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

A

Anonymous

Guest
It’s nowhere near the Northern Quarter and it 2300 capacity venue, looks like you’re getting mixed up with somewhere else or just trolling?
They'll be there anyway for a piss up and after the gigs.

Going "ya cool maaaaaan soy on ya good day good day". Mancs stopped sounding like mancs ages ago.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It’s nowhere near the Northern Quarter and it 2300 capacity venue, looks like you’re getting mixed up with somewhere else or just trolling?
4600 soy boys and soy girls going weeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhh watching the wig of wigs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
His son is not some anemic vegan soy boy or anything.



Army material, special forces. The one you send in first in case of emergency. Men who got their looks after the mother.

Giraffe neck which is weird cause isn't the mother a thieving pikey?

Ladies and gentlemen here he is the son of the wig, the giraffe.



https://media.giphy.com/media/JTVKS2iaioL6M/giphy.gif

This will trigger Rifke to buy a zebra and court another gay boy now Codling is yesterdays news.
 
V

vegan cro spirit 555

Guest
WTF!!!! :handpointright::guardsman::handpointleft: SON IS THE OPENING ACT!!!!!!!!

NO WONDER THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF TIX STILL SITTING AT THE BOX OFFICE
FOR BOTH SHOWS!!!!!


WHAT A NEPOTISTICAL DISASTER ITS GOING TO BE!!!doh:

but it probably will be worth it for the free crackers:yum:
bot DramaJ Sr and Jr look like may be in need of sustenance. the poor twatsdoh:
 

Farnaby

New Member
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.
Best example in France : in 2013, 2 homosxuals were assaulted in Paris, one of them called Wilfried. It was during the discussion about the homosexual marriage, so every media and every leftie was accusing the catholic right opposed to the same sex marriage of the assault. Even Wilfried, from his hospital bed, was linking his assault with the right / far right. But everybody knew it was from african-immigrants. And 3 or 4 years later, who was in court ? A gang of nice african muslims. But of course, no media made a big article about that...
 

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
His son is the support? Nice bit of nepotism.

Have you heard anything by Nile? He needs all the nepotism he can get.

As does this guy - Paul McCartney's son, James. He has been trying to launch a music career for 20 years.

 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
Best example in France : in 2013, 2 homosxuals were assaulted in Paris, one of them called Wilfried. It was during the discussion about the homosexual marriage, so every media and every leftie was accusing the catholic right opposed to the same sex marriage of the assault. Even Wilfried, from his hospital bed, was linking his assault with the right / far right. But everybody knew it was from african-immigrants. And 3 or 4 years later, who was in court ? A gang of nice african muslims. But of course, no media made a big article about that...

Precisely. And to be fair, I’m sure we can all find examples on many sides. To which I say: great! Shine the light of day on all facts. I have no problem whatsoever with what the facts may be, but rather the selected presentation of them; The intentional inference by the way they are half-presented.

We need as many of the facts in as much of the context they originated from as possible. And perhaps most importantly — when the same fact occurs, was it reported when group X was involved as consistently as when group Y was to blame? (relative to a reasonably similar time-frame of history, etc).

We suffer this relentless rampage of selective Trump fact reporting here in the states. According to the temperature of the modern spin, no U.S. president has ever enforced immigration policy. It is as if we were an open borders nation prior to 2016. At which point the amount of outrage and selective memory catapulted.

Morrissey’s remarks have converged with this phenomenon. Artists and creators all have their bad takes (or they’re just keeping their mouth shut for fear or business sense). But the idea that Morrissey specifically should be socially prosecuted by the race witch trials for untowards remarks and the support of a 3rd party candidate is either hilarious or scary.
 

Whizz Kid

Active Member
Have you heard anything by Nile? He needs all the nepotism he can get.

As does this guy - Paul McCartney's son, James. He has been trying to launch a music career for 20 years.

I think Nile's talented, love this song by his earlier band Man Made:

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
'Community cohesion' is more important. Whenever identity is suppressed in England everyone knows why.

