personally will remember this when it happens to someone else. Never wrong, always outraged. That should be your personal motto at this point.

2. You gave bad reasons. Your claim that Andy was thinking about bullying this woman was just inherently nonsense.

3. I haven't once "bullied" you in this chain.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Well, probably not. Shit that personally pisses me off, stick wtih me better than shit I just see at a distance. So....

2. Some of the reasons I gave were very clear and with excellent examples in this thread. Your denial is you stonewalling.

3. And you pretend to forget my acutal points, so you can defend against one I did not make. Standard procedure for lefties when they have lost the debate.

Do something new. Come on. Move beyond brainless reflex.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. I find it quite easy to acknowledge that other people accusing someone else of pedophilia baselessly is wrong. Why is this so hard for you?

2. No, they weren't. You accused him of wanting to bully her. He made no such claim. A complaint is not bullying.

>Do something new. Come on. Move beyond brainless reflex.

I don't know why you think I'm likely to take advice from someone who thinks I should kill myself.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Because trolls are trolls.

2. Yes They were. Now you are just lying.

3. Becasue you know that what i say about you is true. You can feel it inside of you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. Are you calling me the troll, or the people who lob unfounded accusation at me trolls?

2. No, they weren't. You accused him of wanting to bully her. He made no such claim. A complaint is not bullying.

3. This is a genuinely pathetic attempt at manipulation, and completely in-character for you as you attempt to play both good cop and bad cop at the same time.

I think you are of less value advice wise than a piece of dog shit I might step on outside. That's how little I regard you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. You.
2. And many of the complaints claimed I said he bullied them. That was delusional.

3. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. So because I am supposedly a troll, that means I deserve to be accused of untrue things?

2. https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/65e4998f47f55728cc3b3df1/My-daughter-has-experienced-her-first-incidence-of-racism-towards-her?reply=65e4b0f447f55728cc3b3e8e

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/65e4998f47f55728cc3b3df1/My-daughter-has-experienced-her-first-incidence-of-racism-towards-her?reply=65e4b49747f55728cc3b3ea5

You literally said it multiple times.

3. This is a genuinely pathetic attempt at manipulation, and completely in-character for you as you attempt to play both good cop and bad cop at the same time.

I think you are of less value advice wise than a piece of dog shit I might step on outside. That's how little I regard you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1.Trolls are soulless scum.

2. Stop playing stu pid. I did not claim it. You are being delusional or lying.

3. Except, you can feel teh truth of my words.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. Not answering my question: So because I am supposedly a troll, that means I deserve to be accused of untrue things?

2. I've literally directly linked your own words in this thread when you said exactly that.

3. This is a genuinely pathetic attempt at manipulation, and completely in-character for you as you attempt to play both good cop and bad cop at the same time.

I think you are of less value advice wise than a piece of dog shit I might step on outside. That's how little I regard you.

reply

[–] Melton (5577) a year ago

My goal is to set Corbell straight and neutralise your gaslighting. I don’t give a fuck about anything else in this thread, least of all your narcissistic fantasies of persecution.

Anyone paying attention can see the dire state of the UK police and other institutions captured by your woke allies, so stop playing The Hatchling you talentless gaslighting twat.

When did I accuse you of being a pedophile?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>My goal is to set Corbell straight and neutralise your gaslighting. I don’t give a fuck about anything else in this thread, least of all your narcissistic fantasies of persecution.

The thread is agreeing with me. Are you going to harass /u/capuchin for saying the same thing? He's a fellow Brit. Are you going to follow him around across the website like you do me?

>Anyone paying attention can see the dire state of the UK police and other institutions captured by your woke allies, so stop playing The Hatchling you talentless gaslighting twat.

This is a baseless claim unsupported by evidence.

>When did I accuse you of being a pedophile?

Quite literally in that link you shared of me supposedly being a fascist. Originally TVfan only did this, but you decided to join in when I asked you if that was moral behaviour.

You apparently think it makes you look good to hurl unfounded accusations at people.

reply

[–] Melton (5577) a year ago

You’re not being harassed. Strawman. Nasty lying, fascistic prick now playing the victim.

The woke takeover of the British police and other institutions requires no more ‘evidence’ than does an observation that the sky is blue, it’s clear for all to see. Hatchling move.

I merely asked you to clarify the rumours about you being a pedophile and you did. Don’t cry about it now.

You apparently think it makes you look good to hurl unfounded accusations at people.

Projection.

Now, impulsively fart out a mindless response in which you deploy more strawmanning, Hatchling questions and lies in an attempt to absolve yourself of your shitty behaviour. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>You’re not being harassed. Strawman. Nasty lying, fascistic prick now playing the victim.

Corbell thinks people disagreeing with him in this thread constitutes bullying. I've seen him accuse me of it in the past too just by nature of asking questions. Is he wrong?

I have also asked you, repeatedly, to define fascism - since it seems you're using it incorrectly.

Are you going to harass, sorry, follow /u/capuchin around on the website for saying the same thing as I have in this thread?

>The woke takeover of the British police and other institutions requires no more ‘evidence’ than does an observation that the sky is blue, it’s clear for all to see. Hatchling move.

Yes, it does. Why on earth would that be a self-evident claim? Suppose that you're speaking to someone who knows nothing about UK domestic politics and contemporary culture. Why would it be a self-evident claim?

>I merely asked you to clarify the rumours about you being a pedophile and you did. Don’t cry about it now.

A very obviously bad faith question. You know full well that I have rejected the claims repeatedly. You are asking for "clarification" and defining them as "rumours" purely as a part of your obvious (can we say self-evident?) harassment campaign against me. You think it's funny, apparently. I did ask you if you think it's acceptable to hurl accusations at others based on no evidence?

>Projection.

At no point have I done this, and if at any point I have made any unfounded leaps of any kind, it would not come close to your nasty, hateful support of accusations against me.

>Now, impulsively fart out a mindless response in which you deploy more strawmanning, Hatchling questions and lies in an attempt to absolve yourself of your shitty behaviour. Go…

The continued edits of your posts to make these childish comments is an example of how much of a nasty person you quite obviously are. There was zero strawmanning in this post. And I fail to see how challenging people on the claims they make about me is "shitty behaviour".

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

You linked to me discussing his intentions.

Stop pretending to be retarded please.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Your assumption that his intentions were bullying.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Yet, you and several other posters have repeatedly claimed that I accused him of bullying,

and often made a point and gloated about it, that he didn't do it.

That is you people being batshit crazy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Yet, you and several other posters have repeatedly claimed that I accused him of bullying,

Accused him of wanting to bully her. Which is untrue.

>and often made a point and gloated about it, that he didn't do it.

He "gloated" that he didn't complain about her.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Other posters made the point he didn't bully her, and then gloated because they had scored such a devastaing point against me.

All the while, as you have finally admitted, I was discussing his INTENTIONS.

I repeatedly pointed this out to the other posters. None of them were able to... realize or admit their error.

Their brains just sort of locked up.

Andy, the op, saw it. He just sort of let it pass.

I made the point that this level of craziness and delusion and dishonesty,

does not bode well for how any complaint or interaction between andy, the little old ladies and the cub scout national program would have gone.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Other posters made the point he didn't bully her, and then gloated because they had scored such a devastaing point against me.

Okay so?

>All the while, as you have finally admitted, I was discussing his INTENTIONS.

I've never *not* "admitted" this.

You were also wrong about his intentions.

>does not bode well for how any complaint or interaction between andy, the little old ladies and the cub scout national program would have gone.

Why would the reaction of random people on an internet forum have any reflection on how the scout program would've reacted?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

YOu did it again.

I open with a point, and then immediately explain and defend the point.

IN your response, you demand that I explain or defend my point. Even though I already did.

WTF is wrong with you?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I open with a point, and then immediately explain and defend the point.

I don't care what some other random people on this thread said. I am not them. I did not accuse you of what some of them might have done.

You did however, suggest he wanted to bully her. Which is untrue.

>IN your response, you demand that I explain or defend my point. Even though I already did.

No, I asked how it is remotely relevant to how the scout team might react if Andy did lodge a complaint.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. I was making a point about their behavvior, relevant to the topic.

2. Becasue you are all clearly share and support the progressive "anti-racism" paradigm.
Or "CANCEL CULTURE".

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. Feel free to citate specific examples where someone specifically accused you of that.

2. No, we don't. And being "cancelled"(not that this would happen here) is not the same as being arrested.

Also, how do you know most of the respondents here are from the UK?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Why? You did it youself, so you know what I am talking about.

2. The similar brain locks, the lock step conformity on the issue, all I see is evidence of a shared world view, and a willingness to bring the hammer down on these little old ladies

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. Except these same posters told you that this would not lead to any arrest. I doubt it would lead to a firing, to be frank.

A "shared world view" that objects to dated racist tropes being passed down to kids?

What "hammer" would be bought down on her? Should "little old ladies" get to be as racist as they like to whoever they like because it would be mean to, in any sense, socially sanction them for it?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. Yes you did.

2. Irrelvant to this point.

3. oooh, the magic word. "racism". I am so scared.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

1. No, I did not. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. And I did just ctrl+f all uses of "bully" and "bullying" and see no instance where I said what you claim.

2. No, it's not. At all. You are continually claiming to know how the UK works better than British people, in addition, you don't even know the nationality of most people pushing back on you in this thread.

3. I wasn't trying to "scare" you. I asked a question:

What "hammer" would be bought down on her? Should "little old ladies" get to be as racist as they like to whoever they like because it would be mean to, in any sense, socially sanction them for it?

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

I don't care what you buy or don't buy. You don't know anything about the UK, but you've now taken on the task of explaining how it works to two British people who live here.

Good luck with that.

Pillock.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

NOt the only example Ive seen. And, obviously I am not catchign every abuse that your people suffer.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

People in the UK are not scared to speak up and criticise the police, government etc. We do not suffer "abuse" anymore than people in any first-world country. That there are shitty police and police branches, and indeed there are, doesn't mean that we're all cowering.

You should be well aware of this as an American with the much more severe instances of police brutality your country is known for.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Trust us. We'd rather be us with our laws and our police and our culture than you with yours.

You don't need to concern yourself.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Of course neitiher of you are cowering. YOu conform to the social norms.

Your complaints are all in line with the demands of the mob or the state, depending.

Free speech of ideas and people that you like, is not free speech.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Of course neitiher of you are cowering. YOu conform to the social norms.

And what are the "social norms" of Britain, exactly?

What would we have to think in order to be cowering?

>Free speech of ideas and people that you like, is not free speech.

What ideas are we trying to suppress exactly?

reply

[–] Daft_Munks (4840) a year ago

All getting very political and way far from Andy's original topic.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Funny though.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

I feel like the new Ticketsplease.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

It's a put on, isn't it? He's a wind-up merchant. Or he's as mad as a box of frogs. Either way: ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Who knew such a simple story about you bullying, murdering and burying those two old ladies in your back yard could go so off the rails.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

The man made a post about a confrontation that he considered but did not do.

I addressed his point and gave my thoughts on it.

You guys are the ones that flipped out, shocked, unable to understand that someone else would have a different take than you.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Well, for me, it's not so much that you have a 'different take', but that your take is utterly bonkers. And you've banged your hammer on the same nail for two solid days.

But I can't tell a lie: you've been very entertaining. I salute your commitment to the bit. It's Kaufmanesque.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I have been repeatedly confronted by posters shocked that I was claiming that he bullied them, when he did not even confront them.

I was clear in every post, the my point was based on his thoughts on the hypothetical confrontation, not claiming that he actually did it.

That's YOU people being bonkers, not me.

And that's only ONE example of you people being bonkers.

Would you like another one?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Potentially lodging a complaint with her employer is not bullying.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I have been repeatedly confronted by posters shocked that I was claiming that he bullied them, when he did not even confront them.

I was clear in every post, the my point was based on his thoughts on the hypothetical confrontation, not claiming that he actually did it.

That's YOU people being bonkers, not me.

And that's only ONE example of you people being bonkers.

Would you like another one?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I have been repeatedly confronted by posters shocked that I was claiming that he bullied them, when he did not even confront them.

