Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 81

Thread: Bannon in Europe

  1. #31
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Quote Originally Posted by gogobongopop View Post
    But it's alien and unnatural.
    No it isn't. It is perhaps alien if you're not used to it but hair coverings are perfectly natural. Facial covering and dehumanising people, especially in such a misogynistic way is not natural.
    Yes, RandBlade - I do understand the difference, and as I've said - I rather people didn't wear burqas.

    What I'm trying to understand from you is why you think it's perfectly acceptable for a leader of our nation to attempt to lead an argument in this way. You wouldn't expect a business leader act in this way, so why a politician?
    Business leaders don't generally getinvolved in political controversies and quite frankly I have more respect for businessmen than politicians . I would expect it from comedians on the other hand.
    You've said it's not acceptable for certain things - so please explain to me what the criteria are that make it acceptable for our MPs to name call, point and laugh at citizens of our country.

    Please, I'm all ears.
    My general assumption is that it always is acceptable to make fun of people unless there is a compelling reason not to otherwise. Humour is a good vent on pent up feelings. I'm happy to call people "gun nuts", "Bible bashers" or plenty of other things. Even the name Tory which I identify with is of derogatory origin meaning a bandit or thief. One of my favourite comedians is Russell Howard who has a habit of mocking people.

    I think certain words especially if there is a history of negative abuse with it - especially with something outside of their control. EG abusive words like the n-word are not acceptable. Looking like a post box is neither outside of someone's control nor a term with negative historical abuse behind it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No it isn't. It is perhaps alien if you're not used to it but hair coverings are perfectly natural. Facial covering and dehumanising people, especially in such a misogynistic way is not natural.
    I disagree with your definitions. A turban is alien unnatural to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Business leaders don't generally getinvolved in political controversies and quite frankly I have more respect for businessmen than politicians . I would expect it from comedians on the other hand.
    Why would we want to hold politicians, the people who are running our state, to a lower standard than those running a business? I see no benefit in doing so. We should expect, nay demand, leadership based on decency, objectivity and honesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    My general assumption is that it always is acceptable to make fun of people unless there is a compelling reason not to otherwise.
    So 'towel head' and 'camel jockey' are fair game, is what you're saying?

    Or is it only OK when it's a fresh new insult that hasn't had a chance to take off? Does it only become a problem if "letter box" and "bank robber" become the new 'paki' or 'chink'?

    Or would it perhaps be best for Boris to stop being an attention seeking cunt?

  3. #33
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Quote Originally Posted by gogobongopop View Post
    I disagree with your definitions. A turban is alien unnatural to me.
    Fair enough, maybe you're just less enlightened . I am struggling to understand what is unnatural about it, we have our own versions of headwear and it's not that long ago that all gentlemen were expected to wear headwear in public.
    Why would we want to hold politicians, the people who are running our state, to a lower standard than those running a business? I see no benefit in doing so. We should expect, nay demand, leadership based on decency, objectivity and honesty.
    I see an advantage to giving politicians, the people who debate controversial matters, greater leniency in the topics they discuss and how they do so. That is not a new principle it is centuries old, that is the principle behind why a politician in Parliament has total immunity from libel laws for instance. Politicians are debating issues that business leaders are not and that means sometimes saying the unsayable because it actually needs to be said. Sometimes it means crossing the line because if you are never crossing it then you're surely never reaching it either.
    So 'towel head' and 'camel jockey' are fair game, is what you're saying?
    No.
    Or is it only OK when it's a fresh new insult that hasn't had a chance to take off? Does it only become a problem if "letter box" and "bank robber" become the new 'paki' or 'chink'?
    Well indeed, if they become like that then they should be addressed. But Johnson while perhaps a tad wry with the letterbox remark was making a serious remark about looking like a bank robber, which he spent paragraphs addressing the importance of seeing people's faces in face to face conversations. Did you read the full article? I don't find the truth insulting, especially when it is relevant and when dressing like a bank robber is a choice people are making to oppress women and that is being outlawed across much of Europe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #34
    It's perfectly possible to express 'the truth' and lead a rational, persuasive and inspiring argument for change without resulting to name calling and/or desperate populist attempts to get back into the limelight. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

    Tolerate this, at any level, and you end up with the likes of Bannon leading the debate.

  5. #35
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    No shut down debates on issues like this and you lead to people like Bannon leading the debate as they're the only ones talking about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #36
    But I didn't say shut down the debate.

  7. #37
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    No you just want to prevent people talking about the importance of seeing faces because someone is dressed like a bank robber.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #38
    No I don't.

  9. #39
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    So you don't object to the term bank robber?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #40
    I do object to it when it comes from an MP, yes. Haven't we been through this?

    My position is very clear, unlike yours. I want the debate to continue; but I want it to be done with decency and for us to be lead by example. I don't want it to be conducted around senseless name calling, else, as I've explained, if we tolerate it now it can lead to significant problems e.g. Bannonites, division, hatred and taking us further away from positive change actually happening.

    I believe you think it's acceptable. I don't. Simple.

  11. #41
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Or the French, Danes, Belgians.

    It's not the Bannonites that have banned this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #42
    And once again that point is completely irrelevant to discussion we're having, because we're talking about the manner in which a debate is conducted by a British MP, not the debate itself.

    Do you understand the difference?