Ah, remember this! This is just one of many moments when Reelfountain attempted to play the role of all-seeing, all-knowing, intellectual, homophobe. She claimed that the woman possibly started the fight on the bus, that it wasn't a homophobic attack (depsite the evidence of the 2 women) and that the case was just another cover up. It was pointed out to Reelfountain that the delay of information relating to the assault wasn't a cover up but just how the judiciary works. She would have none of it with conspiracies abound. Just days later the Police makes its statement .....

Four boys charged over homophobic attack on gay couple

Reelfountain: comments made with the wayward finesse of Johnson in the quagmire of her own stupidity. I wonder if she has an imaginary despatch box in her in her middle-class, suburban semi?
 

The Truth

about Ruth
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!
I really don't know if you are incapable of understanding the difference between an incident involving a (minor) celebrity in the US and another completely different incident in the UK. I never heard of Jussie Smollett before this happened but he was using this for publicity. Of course it was reported. It was designed to be widely reported.
AND LAWS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE US.

The two incidents have nothing in common. At all.

Maybe the known facts of incidents occurring in the UK are not always reported in an impartial and unbiased manner. I don't know. If you do, and want to make that point you will need to compare two similar crimes in the UK where the reporting seemed to be biased based on the identity of the assailants.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Precisely. And to be fair, I’m sure we can all find examples on many sides. To which I say: great! Shine the light of day on all facts. I have no problem whatsoever with what the facts may be, but rather the selected presentation of them; The intentional inference by the way they are half-presented.

We need as many of the facts in as much of the context they originated from as possible. And perhaps most importantly — when the same fact occurs, was it reported when group X was involved as consistently as when group Y was to blame? (relative to a reasonably similar time-frame of history, etc).

We suffer this relentless rampage of selective Trump fact reporting here in the states. According to the temperature of the modern spin, no U.S. president has ever enforced immigration policy. It is as if we were an open borders nation prior to 2016. At which point the amount of outrage and selective memory catapulted.

Morrissey’s remarks have converged with this phenomenon. Artists and creators all have their bad takes (or they’re just keeping their mouth shut for fear or business sense). But the idea that Morrissey specifically should be socially prosecuted by the race witch trials for untowards remarks and the support of a 3rd party candidate is either hilarious or scary.

You're really on a roll. "Relentless rampage?"
"The temperature of the modern spin" means what exactly? "Outrage... was catapulted," really?
The "race witch trials" does tell quite a bit but more about you than whatever it is you're trying to say.
 
Last edited:

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
Ah, remember this! This is just one of many moments when Reelfountain attempted to play the role of all-seeing, all-knowing, intellectual, homophobe. She claimed that the woman possibly started the fight on the bus, that it wasn't a homophobic attack (depsite the evidence of the 2 women) and that the case was just another cover up. It was pointed out to Reelfountain that the delay of information relating to the assault wasn't a cover up but just how the judiciary works. She would have none of it with conspiracies abound. Just days later the Police makes its statement .....

Four boys charged over homophobic attack on gay couple

Reelfountain: comments made with the wayward finesse of Johnson in the quagmire of her own stupidity. I wonder if she has an imaginary despatch box in her in her middle-class, suburban semi?
On the thread you mention I was surmising what exactly happened on that bus - and I gave several speculations. I did not solely claim that they "made it all up" or that it wasn't a gay attack - you're taking that way out of context. I simply drew attention to the fact that we do not yet know the full story - and I'll repeat, we still don't know the full story despite the four teens (black, Muslim or both - but definitely not white) having now been charged.

The women admit that they were 'joking back' at the boys. What does that mean? One person's jokes is another person's insults (which I know well about). We only know one side of this story until the other side are given a chance to speak in court and the CCTV is shown. One of the women say they got up to confront the boys. Say one of the women threw the first slap? Yes, she may have been provoked, and no, she didn't deserve to be beaten, but this changes the gist of the"victim story" somewhat (and would be very upsetting for the Gay Press as it would weaken the propaganda element).

Charges mean nothing until we hear the full story from both sides. Remember, if a straight couple were attacked like this on a London bus it would most likely not make any news or papers anywhere. Why? Because there would be no juicy "hate crime" identity element to spice up the story and ensure global coverage - even if there was more actual "hate" involved in the attack (such as one of them being seriously injured from a group kicking).

Jussie Smollett is a good example of how the media jumps on these things with saturation coverage and bias when only one side of the story is known.

I make no 'claims' about this incident - I can only speculate.
 
Last edited:
V

vegan cro spirit 555

Guest
I think Nile's talented, love this song by his earlier band Man Made:


o_O

what a musical catastrophe!! 2 DramaJs, Sr and Jr putting out sucko musicdoh:
Sr with the comet blowing us up and Jr with the TV breaking our heads.:grimacing:
 

The Truth

about Ruth
On the thread you mention I was surmising what exactly happened on that bus - and I gave several speculations. I did not solely claim that they "made it all up" or that it wasn't a gay attack - you're taking that way out of context. I simply drew attention to the fact that we do not yet know the full story - and I'll repeat, we still don't know the full story despite the four teens (black, Muslim or both - but definitely not white) having now been charged.

The women admit that they were 'joking back' at the boys. What does that mean? One person's jokes is another person's insults (which I know well about). We only know one side of this story until the other side are given a chance to speak in court and the CCTV is shown. One of the women say they got up to confront the boys. Say one of the women threw the first slap? Yes, she may have been provoked, and no, she didn't deserve to be beaten, but this changes the gist of the"victim story" somewhat (and would be very upsetting for the Gay Press as it would weaken the propaganda element).

Charges mean nothing until we hear the full story from both sides. Remember, if a straight couple were attacked like this on a London bus it would most likely not make any news or papers anywhere. Why? Because there would be no juicy "hate crime" identity element to spice up the story and ensure global coverage - even if there was more actual "hate" involved in the attack (such as one of them being seriously injured from a group kicking).

Jussie Smollett is a good example of how the media jumps on these things with saturation coverage and bias when only one side of the story is known.

I make no 'claims' about this incident - I can only speculate.

You speculate that it fits your agenda. "We only know one side of the story," so do you think that these two women attacked "four boys?" Probably depends on if the boys are white?
"If" doesn't matter here. We're talking about a specific incident.
I don't know if you're sincere in this but the Jussie Smollett incident was designed for media coverage. Can you imagine something like that being ignored? He's somewhat famous and for whatever reason, if we can even call it a reason, he thought that this incident would benefit him somehow.
He's been destroyed for it though. He's #cancelled.
Unfortunately people care about celebrities, and with whatever is wrong with him he calculated this story, and for a very short time it worked. He got attention.
Are you surprised?
What is the point? Some average people who are actually victims of a crime are not going to get that sort of attention because, they're not famous and the crime is too common. In the US we can barely be bothered to get excited about a school shooting. I'd say at least five people have to die to get attention and even that is like "low effort," and keep scrolling.
When two women are minding their own business and are attacked because they are (perceived to be) lesbians, that does get attention for a few reasons. For one, i gives everyone a chance to say "lesbian." Oooh!
And it does indicate a problem that you seem to want to gloss over, but people can be attacked for who they are or are perceived to be. This is different than some crime that has a motive we can all understand. We don't agree with the motive but if someone is stabbed in a robbery, that's different than if someone is stabbed for no reason.
I think that it is the randomness of a lot of crimes that make them newsworthy. We would like to think that if we mind our own business and don't do anything too stupid or risky that we're basically safe.
I think this relates to the way that you're low-key trying to blame the victims here, or at least explore the possibility that maybe they started it.
It probably makes you feel safer, subconsciously, (forgive me for playing psychiatrist) if you think that these women did something? Maybe I'm wrong. For me, I think I do this and I think many people do this. When you hear of a crime, say the person was in a "bad neighborhood" at 4am, and they were robbed you think, well that won't happen to me.
Anyway, I know that your side wants to bring up Jussie Smollett at every opportunity. I don't blame you. But you know and I know there is no connection to be drawn here.
Free advice. If you want to talk about him talk about why he thought he could get away with it. That should give you some material and an argument that has some traction. It doesn't in this circumstance.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
I really don't know if you are incapable of understanding the difference between an incident involving a (minor) celebrity in the US and another completely different incident in the UK. I never heard of Jussie Smollett before this happened but he was using this for publicity. Of course it was reported. It was designed to be widely reported.
AND LAWS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE US.

The two incidents have nothing in common. At all.

Maybe the known facts of incidents occurring in the UK are not always reported in an impartial and unbiased manner. I don't know. If you do, and want to make that point you will need to compare two similar crimes in the UK where the reporting seemed to be biased based on the identity of the assailants.

I can, of course, comprehend the categorical distinction between a celebrity and a rando.

I will forgive that you may not be able to follow a meta-narrative that occurs within the mainstream media.

What is the point regarding the laws being different? What does that have to do with the publication of truth? Does one nation's legal nuance mean truth is different than when the legal minutiae of another roughly equivalent nation is at play? Facts are facts. The eagerness to report (alleged facts), versus the reluctance to report relevant information is a telling differential.

This is practically a necro-post on your behalf at this point, but if memory serves, I was drawing that distinction.

And now, we already have another hyped encounter in the media, ala Smollett. This time, some small-term nobody politician from Georgia who completely fabricated a hate incident regarding someone telling her to "go back to where she came from" at the grocery store. After the media completely bought the story and celebrities re-tweeted it to the millions, now more than one first-hand witness accounts that it was she who uttered the alleged-racist remark.

The facts are the facts, but the reluctance to report them accurately, or the enthusiasm to report them inaccurately, is the salient point.

We don't really need a facsimile of cases to compare. We can simply observe the bias by which all of these cases are reported on. It is clear which narrative is served in the mainstream reporting.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
You're really on a roll. "Relentless rampage?"
"The temperature of the modern spin" means what exactly? "Outrage... was catapulted," really?
The "race witch trials" does tell quite a bit but more about you than whatever it is you're trying to say.

:lbf:

I sincerely do not know what you are alleging.

But I am glad you (presumably) enjoyed the rampant rampage of words.
 
Last edited:

The Truth

about Ruth
I can, of course, comprehend the categorical distinction between a celebrity and a rando.

I will forgive that you may not be able to follow a meta-narrative that occurs within the mainstream media.

What is the point regarding the laws being different? What does that have to do with the publication of truth? Does one nation's legal nuance mean truth is different than when the legal minutiae of another roughly equivalent nation is at play? Facts are facts. The eagerness to report (alleged facts), versus the reluctance to report relevant information is a telling differential.

This is practically a necro-post on your behalf at this point, but if memory serves, I was drawing that distinction.

And now, we already have another hyped encounter in the media, ala Smollett. This time, some small-term nobody politician from Georgia who completely fabricated a hate incident regarding someone telling her to "go back to where she came from" at the grocery store. After the media completely bought the story and celebrities re-tweeted it to the millions, now more than one first-hand witness accounts that it was she who uttered the alleged-racist remark.

The facts are the facts, but the reluctance to report them accurately, or the enthusiasm to report them inaccurately, is the salient point.

We don't really need a facsimile of cases to compare. We can simply observe the bias by which all of these cases are reported on. It is clear which narrative is served in the mainstream reporting.

Comparing the way things are handled in the UK vs the US is more the point here. Sorry "you can't comprehend."
"Legal nuance" meaning that a different country has different rules for what can be published? Yes I supposed you could call that a nuance, if you think that is "a subtle difference or shade in meaning."
Then you want to go on and drag in another unrelated incident, for some reason. You could compare that one to Jussie Smollet.
Or you could compare it to the things Donald Trump actually said to women who were actually born here. Maybe I'm really stupid, but somehow that seems to be of more importance than some rando in Georgia.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
:lbf:

I sincerely do not know what you are alleging.

But I am glad you (presumably) enjoyed the rampant rampage of words.
I'm alleging that you believe that your writing style will magically transform your ordinary outrage :mad: commentary into something special. I won't deny that it may benefit from being rendered incomprehensible, though so you do you. :thumb:
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom