Golliwogs Causing Controversy.

[Al Bundy]

10 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I think he was was embarrassed when reporters dug it up and presented it to him.

Is he personally sanctimonious, or does that go with the territory of being a lefty?

Definitely the territory.

 

😉

[trastrick]

Just now, Mister M said:

Sure it's a kid's toy, but it's what it represents, and the intent behind it.

Since this story erupted, and when I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them, then it's obvious how it impacts on many people. Why set out to be deliberately offensive? 

Sure Ms. "Clitty RubQuick".

 

God forbid anyone should deliberately go out of their way to be "offensive". 

 

[Mister M]

9 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Definitely the territory.

 

😉

Oh that's alright then.

I mean I'd hate to think the cognitive dissonance experienced by Tories, when they agree with their leaders about how those with little money should live within their means, but find out how lax they have been with tax payers money.

8 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Sure Ms. "Clitty RubQuick".

 

God forbid anyone should deliberately go out of their way to be "offensive". 

 

Okay point taken.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Mister M

[trastrick]

Just now, Al Bundy said:

Definitely the territory.

 

😉

According to the Left, the "black folk" (*note the one size fits all  stereotypical label) are incapable of functioning in Western Society, without massive interventions, and "special" considerations, from mostly white elite governments.

 

The ultimate racist discrimination of low expectations.

[Mister M]

6 minutes ago, trastrick said:

According to the Left, the "black folk" (*note the one size fits all  stereotypical label) are incapable of functioning in Western Society, without massive interventions, and "special" considerations, from mostly white elite governments.

 

The ultimate racist discrimination of low expectations.

Very interesting. Give us more information and examples....

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

Sure it's a kid's toy, but it's what it represents, and the intent behind it.

Since this story erupted, and when I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them, then it's obvious how it impacts on many people. Why set out to be deliberately offensive? 

That's the long and short of it.

 

>>I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them<<

 

1 - Nobody has a right not to be upset (with the possible exception of kids at school, and then only so far)

 

2 - You can always get somebody to say almost anything on a "voxpop", they mean nothing. I can remember when they introduced the mask edict in July 2020 and the BBC had a load of people on their "voxpops" saying they didn't mind it and though the edict was  a good idea. They did not have anyone on saying they hated masks and didn't want to wear one, which is what most people (certainly many people) actually thought.

 

[Mister M]

8 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That's the long and short of it.

 

>>I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them<<

 

1 - Nobody has a right not to be upset (with the possible exception of kids at school, and then only so far)

 

2 - You can always get somebody to say almost anything on a "voxpop", they mean nothing. I can remember when they introduced the mask edict in July 2020 and the BBC had a load of people on their "voxpops" saying they didn't mind it and though the edict was  a good idea. They did not have anyone on saying they hated masks and didn't want to wear one, which is what most people (certainly many people) actually thought.

 

You keep repeating this mantra "Nobody has a right not to be upset", as if that's a justification for people being gratuitously objectionable. 

If I was talking about a random vox pop that might be one thing, but from the radio phone in I was listening to, and a subsequent TV show, there was a consensus of opinion that these dolls, and what they represent in the modern context are abhorrent.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Mister M

[trastrick]

3 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Very interesting. Give us more information and examples....

I live in a racially harmonious society, mostly black, yet who's population includes  every skin color under the sun.

 

The government makes no policies or distinctions based on skin color.

 

If Western governments stopped using skin color as a defining characteristic of the civilian population in public policy, or for that matter, ones gender, or sexual orientation, societal stereotypes would  cease to have Official  Standing.

 

One citizen, one vote, equal rights, for all!

 

Then they could address the economic needs of the truly poor wherever they exist.

 

But they must be the first to set the example of color blindness! No more political courting (bribing) of the "black" vote, the "white" vote, the "LGBT" vote

 

Until then, you'll have systemic racism, Officially endorsed!

Edited April 19, 2023 by trastrick

[harvey19]

1 minute ago, trastrick said:

I live in a racially harmonious society which has a population of every skin color on Earth.

 

The government makes no policies or distinctions based on skin color.

 

If Western governments stopped using skin color as a defining characteristic of the civilian population in public policy, or for that matter, ones gender, or sexual orientation, societal stereotypes would  cease to have Official  Standing.

 

One citizen, one vote, equal rights, for all!

 

Then they could address the economic needs of the truly poor wherever they exist.

 

But they must be the first to set the example of color blindness! No more political courting (bribing) of the "black" vote, the "white" vote, the "LGBT" vote

 

Until then, you'll have systemic racism, Officially endorsed!

Good points.

 

[Mister M]

14 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I live in a racially harmonious society which has a population of every skin color on Earth.

 

The government makes no policies or distinctions based on skin color.

 

If Western governments stopped using skin color as a defining characteristic of the civilian population in public policy, or for that matter, ones gender, or sexual orientation, societal stereotypes would  cease to have Official  Standing.

 

One citizen, one vote, equal rights, for all!

 

Then they could address the economic needs of the truly poor wherever they exist.

 

But they must be the first to set the example of color blindness! No more political courting (bribing) of the "black" vote, the "white" vote, the "LGBT" vote

 

Until then, you'll have systemic racism, Officially endorsed!

So you're saying that if UK governments didn't have things like the Race Discrimination Act, Equality Act, Equal Pay Act etc, then discrimination, bigotry etc wouldn't exist. Is that it?

 

Are you still there trastick?

Edited April 19, 2023 by Mister M