Yes, you claimed he was thinking about "bullying" her. Apparently lodging a complaint, according to you, is bullying.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Are you admitting that I was discussion he THOUGHTS, and not past ACTIONS?

And thus my point about them being delusional was CORRECT?

Becuase you sort of did. But not really. You sort of glossed over that to make another stupid and false attack.

You are being a troll boi.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Who cares what he thinks? People can get bullied by how others *think* now? He said he might have issued a complaint. That's it.

He would have every right to.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

That was clearly not my point.

Once again, you post a "Response" that purposefully failed to address my actual point.

It is almost as though you know you are in the wrong, but can't admit it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

What "point"? At this point I am at a loss as to what "point" you're even referring to?

>It is almost as though you know you are in the wrong, but can't admit it.

The irony is deafening.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

You are purposefully not paying attention to what I actually say. That's on you.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

It’s been a rollercoaster ride.

Additional points awarded for the Gaslighting.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I have been repeatedly confronted by posters shocked that I was claiming that he bullied them, when he did not even confront them.

I was clear in every post, the my point was based on his thoughts on the hypothetical confrontation, not claiming that he actually did it.

That's YOU people being bonkers, not me.

And that's only ONE example of you people being bonkers.

Would you like another one?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

So a multiverse proposition?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Why did you just pretend to not get my point?

It's a simple point. It is not credible that you could not understand it.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

No, because if we are to consider hypothetical situations, then we must consider infinite outcomes.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Don't be silly.

You raised the hypothetical confrontation in your op. My discussion of it was reasonable.

The response has not been.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Oh come on! Infinite outcomes are infinitely interesting.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

And you could NOT admit that my discussion of it was reasonable.

That's very revealing. Do you realize that?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Ok.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

What are you doing? That wasn't an answer. Or anything.

My point was simple and reasonable. Why did you not address it?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

You said, “That’s very revealing.” and I said, ok.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

No, I asked, do you realize that.

That is a yes or not question. You are being oddly evaise.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Ok.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

What are you doing? With these odd and vague responses?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Not wasting time on a futile argument.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

But you are resonding. Just not actually saying anything.

I think that you do not like that i am making valid points that disagree with, but cannot refute.

So, you make vague comments, trying to express yoru disagrement, but in a fashion where you can dodge having to explain or defend your disagreement.

Because, you know that I am right.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

Ok.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

And you did it again.

I knew you would.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

👍

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Your behavior is very strange.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

🤪

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

What are you doing?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

🤷‍♂️

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Seriously, you're being weird.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

🤡

reply

[–] sslssg (35180) a year ago

You will never be anywhere close to Ticketsplease

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

I can’t believe how mad it’s got.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

What the hell have I started, lol.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Yeah. Don't concern yourself. Really.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895

The police received a complaint over this.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/police-ordered-apologise-leeds-teen-28691799

The police were then ordered to apologise.

Shitty police do shitty things. This happens everywhere.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Was the law changed?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

What law? No law justified her to do that.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Really? From the link, the official police statement.

"We also maintain that our officers and staff should not have to face abuse while working to keep our communities safe."

Seemed they seemed to think that there was a real chance that the arrest was valid.

At best they were still looking into it. More likely, imo, they were waiting to see if it just blew over.

I saw the vid. Those cops are fucking thugs. Any authority that could watch that and not immediately aplogize is an oppressing authority. ALL the police involved should ahve been fired.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Seemed they seemed to think that there was a real chance that the arrest was valid.

And they've since had to apologise. What law are you suggest should be revoked exactly?

>At best they were still looking into it. More likely, imo, they were waiting to see if it just blew over.

Police being corrupt and pulling ranks shocker. Man this never happens anywhere else, obviously.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

THe law that a simple comment that migiht offend a lesbian is enough reason to arrest someone.

That law should be changed.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>THe law that a simple comment that migiht offend a lesbian is enough reason to arrest someone.

No, it's not. The reason that policewoman did what she did, incorrectly, is because *she* was the one targeted with the comment.

Andy, or his daughter, in this case would have to make a criminal complaint. And it would be thrown out.

>That law should be changed.

That is up to us, not you. There's not enough public support, and party support to change it. This relatively minor incident (it was not a massive event) certainly is not the deciding factor for or against.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

You are supporting arressting people for saying an insult.

