Riots in Tottenham

[Retlaw83]

Has nothing to do with political correctness. Either you never pay attention to anything I do, or you don't know what political correctness means. It's wrong to judge people based on things they can't control, like race, while it's acceptable to judge people on negative personality traits, like being a racist. No one chooses to be black or white, but several morons of all sorts of ethnicities do choose to be racist assholes.

[rad resistance]

Speaking of trolling bitches. In the upcoming week i'm gonna troll the shit out of this local christian concert that is held every year up the road from my place called Purple Door at my local ski mountain.

[Stalagmite]

Has nothing to do with political correctness. Either you never pay attention to anything I do, or you don't know what political correctness means. It's wrong to judge people based on things they can't control, like race, while it's acceptable to judge people on negative personality traits, like being a racist. No one chooses to be black or white, but several morons of all sorts of ethnicities do choose to be racist assholes.

If someone feels uncomfortable around other races, it's not really their choice, just some people get that vibe, and their isn't much they can do about it. The sooner people lighten up about racial slurs, the better off things will be. Just put a smile on your face and take it with pride.

Take my nation for example, the glorious Australian empire of doom, many politically correct people come here (mainly Americans) and they get downright offended because they are not used to the cutting, unsmiling remarks that are very common amongst the citizens. This is why I love my country, because we are honest, forthright and we give 2 shits about what people think of us. If you don't like it, well, you can go live in your fluffy paradise and be happy elsewhere. Good day to you.

[munoz]

Why aren't we getting live updates from Megs? And where is John Matrix?

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16045049

GUNS should be illegal because It will just cause trouble.


______________________
A man with a briefcase can steal millions more than any man with a best stun gun.

[Mismatch]

Why aren't we getting live updates from Megs? And where is John Matrix?

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16045049

GUNS should be illegal because It will just cause trouble.

So... Guns being illegal cause trouble and thus they should outlawed. Brilliant.

[Tofu Man]

It's better to be truthful and hated than to lie and be loved, bros.

I hope you're not implying (I mean I've no clue if you are, this isn't easy to tell when we're not speaking face to face) that I would at any point suggest or endorse "selective reporting", or in layman's terms, lying, from the part of news agencies. I wouldn't. To further my stand on the matter, hark back to the wikileaks fiasco. I'm positive you heard from at least one member of the general public (as in not politically affiliated) that wikileaks was doing them a disservice; that they themselves thought there should be certain matters that are not for public ear; that they would not only condone but support government using top secrecy to act illicitly for god knows whose interests. Me, I had the exact opposite response. If the gov deserves to get fucked, fuck 'em.

And what about social exclusion or the alienation of some socioeconomic groups (...)

To be fair, it's an incredibly difficult topic to talk about without offending people (...)

First off I'll be clear in saying that (not being a londoner or even in England) I'm probably not the best person to be telling you this, however, it seems highly possible your skin colour figures may be off, if only for the fact that London is probably the world's most varied racial and cultural melting pot bar none (even NYC) and that many of whom you're calling black may, in fact be indian/pakistani, north african arab, south american, or fuck, even Samoan or Indonesian.

Second, absolutely in agreement that a debate over the hows and whys of what comprises the lower class/poorest quadrant of english society and their needs and condition as well their different relationships with government/authority by culture/religion is necessary, but then it always has been. "Minorities" didn't suddenly materialise into lower class in time for the riots, they've been there for a while now. Bringing that up now, especially if you, like me, don't consider that skin pigmentation (as opposed to educational/wealth levels) implies violent behaviour, would only really provide an excuse to the angry racist vox pop to sound justified when they call in and complain about "those bloody nigs messing up my lawn". Were they loud enough, I guess you and I both know it would garner an "appropriate" response by the targeted party. "Appropriate", as in worse, since we're talking about people in these socioeconomic conditions. Also, you're really just letting them know that society in general only actually pays attention to them when some of them start to stir shit up.

Third, there are plent of lower class whites who're in the riots. Were you to make the same claim about the LA riots, then yes, I would concede, but I'm betting there was a much bigger percentage of blacks over other colour rioters, and that most action was taken specifically against whites, unlike what's happening in England. Now I may, in fact, be completely wrong about the LA riots, but that that's my (honest) view of what happened should tell you how dangerous it is for the media to try and cram a racial issue to where it doesn't belong. Trying to forcibly keep one from where it does, however equally dangerous, is not what I think is happening here.

This part I don't understand at all. Where does Al-Qaeda come in?

I used Al-Qaeda as a hyperbole in creating what I thought would be the justification for the riots that would create the biggest clusterfuck, if they were truth; essentially just to ask you that if you were, say, a news editor, and had info that that was the case and you weren't totally sure of its veracity, would you ok a sensationalistic headline like "Al-Qaeda behind London riots" or something to that effect?

From what I understand, the most vehement defenders of multicult (...)

That I can agree with. Springs to mind the hypersensitive, pseudo-lib bleeding heart that thinks that he owes the world and the "races" he views as underprivileged an apology and bends over backwards in acceptance of their own racist behaviour, all the while not realising how big a fucking hypocritical racist he's being himself. Why the fuck should anyone apologize for anything that's beyond their power?


Are you actually racist? Just curious.

[Tofu Man]

Also, a word of hope to our dackers in Manchester. They're really taking the brunt of these riots.

[Mad Max RW]

No one whines quite like racists when confronted with evidence that shatters their world view. They take it even worse than religious zealots.

Your only argument is to call someone a racist. Go run out and vote for Obama again and continue living a sheltered life.

I even gave evidence what's going on started as race related. Similar race related bullshit is going on all over the US. Hell, the mayor of Philadelphia, a BLACK GUY, went on a 30 minute rant about how blacks in his community are ruining their race by acting like animals. Are you going to label him racist, too?

[MapMan]

Y'all bunch of nannystate apologists who bury their sand in the heads.

[Retlaw83]

Your only argument is to call someone a racist. Go run out and vote for Obama again and continue living a sheltered life.

I didn't vote for Obama because I don't agree with his politics. Keep on reinforcing my point, it's cute.

I even gave evidence what's going on started as race related.

And several smarter people than you pointed out that this the primary motivator is poverty and social imbalance, which tends to be skewed towards blacks in Britain. Similar things happened in Zimbabwe a few years back with whites being the oppressed.

Hell, the mayor of Philadelphia, a BLACK GUY, went on a 30 minute rant about how blacks in his community are ruining their race by acting like animals. Are you going to label him racist, too?

He's a realist for pointing out a bad element. While you may not have intended to sound like a stormfront.org poster in your earlier posts, you came off like one. It's not my fault you cannot clearly and effectively communicate your point.

[Retlaw83]

If someone feels uncomfortable around other races, it's not really their choice, just some people get that vibe, and their isn't much they can do about it.

A common cure for not being ignorant is to stop being a fucking idiot. That cutting and unsmiling enough for you?

The sooner people lighten up about racial slurs, the better off things will be. Just put a smile on your face and take it with pride.

I'm pretty lightened up about racial slurs as jokes. The moment they start being used seriously, there's a problem.

There are several legitimate reasons to hate someone. A physical trait they have absolutely no control over isn't one of them.

[Tofu Man]

Similar things happened in Zimbabwe a few years back with whites being the oppressed.

I've no idea of how much you know about what happened in Zimbabwe but I will tell you, though, I think you're making a terrible comparison as well as bringing up an example where what he claims actually holds some water.

[Mad Max RW]

I didn't vote for Obama

Why do you hate black people?

[SenisterDenister]

This debate might be spiraling out of control but here's my two cents: the majority of the rioters may be black, but that's because they make up the majority of the poor and thus are pissed off about their current socioeconomic status in England. Are they mad because they're black and being oppressed? Perhaps. More likely, however, they're pissed because they're not getting the respect and representation they deserve because they're poor and black. There's a stigma dealing with race and by not addressing it at all only exacerbates the problem. Race isn't a problem until it becomes one, and clearly its become one. It needs to be addressed and so do the conditions they're currently living in so things can start getting fixed.

[Mismatch]

The thing you'd want to remember tho' is that noone is forcing them to be poor, up until recently higher education was quite free (I think) in England, and even now the fees aren't very high.
These people are poor because they couldn't be arsed to carve themself a future, and now they can't be arsed to do the best of their situation. So they steal and rob and blame society. They're bloody leeches and there are no excuses for their behaviour.

[SenisterDenister]

Right, but that's not because they're another ethnicity, its because they're living in the ghettos and slums of England.

[St. Toxic]

It's better to be truthful and hated than to lie and be loved, bros.

I hope you're not implying that I would at any point suggest or endorse "selective reporting", or in layman's terms, lying, from the part of news agencies. I wouldn't.

Then it would seem to me, at least judging by your post before this one, that you are taking up two contrary stances simultaneously.

It's fine for Max or you or me to do it, no one gives a fuck, but it'd be stupidly confrontational for public service news to do it, and even private owned news companies, I wager, wouldn't do it without being completely railed by every intellectual/opinion maker who has a blog or writes a column, especially in the year before the olympics and especiallyespecially when "mr" Breivik's marks haven't even gone cold.

As per my previous response, I agree that in a practical sense it's not a debate one would want to venture into, especially when mindful of profits and losses, general reputation etc. There are two possibilities when opening a Pandora's box of this size -- either others will join in the venture, or rather decide to isolate the "culprit" and continue to play it safe and this is a very real possibility.

But one cannot play it safe and be honest at the same time. Honesty will not make you rich, it will not solidify your reputation, it is simply not a good principle for business or politics, and in excusing the timid behavior of the press and the British government using the obvious possible consequences of taking this bull head on, you are in effect excusing the use of dishonesty in favor of "business as usual".

Now this is all entirely my private opinion, but I think there is a very real loss to society to ignore obvious problems in favor of temporary stability for it is not a solution to the problem in any way; it's like mending rust on a car with a new coat of paint year after year, you know it will fall apart eventually and when it does you might be doing 100 on a freeway, if you can understand the analogy. By addressing racial issues as they crop up the initial cost is higher, granted, you will shock some people and you will be criticized and there is little here to enjoy, much like taking that car to the shop only to get hit with the bill -- it'll sting. But once you're back on the road after the initial shock, you have the security of knowing that you've got the car mended proper; you're safe behind the wheel. That security is worth something.

First off I'll be clear in saying that (not being a londoner or even in England) I'm probably not the best person to be telling you this, however, it seems highly possible your skin colour figures may be off, if only for the fact that London is probably the world's most varied racial and cultural melting pot bar none (even NYC) and that many of whom you're calling black may, in fact be indian/pakistani, north african arab, south american, or fuck, even Samoan or Indonesian.

From my own personal experience of London I can only agree with you. But I also don't see the argument you're trying to make, as we're likely dealing with a broadening group mentality. For instance, countries often have regional prejudices, west v.s east, south v.s north etc., with even neighboring areas entertaining rivalries and prejudices against one another. But imagine the country, and I know that this has happened although rarely, that gets invaded by another country and the citizens refusing to defend themselves alongside their regional neighbors.

My basic point is that if the British police forces, the British government and the more prosperous of the British citizens are labeled as the enemy, any ethnic group that agrees with that notion and is willing to entertain this idea will join in the fray and establish a bond with groups that are otherwise considered foreign, so long as their hatred for the common enemy is greater than the dislike they have of each other.

Second, "Minorities" didn't suddenly materialise into lower class in time for the riots, they've been there for a while now. Bringing that up now would only really provide an excuse to the angry racist vox pop to sound justified. Also, you're really just letting them know that society in general only actually pays attention to them when some of them start to stir shit up.

But is the opposite, that is the current way of handling the situation, a viable alternative? Pretending as if the problem doesn't exist, while perhaps a typically British way of behaving, is not going to make it go away, it'll only make the situation get worse over time. And are you proposing that they wait for the situation to die down and be forgotten, and then out of nowhere spark a racially loaded debate? Wouldn't that be an even worse form of provocation?

Third, there are plenty of lower class whites who're in the riots. Were you to make the same claim about the LA riots, then yes, I would concede, but I'm betting there was a much bigger percentage of blacks over other colour rioters, and that most action was taken specifically against whites, unlike what's happening in England.

