OK, bit of a shitstorm yesterday because of my blog and use of a racial derogatory comment to describe a terrorist. It was unnecessary and offensive to use, but, to be honest, I quite enjoyed the arguments that followed. So I wasn't all bad.
Now, one of these arguments was that it was irresponsible to use due to the recent protests by far-right groups in Britain, and clashes with local Muslims and members of Unite Against Fascism. The fine gentleman in question even provided me with a link to the BBC website about one such protest in London (I wish I could do the same, but I'm a bit of a cretin when it comes to computery stuff). I read it, and then read it again, and then had a think about it. And the one thing I came away thinking, was that it wasn't the right wing protesters that were the problem, it was the people who were protesting them that were.
OK, bit of a strange statement, but look at it this was. The article stated that about a 1000 people turned up for the demonstration. Read that again. 1000 people. Now, I've gone to the organisers site, the English Defence League, and it's pretty nicely laid out, and they have ties to the BNP, our local far right party, but with all that backing and advertising they must have been doing, they can still only manage 1000 people. To put that into a bit of context, London has a population of 7556900, and on average 82192 people visit it every day. So, 1000 people is just 0.013% of the average people in London on that day. Yeah, not even 1%. 1000 people in London isn't a protest, it's a school outing. For God's sake, they could only manage a protest of 200 people in Birmingham. I've gone on nights out in Birmingham with more than 200 people.
The point is, you don't have to worry about them. They might have loathsome ideas, but you can't ban ideas, and they do have a right to protest. But even if they do it...what do you think they can realistic achieve? If the protest in London had gone without a hitch, they would have done their march...and then? Gone home, feeling a deflated that no-one paid them any attention. Now though, they are saying that their peaceful protest was spoiled by Islamic Fundamentalists and people who hate free speech. They got the attention and result they were hoping for. And more worthwhile problems are being left unaddressed while we argue with these emasculated fucktards.
Now, one of these arguments was that it was irresponsible to use due to the recent protests by far-right groups in Britain, and clashes with local Muslims and members of Unite Against Fascism. The fine gentleman in question even provided me with a link to the BBC website about one such protest in London (I wish I could do the same, but I'm a bit of a cretin when it comes to computery stuff). I read it, and then read it again, and then had a think about it. And the one thing I came away thinking, was that it wasn't the right wing protesters that were the problem, it was the people who were protesting them that were.
OK, bit of a strange statement, but look at it this was. The article stated that about a 1000 people turned up for the demonstration. Read that again. 1000 people. Now, I've gone to the organisers site, the English Defence League, and it's pretty nicely laid out, and they have ties to the BNP, our local far right party, but with all that backing and advertising they must have been doing, they can still only manage 1000 people. To put that into a bit of context, London has a population of 7556900, and on average 82192 people visit it every day. So, 1000 people is just 0.013% of the average people in London on that day. Yeah, not even 1%. 1000 people in London isn't a protest, it's a school outing. For God's sake, they could only manage a protest of 200 people in Birmingham. I've gone on nights out in Birmingham with more than 200 people.
The point is, you don't have to worry about them. They might have loathsome ideas, but you can't ban ideas, and they do have a right to protest. But even if they do it...what do you think they can realistic achieve? If the protest in London had gone without a hitch, they would have done their march...and then? Gone home, feeling a deflated that no-one paid them any attention. Now though, they are saying that their peaceful protest was spoiled by Islamic Fundamentalists and people who hate free speech. They got the attention and result they were hoping for. And more worthwhile problems are being left unaddressed while we argue with these emasculated fucktards.
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
You can't admit you were wrong and defend your actions to the hilt at the same time. Just come clean and move on.
Advice: Words to avoid in future posts if someone annoys you - Paki, Kyke, Nigger, Coon, Chink. No amount of faux post-textual analysis is going to save you from the zot if you try this shit with those, I reckon.
W-what the fuck? YES. YES, for Jesus Christ's sake! PAKI is not a descriptive term! CORNER SHOP is a descriptive term. Are you out there saying paki shop and thinking it's descriptive? Stop it!
"OK, you may have a point. But interestingly, an acquaintance in work once said something similar to me, and he was noticeable a man of colour. Would you say he was a racist? What about Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle?"
You are unreal. This is barely even a paragraph. Are you asking me if I think Chris Rock hates black people because he uses the N word? Is that what you're asking me?
"Squire, if all you can say at this point is I'm confused, then it might be the point to respectfully agree to disagree. Your opinion is not going to change my mind on anything. I need facts or a better argument than you're providing"
...All I can say? I think I gave you a lot more than that. Most of what I said wasn't even opinion, just a frank explanation of exactly why what you said is unacceptable and how false the equivalents you were trying to draw to distract from it were.
You've admitted how stupid a thing it was to say, but continue making all of the noises of someone with an argument to defend. But it's all completely hollow because you apparently have no point to make, just some really weird shit to say.
" I'd already added a note saying that what I said was racist and a cheap shot, and denouncing racism as ignorant and lazy, I have to question why you still felt the need to call me out on it. Just as a further note, I'd also apologised to someone who said they were offended by it. So, exactly what do you hope to achieve at this point? "
For you to SUCK IT UP, BE A MAN AND DO IT PROPERLY. You're saying you've apologized, but what's the point if you're still arguing with me and trying legitimize what you said? You're telling me you've accepted what you said was wrong and then trying to explain why it was right!
You obviously don't get why what you said was offensive or why people reacted the way they did, because you're still flailing around to defend it, so why bother with the false humility?
"Yeah yeah, it was unnecessary and offensive. I shouldn't have used the term."
And then "Your opinion wont change anything, I need facts"
What facts? What kind of facts? What facts do you need? I'm genuinely curious to know what you were getting at here. You want some kind of empirical data that proves mathematically how it makes sense that that kind of language will get you in trouble? You want a pie chart?
Doesn't that conflict slighly with your grudge against the word 'cunt'?
Fucking mindblowing. How long are you going to keep digging? Just. Say. Sorry. And. Move. On.
Christ. All this time messaging you about this. I'll never get these minutes back.