That this or that particular insult might not be... bad enough, is not ...good enough.

Your nation does NOT have freedom of speech and people like you are in a position to terrorize and oppress people llike those little old ladies.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>You are supporting arressting people for saying an insult.

I said no such thing. I explained why she could do it. I didn't justify it.

>That this or that particular insult might not be... bad enough, is not ...good enough.

That's not your fucking problem. You aren't British. I actually oppose Section 5 in UK law, and would at minimum want its reform.

>Your nation does NOT have freedom of speech and people like you are in a position to terrorize and oppress people llike those little old ladies.

Dude, anyone could in theory file a criminal complaint and cause the police to knock on someone's door, maybe a little old ladies door - whether or not it is true or not. Just like how the police swat people in the USA based on frivolous or outright false claims. Except that's way fucking worse.

But there is no way that this particular case would ever stand up in any court. It's laughable. And Andy never ever said he would ever do that anyway.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) a year ago

Don't take him seriously.I'm not sure -- who can ever tell with these things -- but he's either a complete moron or doing a brilliant parody of a complete moron.

If it's the latter, I salute his commitment to the bit.

If it's the former... oh dear.

But you won't get any sense out of him either way.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Dude.

One of the repeated bits I've dealt with here is your people's inability to understand that I was discussing his intentions and ideas,

not claiming that the confrontation took place.

That's YOU people being idiots, not me.

reply

[–] sslssg (35180) a year ago

You can't actually discuss someone's intentions or ideas because you simply don't know what they are.

You are discussing what ifs. Great. But in your first few comments about it you were implying that Andy was doing these things with comments like

And the asshole here is the guy who feels that he has a right to bully elderly women.

and

His daughter is being held up, as a role model of restraint and forgiveness, for NOT supporting her father intimidating the elderly woman, who dared envision the angels as blond.

Those comments do not suggest hypothetical situations.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

That is your opinion, and I would be happy to discuss that,

but my point, was that I was accussed of claiming he DID it, instaed of discussing his intentions.

That's the whole group, which you cited as an Authority or reason to judge my position wrong, BEING COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY.

or. WRONG.

That was my point. Would you like to admit it now,

or, better yet, come up with an insanely complex and incoherent reason that... wow. I can't even imagine.

DON'T JUST SPOUT OR CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

i want either an admission, or an hilarious and insane atempt at defense.

THIS IS YOUR GREATEST CHALLENGE TROLL BOI.

IF you can do this, you will be a TROLL MAN!!!

reply

[–] sslssg (35180) a year ago

DON'T JUST SPOUT OR CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

i want either an admission, or an hilarious and insane atempt at defense.

THIS IS YOUR GREATEST CHALLENGE TROLL BOI.

IF you can do this, you will be a TROLL MAN!!!

First off not male. Secondly...nah. I think you have the trolling down pat. I'll leave that for you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Oh, sorry got you confused with another lefty.

But still, it is clearly possible to discuss someone's intent when they have posted an op discussing their intent, and continued to discuss it for several days.

So... that was a silly thing to claim, on your part.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>But still, it is clearly possible to discuss someone's intent when they have posted an op discussing their intent, and continued to discuss it for several days.

Their "intent" was to make a complaint.

What would be wrong with that?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

The point is, that a lot of people have want to have people in their society, live in fear of being destroyed or arrested, if they do not conform to the progressive world view.

Those little old ladies? Running the cub scouts is likely very important to them, or they would not be doing it.

YOu complain to the organization about how they are doing it, you could be hurting them badly.

THe goal of the complaint is to enforce conformity though fear.

That is not a good thing. That is bad behavior on the part of the people doing it.

Do you want little old ladies to conform to your world view out of fear, to live in fear that you will ruin their lives if they step out of line?

ps. Thanks for actually responding to my point seriously instead of playing a retarded game or acting like a fucktard.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>The point is, that a lot of people have want to have people in their society, live in fear of being destroyed or arrested, if they do not conform to the progressive world view.

At no point did he claim he wanted her arrested, or even "destroyed".

>Those little old ladies? Running the cub scouts is likely very important to them, or they would not be doing it.

Okay. so?

>YOu complain to the organization about how they are doing it, you could be hurting them badly.

Okay. so? That still wouldn't make it bullying. That someone might be really upset if someone complains about behaviour their employers doesn't like and doesn't want associated with them doesn't constitute bullying.

>THe goal of the complaint is to enforce conformity though fear.

This is absurd. The goal of the complaint is to make sure the person doesn't do that sort of thing there again. What sort of things do you think constitute valid reasons to complain?

>Do you want little old ladies to conform to your world view out of fear, to live in fear that you will ruin their lives if they step out of line?

Why should "little old ladies", in a crude way, impose their antiquated world view on kids?

Suppose someone within the scout organisation, a colleague who may outrank her, heard this woman say this about angels - and asked her to not do that - would that be "bullying"?

And how would this "ruin their lives"?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Dude. Dont play stupoid.

I didn't say he SAID it.

I've been discussing his intentions and ideas on this for days.

Dumbass.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I didn't say he SAID it.

No, you said he thought it - and characterised his plans to complain about her as bullying.

>I've been discussing his intentions and ideas on this for days.

His intentions weren't bullying. You were wrong.

The goal of the complaint is to make sure the person doesn't do that sort of thing there again. What sort of things do you think constitute valid reasons to complain?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

The goal of a ccomplaint can be that.

But today with cancel culture, for many, it has become something far uglier.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>The goal of a ccomplaint can be that.

Which was not his goal. You assumed that it was.

>But today with cancel culture, for many, it has become something far uglier.

What sort of things do you think constitute valid reasons to complain about regarding conduct of scout workers?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I did not assume. I based my conclusion on his words and his revealed intenetions, as I repeatedly discused.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

You made multiple opening posts in this thread accusing him baselessly, based on your reading of his intent, of wanting to bully her.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Wanting.

Yes.

Not doing.

Please stop pretneding to be retarded.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Right. I never said that you said he was bullying her. But you did say that he wanted to bully her.

Which is untrue.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Section Five? Is that the law that allows people to be arrested for speech?

You say you oppose it and would like to see it changed?

Why? In your own words.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Section Five? Is that the law that allows people to be arrested for speech?

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

It can do, yes. And it was reformed somewhat because it's intensely subjective and continues to lead to frivolous court cases. The wider act is the Public Order act which forbids expressions of hatred towards someone due to their "colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation" and "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden".

UK laws is prominently rooted in precedent. Obviously this very type of law can lead to subjective instances, I actually don't think it should be illegal to be racially abusive or sexist or whatever - but I do support legislation against people inciting violence, making threats.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I agree that speech inciting violence or making threats should be illegal. As it is over here.

I also agree that the law you cite is open to be "subjective" by cops or others. And I oppose such laws for here, and I htink it is bad over there. ie. I agree with you on that too.

So, up for a nice chorus of Kumbaya?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

That I oppose this doesn't mean this woman had any chance of ever being arrested.

It's also not really the most important political issue in the UK, and its presence in law long predates 'wokism'.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

You got any examples where YOU think that hte law was applied badly and the person invovled was arrested?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

The Scottish nazi pug case.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Good one. I am aware of that one.

Yes, in a free society, that should not have happened.

But it did. And it stood. And the law is still as it was. And the peopel that think that it should be applied that way, are still in power.

How many people are beinng arrested a year, for shit they say? That does NOT threaten violence?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>But it did. And it stood. And the law is still as it was. And the peopel that think that it should be applied that way, are still in power.

Because, guess what, it's not the only problem the UK faces. People care more about the economy, immigration, healthcare, housing than these niche cases that will not impact 99.9% of people in their lives ever.

>How many people are beinng arrested a year, for shit they say? That does NOT threaten violence?

No idea.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

1. If you are not allowed to talk about the issues, becasuse someone might say "racism" and get you arrested, then the all the other problems cannot even be discussed seriously and honestly.

IMMIGRATION? lol. How the FUCK can you have a discussion about the issue of immigration, when all it takes is some leftard saying that you are being "racist" to get you arrested?

I heard that the uk is arresting people fro that, vastly more than in russia. Less free than RUSSIA?!! lol.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>1. If you are not allowed to talk about the issues, becasuse someone might say "racism" and get you arrested, then the all the other problems cannot even be discussed seriously and honestly.

What issues are we "not allowed to talk about"? What are you on about?

Who has been arrested for just trying to "talk about the issues"?

>IMMIGRATION? lol. How the FUCK can you have a discussion about the issue of immigration, when all it takes is some leftard saying that you are being "racist" to get you arrested?

Who has been arrested for criticising immigration levels in the UK?

>I heard that the uk is arresting people fro that, vastly more than in russia. Less free than RUSSIA?!! lol.

You heard this, of course, from Russian sources. Because I know the interview you're referring to.

This demonstrates utter ignorance to the level of civil liberty deprivation within Russia.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Wow. That was dumb. I immediately went from making the point to giving an example, and you asked me for an example.

I reject your pretense of being that stupid. stop such stupid shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

You didn't give an example. You just claimed that people are scared to talk about immigration in the UK, and they might get arrested for it. This is not true.

You also then suggested Russia has more civil liberties than the UK. Another baseless claim.

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

This is from the post, that you responde to, with what issue.

"IMMIGRATION? lol. How the FUCK can you have a discussion about the issue of immigration"

You read that and then asked me what issue(s) I was talking about.

What a troll boi you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>"IMMIGRATION? lol. How the FUCK can you have a discussion about the issue of immigration"

Oh dear me, your reading comprehension needs working. Your initial paragraph just said that we're not allowed to talk about the issues, so I quoted that part and asked what "issues" you meant.

You then went on to claim we can't talk about immigration. So I'll ask, specifically, as I did in that post you quoted: Who has been arrested for criticising immigration levels in the UK?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

Why did you ask, "what issues", when I clearly and immediately started talking about an issue.?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Because I assumed you were referring to issues generally as you were obviously referring to my comment that there are other more politically relevant issues people vote on in the UK.

Anyway, stop evading and answer my question:

You then went on to claim we can't talk about immigration. So I'll ask, specifically, as I did in that post you quoted: Who has been arrested for criticising immigration levels in the UK?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I was talkinga bout issues generally.

But then immediately gave a specific example.

For you to then ask me for an example, was pure trolling.

Troll boi.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

We're past that now.

Stop evading and answer my question:

You then went on to claim we can't talk about immigration. So I'll ask, specifically, as I did in that post you quoted: Who has been arrested for criticising immigration levels in the UK?

reply

[–] Corbell (11002) a year ago

I'm not past it.

I've lost all pretense that you are engaged in good faith discourse.

At least for now.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I'm not past it.

You are not "past" a problem you invented in your own head. It's laughable.

You are, as you claim about others "stonewalling". You made a specific claim that we can't talk about immigration for fear of being arrested.

You have failed to demonstrate this claim. I will ask again: Who has been arrested for criticising immigration levels in the UK?

reply

[–] Theman (1262) a year ago

I don’t mean to be rude but most of the things you don’t believe to be true are in actuality true. You need to wise up about the world.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Rather vague. If you want to discuss it, be more specific.

reply

[–] Popcorngal (4937) a year ago

The woman was wrong,you should still complain to her supervisors. They should at least make her apologize. Your daughter is right to ignore her comment.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

If it happens again I will make a formal complaint.

reply

[–] twinA (4921) a year ago

You and your daughter have a really good relationship together. She felt comfortable enough to tell you what had happened and you respected her by actively listening. That's some pretty incredible trust and bonding.

~~/o/

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

I adore my daughter and I’m extremely proud of her.

reply

[–] kspkap (13629) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7384) a year ago

Sorry to hear. And cool that your daughter was so gracious - more gracious than I would've been as a biracial girl myself. I would've conceded her point about blonde blue eyed angels, since, given the crone's age, she must've seen quite a few angels in her time. Probably would've asked her what the dinosaurs looked like, too.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

I imagine that she just rolled her eyes and carried on.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7384) a year ago

That's the Bournemouth way ig, good for her.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) a year ago

We’re not ones for pitchforks and flaming torches, lol.

reply