Johnny - I don't think that's really a surprise that I would disagree with what Morrissey's saying

 

[bhops]

The identity I am talking about is Muslim. Their MO is all over this incident.

But perhaps there is more to the story. An Asian DJ on a talk radio station in London recently said he was racially attacked in London. Initially he saod he was standing on the street in Soho on his phone when a white man punched him in the face, called him a P*ki and walked away. When the full story came out months later it turned out that the DJ intervened in a disturbance at the front of a restaurant. He started filming a man who was robustly arguing. The man warned him to stop and a row ensued. Then the man attacked him and called him a P*ki. That's a slightly different story to someone simply walking up to you for no reason other than to racially attack you. Why? Because they might have been trading insults at each other.

Now take the incident with lesbians on the bus. Maybe they heard the gang say a few things they didn't like and stated the row themselves. Drink was consumed. They've even said they can't remember certain things. Until it comes to court will not know the details. But one thing I can assure you: if the gang was white these militant identitarians (fact) would have mentioned this and spun and milked it all the way (the homophobic white patriarchy etc.) The fact they haven't mentioned the race of the attackers speaks for itself.

OK, well I have to remain consistent here and until we know for sure I'm uncomfortable saying that it was a Muslim gang. I actually assumed the news had broken that it was. As I say my primary interest is the double standards of how the media treat these things that made me curious to know if the info on said gang had been released.

Is the DJ you were referring to Maajid Nawaz? I'd be disappointed if it turned out it was him because I actually rate him quite highly and although politically disagree with him on a lot of stuff he is one of the voices on the Left I like to listen to when I come across interviews etc on YouTube. I follow him on twitter as well. Hope its not him.

 

[The Truth]

You’re being disingenuous, which is common for the left these days unfortunately. It is common knowledge that in today’s world, when a perpetrator fits the desired narrative of (typically) white male, an appropriate description makes the headlines.

Therefore it becomes circumspect, and some would say obvious, when the usual descriptors are lacking or generic.

Look at the case of gay celebrity Jussie Smollett in Chicago. It was still very much an open investigation, well prior to being in “the hands of the judiciary.” And yet headlines abound with claims of white male Trump supporters. The insinuation and description could not have been more clear.

ALL A HOAX!

So in the world of deductive reason, these are really childish games when, on the one hand, we are so quick to know and prosecute the outcome in the public discourse prior to an investigation, yet on the other, feign such an astonishing ignorance to the potential perpetrators.​

Pretty sure that Chicago is not a suburb of London.
I know that the opportunity to talk about "gay celebrity Jussie Smollett" should never be missed but whatever he dreamed up in Chicago and the way it was reported have nothing to to with an incident in London and the way it is being reported, as far as we know.

 

[The Truth]

OK, well I have to remain consistent here and until we know for sure I'm uncomfortable saying that it was a Muslim gang. I actually assumed the news had broken that it was. As I say my primary interest is the double standards of how the media treat these things that made me curious to know if the info on said gang had been released.

Is the DJ you were referring to Maajid Nawaz? I'd be disappointed if it turned out it was him because I actually rate him quite highly and although politically disagree with him on a lot of stuff he is one of the voices on the Left I like to listen to when I come across interviews etc on YouTube. I follow him on twitter as well. Hope its not him.

Yes, you're consistently full of shit. If you assumed the news had broken that it was a Muslim gang why did you ask reelfountain instead of just checking google?
Or you could have asked that DJ you follow on twitter. He sounds like one of the good ones.
You brought the subject up because you assumed it was a Muslim gang but you're also, and at the same time, simultaneously and miraculously, "uncomfortable" assuming it is a Muslim gang.

 

[vegan cro spirit 555]

Yes, you're consistently full of shit. If you assumed the news had broken that it was a Muslim gang why did you ask reelfountain instead of just checking google?
Or you could have asked that DJ you follow on twitter. He sounds like one of the good ones.
You brought the subject up because you assumed it was a Muslim gang but you're also, and at the same time, simultaneously and miraculously, "uncomfortable" assuming it is a Muslim gang.

ASSumed???
Of course it was a gang FFS 9/10 gangs are .

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

Pretty sure that Chicago is not a suburb of London.
I know that the opportunity to talk about "gay celebrity Jussie Smollett" should never be missed but whatever he dreamed up in Chicago and the way it was reported have nothing to to with an incident in London and the way it is being reported, as far as we know.

Really? The leftist media establishment, which in most cases is owned by international corporations, has no bearing on each other in 2019, The Connected Age?

You’re marking me down as a troll but you’re the one trolling by playing dumb.

 

[The Truth]

Really? The leftist media establishment, which in most cases is owned by international corporations, has no bearing on each other in 2019, The Connected Age?

You’re marking me down as a troll but you’re the one trolling by playing dumb.

Did you see where several celebrities who were accused of sex crimes in the UK are lobbying to have the names withheld of those accused of sex crimes until they are proven guilty? That is something that wouldn't have a chance in the US.
I hope it is you who is playing dumb and don't actually think some celebrity case in Chicago is a good example to use about a case in London.
This site needs a better class of propagandists.

 

[bhops]

Yes, you're consistently full of shit. If you assumed the news had broken that it was a Muslim gang why did you ask reelfountain instead of just checking google?
Or you could have asked that DJ you follow on twitter. He sounds like one of the good ones.
You brought the subject up because you assumed it was a Muslim gang but you're also, and at the same time, simultaneously and miraculously, "uncomfortable" assuming it is a Muslim gang.

Or maybe Honey Boo Boo I posted it because I KNEW you couldn't resist. You're so goddam predictable Like a moth to a flame, which is actually pretty apt because you sound all het up. Be careful not to blow a gasket . Oh and your post from yesterday was fiyah

'How long did you spend writing this post about the time I spent writing the one you're pretending to reply to?'

You da best, you say what you mean and you mean what you say!

More kisses to you Honey Boo Boo

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

Did you see where several celebrities who were accused of sex crimes in the UK are lobbying to have the names of those accused of sex crimes until they are proven guilty? That is something that wouldn't have a chance in the US.
I hope it is you who is playing dumb and don't actually think some celebrity case in Chicago is a good example to use about a case in London.
This site needs a better class of propagandists.

Different issue. And we’re not talking about names but descriptions and motives of incidents prior to a full investigation.

I chose the Smollett example, not so people with your temperament would throw out red herrings, but due to the notoriety and viral nature of the media exposure. And the obvious fact that the media on both sides of the pond had no qualms about purporting the perpetrators’ descriptions as MAGA males, etc.

The media is not shy to decry when they think they’ve got a so-called western right winger to frame as gay bashing. But if it is possibly motivated by the religion of peace, that’s a bit more problematic. So we’ll try our best to reserve judgment or any leading facts in those cases.

Two fake MAGA hat men, as purported by The Guardian, et al... well that’s just fine!

 

[The Truth]

Or maybe Honey Boo Boo I posted it because I KNEW you couldn't resist. You're so goddam predictable Like a moth to a flame, which is actually pretty apt because you sound all het up. Be careful not to blow a gasket . Oh and your post from yesterday was fiyah

'How long did you spend writing this post about the time I spent writing the one you're pretending to reply to?'

You da best, you say what you mean and you mean what you say!

More kisses to you Honey Boo Boo

None of this has anything to do with the topic.
1) Topic of an attack on a gay person is introduced.
2) Assailant is white.
3) You bring up another attack on gay people.
4) You ask reelfountain if she knows who committed the attack.
5) Reelfountain announces that "the identities are being withheld, from which we can deduce it is a Muslim gang."
6) You say that you thought it had "come out" that it was a Muslim gang.
7) You claim you're not comfortable assuming it was a Muslim gang. (See 6. You're consistently full of shit.)
8) You announce that you follow a Muslim on twitter, in an updated version of "Some of my best friends are ____."
9) In an attempt to muddy the waters you talk about sending kisses.
When the topic is attacks on gay people? This is why I said that a person like you would be the acceptable face of racism, and apparently homophobia.

Please, if you ever do have children, don't home school them. I hate to imagine how your sister's kids have turned out, given your endorsement.

 

[bhops]

None of this has anything to do with the topic.
1) Topic of an attack on a gay person is introduced.
2) Assailant is white.
3) You bring up another attack on gay people.
4) You ask reelfountain if she knows who committed the attack.
5) Reelfountain announces that "the identities are being withheld, from which we can deduce it is a Muslim gang."
6) You say that you thought it had "come out" that it was a Muslim gang.
7) You claim you're not comfortable assuming it was a Muslim gang. (See 6. You're consistently full of shit.)
8) You announce that you follow a Muslim on twitter, in an updated version of "Some of my best friends are ____."
9) In an attempt to muddy the waters you talk about sending kisses.
When the topic is attacks on gay people? This is why I said that a person like you would be the acceptable face of racism, and apparently homophobia.

Please, if you ever do have children, don't home school them. I hate to imagine how your sister's kids have turned out, given your endorsement.

   I LOVE your sense of purpose. Buuuttttt....... I'm kinda bored already, so I gotta go (while I fetvtbe feeling you'll be on here for hours!) Stay salty and Bye! Felicia!

 

[The Truth]

Different issue. And we’re not talking about names but descriptions and motives of incidents prior to a full investigation.

I chose the Smollett example, not so people with your temperament would throw out red herrings, but due to the notoriety and viral nature of the media exposure. And the obvious fact that the media on both sides of the pond had no qualms about purporting the perpetrators’ descriptions as MAGA males, etc.

The media is not shy to decry when they think they’ve got a so-called western right winger to frame as gay bashing. But if it is possibly motivated by the religion of peace, that’s a bit more problematic. So we’ll try our best to reserve judgment or any leading facts in those cases.

Two fake MAGA hat men, as purported by The Guardian, et al... well that’s just fine!

Wait. "I chose the Smollett example, not so people with your temperament would throw out red herrings," but it is a red herring.
Sorry. You're too confused.

 

[Anonymous]

None of this has anything to do with the topic.
1) Topic of an attack on a gay person is introduced.
2) Assailant is white.
3) You bring up another attack on gay people.
4) You ask reelfountain if she knows who committed the attack.
5) Reelfountain announces that "the identities are being withheld, from which we can deduce it is a Muslim gang."
6) You say that you thought it had "come out" that it was a Muslim gang.
7) You claim you're not comfortable assuming it was a Muslim gang. (See 6. You're consistently full of shit.)
8) You announce that you follow a Muslim on twitter, in an updated version of "Some of my best friends are ____."
9) In an attempt to muddy the waters you talk about sending kisses.
When the topic is attacks on gay people? This is why I said that a person like you would be the acceptable face of racism, and apparently homophobia.

Please, if you ever do have children, don't home school them. I hate to imagine how your sister's kids have turned out, given your endorsement.

Thank you! Racist homophobes seem to have a particular aversion to facts or the truth. They can spout an incredible amount of shite though.

 

[The Truth]

   I LOVE your sense of purpose. Buuuttttt....... I'm kinda bored already, so I gotta go (while I fetvtbe feeling you'll be on here for hours!) Stay salty and Bye! Felicia!

More of what didn't work before. Send your kids to the Maori school. It may be their only hope.

 

[Anonymous]

Different issue. And we’re not talking about names but descriptions and motives of incidents prior to a full investigation.

I chose the Smollett example, not so people with your temperament would throw out red herrings, but due to the notoriety and viral nature of the media exposure. And the obvious fact that the media on both sides of the pond had no qualms about purporting the perpetrators’ descriptions as MAGA males, etc.

The media is not shy to decry when they think they’ve got a so-called western right winger to frame as gay bashing. But if it is possibly motivated by the religion of peace, that’s a bit more problematic. So we’ll try our best to reserve judgment or any leading facts in those cases.

Two fake MAGA hat men, as purported by The Guardian, et al... well that’s just fine!

Bla blah blah - raving rant nothing, blah blah blah alt-white all-white, blah blah blah conspiracy conspiracy conspi .....

 

[vegan cro spirit 555]

None of this has anything to do with the
topic.
1) Topic of an attack on a gay person is introduced.
2) Assailant is white.
3) You bring up another attack on gay people.
4) You ask reelfountain if she knows who committed the attack.
5) Reelfountain announces that "the identities are being withheld, from which we can deduce it is a Muslim gang."
6) You say that you thought it had "come out" that it was a Muslim gang.
7) You claim you're not comfortable assuming it was a Muslim gang. (See 6. You're consistently full of shit.)
8) You announce that you follow a Muslim on twitter, in an updated version of "Some of my best friends are ____."
9) In an attempt to muddy the waters you talk about sending kisses.
When the topic is attacks on gay people? This is why I said that a person like you would be the acceptable face of racism, and apparently homophobia.

Please, if you ever do have children, don't home school them. I hate to imagine how your sister's kids have turned out, given your endorsement.

WTF!!!!!

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

Wait. "I chose the Smollett example, not so people with your temperament would throw out red herrings," but it is a red herring.
Sorry. You're too confused.

So a non-response argument. The switch the words around tactic.

It’s not a red herring. It’s a salient point. The media refrained from indicating potential descriptions or sociopolitical motivations from the perpetrators of crimes like the two LGBT women on the bus experienced. It can be conveniently pinned on “hate” generically as it may apply to any politically wielded narrative.

My initial assertion was that it is conspicuous when they refrain from any kind of description or potential motive. It’s doubtful that your average westerner, even if right-wing and religious, would perpetuate the attack. It could happen of course. But not a lot of detail given there by the media. It leaves one to wonder.

Contrast to a case like Smollett, covered by the same media, including The Guardian, the pattern of restricted reporting behavior is not there. Suddenly free to declare the alleged MAGA men. All too clear. The media provides or restricts details in order to enhance their narrative. You know the narrative. It’s the rote list of things you accuse of everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

None of this has anything to do with the topic.
1) Topic of an attack on a gay person is introduced.
2) Assailant is white.

So, I didn’t know it began here as I was responding initially to what reelfountain had said. So sorry for the confusion.

We have white assailants of gays here too. Antifa just beat the shit out of one in Portland a week or so ago.

 

[Vegan Crow 666]

WTF!!!!!

 

[The Truth]

So, I didn’t know it began here as I was responding initially to what reelfountain had said. So sorry for the confusion.

We have white assailants of gays here too. Antifa just beat the shit out of one in Portland a week or so ago.

I could almost respect this. When you start out by engaging with or responding to something reelfountain has said you're definitely operating at a disadvantage and confusion is likely. But then you can't help but mention Antifa beating a gay person.
First, can we agree that it's almost never justifiable when a person is attacked for being who they are. you seem to feel that attacks on gay people for being gay is wrong?
That's still a question because you seem to possibly be more interested, like bhops and reelfountain, in who was doing the beating.
But let's just go ahead and assume that you feel that gay-bashing is wrong.
Was the Antifa incident about gay-bashing?
I am not justifying what they did, but you seem to be referring to an attack on a gay journalist who had been critical of Antifa. You could also say Antifa attacked an Asian American man. This journalist has a history with Antifa and is probably known to them.
The incident seems to have nothing to do with him being gay.
So I am not sure what you were trying to prove. Antifa is a violent group? This is known.
But you're trying to lasso in Jussie Smollett, Muslim gangs, and Antifa, when the reason the first attack was mentioned was because there are people on here, on a Morrissey site in 2019, making remarks about gay people, and this is the type of language that can be seen to support the random attacks on gay people. While not actually "causing" the attack it goes some way towards excusing it.

So you did come into the middle of a conversation as you acknowledge, and you can't be blamed for not realizing that people here have agendas that they don't state outrightly, in plain language. When you bring up Smollett and Antifa, you might be doing it honestly and with no attempt to promote any agenda. Maybe you just want to examine the facts. But it's switching the subject in a way that has come to be known as "whataboutism."
I'm going to believe that you're not doing it on purpose, and I am not saying that violence, or false reports of violence can't be part of the discussion. But I just wanted to further explain the context.

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

I could almost respect this. When you start out by engaging with or responding to something reelfountain has said you're definitely operating at a disadvantage and confusion is likely. But then you can't help but mention Antifa beating a gay person.
First, can we agree that it's almost never justifiable when a person is attacked for being who they are. you seem to feel that attacks on gay people for being gay is wrong?
That's still a question because you seem to possibly be more interested, like bhops and reelfountain, in who was doing the beating.
But let's just go ahead and assume that you feel that gay-bashing is wrong.
Was the Antifa incident about gay-bashing?
I am not justifying what they did, but you seem to be referring to an attack on a gay journalist who had been critical of Antifa. You could also say Antifa attacked an Asian American man. This journalist has a history with Antifa and is probably known to them.
The incident seems to have nothing to do with him being gay.
So I am not sure what you were trying to prove. Antifa is a violent group? This is known.
But you're trying to lasso in Jussie Smollett, Muslim gangs, and Antifa, when the reason the first attack was mentioned was because there are people on here, on a Morrissey site in 2019, making remarks about gay people, and this is the type of language that can be seen to support the random attacks on gay people. While not actually "causing" the attack it goes some way towards excusing it.

So you did come into the middle of a conversation as you acknowledge, and you can't be blamed for not realizing that people here have agendas that they don't state outrightly, in plain language. When you bring up Smollett and Antifa, you might be doing it honestly and with no attempt to promote any agenda. Maybe you just want to examine the facts. But it's switching the subject in a way that has come to be known as "whataboutism."
I'm going to believe that you're not doing it on purpose, and I am not saying that violence, or false reports of violence can't be part of the discussion. But I just wanted to further explain the context.

I'm glad you made the post with the numbered points showing the progression of this multi-page thread which gave some more context I was lacking, along with the recap you've just provided.

I can first off unequivocally state I don't condone or endorse violence. And more specifically, I do not promote or condone targeted violence on LGBT people. This isn't some back-peddling speech; that's from the heart and my principles (which are largely center left-leaning lowercase-libertarian [as opposed to authoritarian]).

That being said i'm not without my bias or disenfranchisement of sociopolitical issues as they are reported in corporate media and held by a slight majority of western populations.

It's not your fault that I am definitely going to come across as right-wing, or at the very least, right-wing apologist (which I am in most ways). I'm a centrist after all. With a believe in the same free speech principles that at one time fostered more acceptance of diversity of opinion.

In the 90's and early 00's I was far more at odds with what I perceived to be religious right dominance and overbearing censorious activity. But for me, the script has flipped in terms of establishment and I view most media and international globalist corporations as the abusive power structure that oversteps, censors, and uses double-standards in their characterization of issues that affect us all, like violence.

So coming from that perspective, and being unclear as to the origination of the topic, I guess this came off as a whataboutism, as you say. Additionally, the Antifa beat up a gay comment was a flippant attempt at bringing it back to the topic of whites attacking gays.

Yes, I could have added that they attacked an asian as well, which I am equally displeased with. But that was less of a connecting thread. Did Antifa attack him because he is gay? Well they knew he was gay. They attacked him because of who he is, knowing what he is. Was it purely motivated by his orientation? I suppose not. But I think the topic of "gays being attacked" in the general context usually implies a right-wing element. I think it is fair to point out the instances (especially recent and egregious) where the left did not give a shit that they were brutally attacking a gay person. I believe that is a value-added context or footnote.

Hope this makes more sense. I know this is a Morrissey site, of whom I am a passionate fan. I've lurked here since 2000. Joined and commented a bit 5 years ago. It's always been toxic here with the Morrissey hate. But it has become more political as his views are less aligned with current fashion and I got tired of being in a hug box with the comment threads of my other places so I figured I'd join the fray and have a bit of banter. Sometimes I attempt to be funny but it can become sardonic and flippant as well.