Going by private coverage of the event, and not as much people's personal opinions on it but rather photo-documentation, I would have to disagree. Yes, there is a level of white-trash participation in the riots, but they're in a clear minority. There are also numerous reports of looters getting ganged on their way back, and so far all the cases that I've come across have been of white looters getting robbed.

With the majority of the looters clearly being colored, I would find it logical, though I cannot say this for an absolute fact, that the people involved are not looting just outside their own residences or businesses and that it is thus much more likely that the people adversely affected by the looting are white. But I'm not going to press the issue on this point; any lawful citizen may find him or herself oppressed by criminal behavior independent of their ethnic background, and while I find it a distinct possibility that a group of pillaging skinheads are far more likely to pick targets that look foreign and that the opposite is true for criminals with a foreign background, I could hardly claim to have based this on any objective data -- it is simply the understanding one is imbued with.

If you were, say, a news editor, and had info that that was the case and you weren't totally sure of its veracity, would you ok a sensationalistic headline like "Al-Qaeda behind London riots" or something to that effect?

I guess. Al-Qaeda is more or less a made up "organization" anyway, and even that aside there's hardly any real problem in blaming a self-professed terrorist group for any number of terrorist acts. Back when terrorism was a hot topic, that is before people grew tired of it, all kinds of shit was pinned on Al-Qaeda, half of it probably made up on the spot, and the best part of it was that it was completely safe.

Osama was simply not all that likely to publicly complain about deeds mis-attributed to his person or take the papers to court over erroneous accusations, and if Al-Qaeda by some chance was ever cleared of their guilt in regards to some event or other, you would hardly save any face by apologizing -- in fact quite the opposite.

If what you wanted was a further statement of my principles, the answer is different. I wouldn't run with a story that was potentially untrue and that might hurt people, i.e unfounded rumors and the like. Anything that might stir up a violent debate would have to be thoroughly researched and handled in a spirit of professionalism. But I would not let myself be motivated by fears of prosecution or isolation, private political opinion or greed, or at least try my utmost to maintain objectivity. As a private individual it is obviously much easier to take the moral high-ground.

Are you actually racist? Just curious.

Depends on your definition of racist. Is race a defining characteristic in humans? Yes it is. Does skin color matter? No it doesn't. Is there a master race? No there isn't. Do different races have different strengths and weaknesses? Yes they do.

[Retlaw83]

Why do you hate black people?

I don't. Unlike you I can dislike an individual and not give a shit about their skin color in the process. Of course, if you had half a brain, you know following up with that wouldn't get much of a reaction, so I guess a more apt question is why are you a fucking moron?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bal ... 07901.html also, it looks like a large element of this, after it did start with underclass revolt, was fueled by affluent young people being idiots.

[Mad Max RW]

But you didn't vote for him? Surely the primary reason you dislike Obama is the color of his skin. That's what MSNBC, CNN, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews, the NAACP, SEIU, the entire city of Chicago, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The New York Times, Keith Olbermann, NPR, Maxine Waters, Van Jones and so many more keep telling us every single day. Are you saying they're lying? If that's a lie then what else could be? Could it all be a lie? What's real? Oh my god the whole world I created is falling apart around me. I can't take it. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooOoOOOOOoOOOOOOOO!!!1!11!

Eh, labeling you as racist is an easier pill to swallow.

[Retlaw83]

But you didn't vote for him? Surely the primary reason you dislike Obama is the color of his skin. That's what MSNBC, CNN, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews, the NAACP, SEIU, the entire city of Chicago, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The New York Times, Keith Olbermann, NPR, Maxine Waters, Van Jones and so many more keep telling us every single day. Are you saying they're lying?

Most of those people you mentioned, and some organizations, I don't agree with, so yes, they are lying. This is the answer you get when you try and play politics with a moderate.

Eh, labeling you as racist is an easier pill to swallow.

Since you're delusional, I can imagine that such a thing is easy for you.

I lived in South Africa for almost a decade near the close of Apartheid. If that didn't make me racist nothing will.