Jmack Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I'm not offended by it, but it could be offensive to some. If you read my post I was saying that she put it to offend because she was taking it personal that people were having a go at radical Muslims. "White scum" and "white trash" have been around for ages or refer to the white working class, after I read your post i can understand your point of view and get why some would be offended it's not offensive to me personally but it is a bit of umbrella term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 "White scum" and "white trash" have been around for ages or refer to the white working class, after I read your post i can understand your point of view and get why some would be offended it's not offensive to me personally but it is a bit of umbrella term. Like I said I don't take offense, some of my best friends are white scum. A very good friend of mine who I was brought up with and had a bit of a bad name used to say 'there's good scum and there's bad scum'. I thought that just about summed him up because although he was a bit of a naughty bloke he would do anything for anyone and would be the first to step in if he saw someone getting a beating if he knew them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotar Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I have seen the term our own white scum used on this forum before, why is a big issue being made of it now when plain talker has used it? As I read it Plain talker didn't use it in a racist context. However. if it was used the other way round there would be uproar.. ? doesnt offend me, unless its used in my face.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 That's like saying "look at the Philpott case where those low-lives burnt six of their kids to death. That's what you get when you shrug at white scum..." I beg to differ. Whilst I totally defend your right to recourse regarding hurtful generalisations on this thread, the words you chose to do that are not worthy of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 ---------- Post added 02-02-2014 at 16:02 ---------- [/color] What about Jewish Beth din courts or don't they bother the sharia law moaners? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm I doubt a referendum would allow these to achieve official recognition either. However you've touched upon something deeper and you already know the answer to your question. In short Jews are either popular or seen as integrated because the majority speak, dress and act in the typical British style. There are religious Jews who don't but neither strand seeks to promote or convert anyone to their religion. Quite the opposite. This means even the most religious Jewish person is in sync with a deep principle of British culture eg religion is a private thing. This is where the saying "never discuss politics or religion" comes from. Jews are never seen on street corners with trestle tables annoying people or threatening people with slogans like "Judaism, the future for mankind" etc. The majority of the UK don't demand sublimation but they do demand integration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 However. if it was used the other way round there would be uproar.. ? doesnt offend me, unless its used in my face.. ..however it does seem to have caused uproar in people who are unable to appreciate the qualities of an analogy which was the context the reference was used in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 ..however it does seem to have caused uproar in people who are unable to appreciate the qualities of an analogy which was the context the reference was used in. I wasn't offended by it but I find it eye rollingly weary how such language is defended in the context of an analogy. If people made analogies about black people in the riots or Muslim people shouting at troops would you be alright with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 ..however it does seem to have caused uproar in people who are unable to appreciate the qualities of an analogy which was the context the reference was used in. It wasn't a particularly good analogy even without the term resorted to, to be fair. And of course, it was designed to rattle cages, but (disappointingly for some, I'm sure) I wouldn't say it has caused 'uproar'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 It wasn't a particularly good analogy even without the term resorted to, to be fair. And of course, it was designed to rattle cages, but (disappointingly for some, I'm sure) I wouldn't say it has caused 'uproar'. It depends how you'd describe an 'uproar', it certainly seems to have 'rattled the cages' of some posters who claim to not being offended by the reference, yet are sufficiently motivated to challenge the post. For the benefit of the feeble minded, let's keep it very simple. The poster created an analogy (phrased in quotation marks), to challenge the stereotypical view of communities based on the behaviour of members of it. Philpott is white, he's also a mass murderer. He appears to have been a beneficiary of the welfare culture..however very few white people on benefits murder their children. Since the vast majority of posters here are white the analogy would have lacked the same degree of resonance if she had said 'black scum' or 'Asian scum', although we all know there are plenty of scum in those communities as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 ---------- Post added 02-02-2014 at 16:02 ---------- [/color] What about Jewish Beth din courts or don't they bother the sharia law moaners? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm The difference is that Judaism hasn't consumed entire countries with intolerant madness... the same cannot be said for Islam. The track record of the two religions is very different. Then there is scale. According to the last census there are 263k Jews in the UK, which is a rise of less than 4,000 in the last decade. On the other hand, there are 2.7m Muslims, which is an increase of 1.2m over 10 years due to mass imigration (53% of Muslims in the UK were born abroad). Low risk and low volume means Judaism poses no risk to the stability of this country. High risk and high (and growing) volume means Islam poses a serious risk to this country. That is why Islam is singled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.