    Your only counters to my position have been that it's OK for an MP to name call and make fun of people unless there is a compelling reason not to, which is perhaps the most subjective and waffly thing I've ever heard you say.

  13. #43
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    No I'm saying he was making a serious point on a difficult topic that has led to bans in many neighbours and not just name calling.

    People dressing like bank robbers so you can't see their face is no laughing matter. I'm not laughing about it are you?

    Hiding your entire face away and then someone commenting on it is not as you put it a matter of simply "aesthetics". You belittle and demean the entire conversation by dismissing it as being about aesthetics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #44
    I think we're going round in circles. Let's move on.

  15. #45
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #46
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,984
    It's pretty simple to me.

    An MP should be able to opine on a serious point without childish name-calling. On which I completely agree.

    Boris failed to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  17. #47
    Yeah....it's not that simple. There's apparently no compelling reason not to name-call, so it's all fair game.

  18. #48
    It's no coincidence that Boris wrote this article, and used the language he did, following his recent meetings with Steve Bannon.

    Of all the things to talk about at the moment. Of all the priorities.

    He's carving a way to be our next PM adopting a similar strategy as Trump.

  19. #49
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Nah Trump would have called for it to be banned not accepted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #50
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,755
    Quote Originally Posted by gogobongopop View Post
    It's no coincidence that Boris wrote this article, and used the language he did, following his recent meetings with Steve Bannon.

    Of all the things to talk about at the moment. Of all the priorities.

    He's carving a way to be our next PM adopting a similar strategy as Trump.
    "Piccaninnies" was not a starting point, it was just a sign indicating direction. But you're right, it's no coincidence; bannon knows all about how to slowly change public discourse by inching the Overton Window rightward one small step at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Nah Trump would have called for it to be banned not accepted.
    If so, it's only because American conservatives have paved the way over the course of several decades. Trump gets away with overt racism because the US is further down the road from the UK on its path towards tolerance for racism.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Nah Trump would have called for it to be banned not accepted.
    Are you comfortable with Boris John meeting with Steve Bannon in private?

    EDIT: Whoops, ignore. I just saw on the previous page how you've lost all respect for Boris as a result.

  22. #52
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    "Piccaninnies" was not a starting point, it was just a sign indicating direction. But you're right, it's no coincidence; bannon knows all about how to slowly change public discourse by inching the Overton Window rightward one small step at a time.



    If so, it's only because American conservatives have paved the way over the course of several decades. Trump gets away with overt racism because the US is further down the road from the UK on its path towards tolerance for racism.
    Are you saying Denmark, France, Belgium and other states that have banned the burqa did so because of US Bannon influence?

    If you wanted to ban the burqa you would simply say so and say we should copy Denmark, France etc none of which are authoritarian states. You're seeing an overly convoluted conspiracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #53
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Quote Originally Posted by gogobongopop View Post
    Are you comfortable with Boris John meeting with Steve Bannon in private?

    EDIT: Whoops, ignore. I just saw on the previous page how you've lost all respect for Boris as a result.
    Indeed I am absolutely not. The man is scum and anyone who meets with him now is beyond a fool.

    Anyone who met with him years ago I could excuse, it wasn't clear years ago how utterly repugnant he truly is. It is now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Indeed I am absolutely not. The man is scum and anyone who meets with him now is beyond a fool.

    Anyone who met with him years ago I could excuse, it wasn't clear years ago how utterly repugnant he truly is. It is now.
    But in this instance, Boris isn't scum, or beyond a fool - just a "tad wry". Is my understanding correct?

  25. #55
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Yes. This has nothing to do with Bannon. He's talking about Denmark not America, he is disagreeing with Bannon and his ilk (who want it banned) and his language style is consistent with how it's always been. Do you disagree?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #56
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,755
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Are you saying Denmark, France, Belgium and other states that have banned the burqa did so because of US Bannon influence?

    If you wanted to ban the burqa you would simply say so and say we should copy Denmark, France etc none of which are authoritarian states. You're seeing an overly convoluted conspiracy.
    You're construing something from my post that simply isn't there.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #57
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    What is there then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Yes. This has nothing to do with Bannon. He's talking about Denmark not America, he is disagreeing with Bannon and his ilk (who want it banned) and his language style is consistent with how it's always been. Do you disagree?
    I agree that he doesn't appear to be calling for a total ban.

    I disagree that it has nothing to do with Bannon.

  29. #59
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  30. #60
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,796
    People like Guido Fawkes have been digging up plenty of interesting and colourful ways that the burqa has been described as before.

    In 2013 Ken Clarke described it as inappropriate for the court room and people dressed wearing it as "like a bag". Anna Soubry backed him up over those comments, calling it a peculiar concept.
    https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/s...uliar-concept/

    Emily Thornberry said it was inappropriate for court and that she wouldn't let someone in a burqa treat her child or her mother. https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/t...fter-my-child/

    Boris's successor as Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, before he was Mayor called it insidious. https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/c...is-oppressive/

    It goes on and on. Honestly the burqa is a an oppressive garment I've opposed here for years, it's completely sexist you never see a man wearing it funnily enough. The people attacking Boris now are doing so more because Boris is Boris and because of his role in the Referendum campaign than because of what he's said that is very similar to what Ken Clarke, Sadiq Khan and others have said in the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •