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

Comments

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
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:
"though so you do you" are incomprehensible? :lbf:

Well, I'm no vegan cro spirit 555, but one can aspire.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
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.
I wouldn't say stupid. I might say this is drilled down to an unnecessarily specific point of origination of the topic for the purpose of "winning the argument".

But I'm free from all that. Legal mumbo jumbo.

There's a narrative. It's being enforced by the media and the people that are silly enough to believe only they are in the right, regardless of context or facts.

I understand that you are hiding your argument behind this law of "protecting facts" in the U.K.

Why are we talking again? I agree that two people of any kind (including especially LGBT) being violently attacked is disgusting and abhorrent.

I do question a media that is so quick to vilify the people they want to prosecute (like Morrissey) while simultaneous claiming a litigious high-ground on other matters.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
I wouldn't say stupid. I might say this is drilled down to an unnecessarily specific point of origination of the topic for the purpose of "winning the argument".

But I'm free from all that. Legal mumbo jumbo.

There's a narrative. It's being enforced by the media and the people that are silly enough to believe only they are in the right, regardless of context or facts.

I understand that you are hiding your argument behind this law of "protecting facts" in the U.K.

Why are we talking again? I agree that two people of any kind (including especially LGBT) being violently attacked is disgusting and abhorrent.

I do question a media that is so quick to vilify the people they want to prosecute (like Morrissey) while simultaneous claiming a litigious high-ground on other matters.
No. I am not"hiding my argument." In making it about one specific point, which happens to be the only relevant point I see here, I am trying to avoid assuming agendas or questioning another person's intellect or point of view. Those things really don't matter when we have facts.
"I'm free from all that. Legal mumbo jumbo."
That's awesome, so maybe you recognize the limitations that places on your ability to discuss legal issues. If you just switch to, "I know what you really want to say and you're hiding behind a factual point" that's your choice but it doesn't have anything to do with me or the reasons behind these things which you have chosen to free yourself from.

You're correct about "why are we talking again," although that does contrast with your recent statement that "the left don't want debate."
This conversation certainly is in no danger of being categorized as that.

When you write "prosecute" I believe you mean "persecute" but maybe you're free from things like definitions of words, and logic itself as well. Enjoy. I'll try to ignore you.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
No. I am not"hiding my argument." In making it about one specific point, which happens to be the only relevant point I see here, I am trying to avoid assuming agendas or questioning another person's intellect or point of view. Those things really don't matter when we have facts.
"I'm free from all that. Legal mumbo jumbo."
That's awesome, so maybe you recognize the limitations that places on your ability to discuss legal issues. If you just switch to, "I know what you really want to say and you're hiding behind a factual point" that's your choice but it doesn't have anything to do with me or the reasons behind these things which you have chosen to free yourself from.

You're correct about "why are we talking again," although that does contrast with your recent statement that "the left don't want debate."
This conversation certainly is in no danger of being categorized as that.

When you write "prosecute" I believe you mean "persecute" but maybe you're free from things like definitions of words, and logic itself as well. Enjoy. I'll try to ignore you.
What we are talking about at this point?

No I mean prosecute. Forgive me, because I intend what I describe often as socially prosecute <-- one of the current-left's favorite things.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Sorry to hide behind the dictionary. I know you're free from that.

per·se·cute
/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/

verb
  1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
    "his followers were persecuted by the authorities"
    synonyms: oppress, abuse, victimize, ill-treat, mistreat, maltreat, discriminate against, punish, inflict pain/suffering on, tyrannize, afflict, torment, torture, martyr
    "no one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs"
    • harass or annoy (someone) persistently.
      "Hilda was persecuted by some of the other girls"
      synonyms: harass, hound, plague, badger, harry, bait, intimidate, pick on, trouble, molest, tease, pester, bother, worry, annoy, bedevil, bully, victimize, terrorize;
pros·e·cute
/ˈpräsəˌkyo͞ot/
verb
  1. 1.
    institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
    "they were prosecuted for obstructing the highway"
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
Sorry to hide behind the dictionary. I know you're free from that.

per·se·cute
/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/

verb
  1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
    "his followers were persecuted by the authorities"
    synonyms: oppress, abuse, victimize, ill-treat, mistreat, maltreat, discriminate against, punish, inflict pain/suffering on, tyrannize, afflict, torment, torture, martyr
    "no one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs"
    • harass or annoy (someone) persistently.
      "Hilda was persecuted by some of the other girls"
      synonyms: harass, hound, plague, badger, harry, bait, intimidate, pick on, trouble, molest, tease, pester, bother, worry, annoy, bedevil, bully, victimize, terrorize;
pros·e·cute
/ˈpräsəˌkyo͞ot/
verb
  1. 1.
    institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
    "they were prosecuted for obstructing the highway"
No I’m not free from this.

Socially is a modifier to prosecute.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
ig·nore
/iɡˈnôr/
verb
  1. refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
    "he ignored her outraged question"
    synonyms: disregard, take no notice of, pay no attention to, pay no heed to, pass over, shut one's eyes to, be oblivious to, turn a blind eye to, turn a deaf ear to, brush aside, shrug off, push aside, never mind
 

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
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.
A more important question to consider is why Jussie Smollett was allowed to get away with it.

If a white actor did the same thing he would be disgraced and in prison now.

Just for the record, I have no sympathy for the young (non-English) men who attacked the two women on the bus. I don't care what the argument was about, I would have them put down like dogs with rabies. I know their type well: they hassle everyone in London for one reason or another when they have the chance. Thay are anti-social scum. For example on a nightbus if you have blonde hair they'd shout: Hey blondie, wanna suck my d***? These people are irritants whose gang is their family and power-provider.

When a story is massively hyped in the way this one was - and especially when the description of the suspects is not mentioned - it does ring alarm bells. There was a "homophobic attack" the other day involving a man stabbing someone in the leg outside a supermarket in South London and straight away reports stated the suspect was a "white man". This is a routine pattern in the UK (and Ireland now too, which is being massively Kalergi'd also and reaping the anti-social benefits). When no description is issued it sends the message loud and clear that the suspect is non-white.

And though the facial shots of the bus gang will never be released as they are all under 18 (unless a judge says so, which happens occasionally) their names will be released when it comes to court and I can guarantee you there will be lots of Mustafas and Mohammeds or Duwaynes and Tyrones in the mix.

Drunken or high arguments on nightbuses or at bus stops etc. when people are returning from evenings out are hardly infrequent. And nowadays women are sometimes treated roughly by men (especially those whose roots are in misogynistic cultures and may have observed their mum being routinely beaten as they grew up). But there is nothing wrong with speculating on the full story when we've only heard one side. And sadly, victim ideology is encouraged these days. People are encouraged to sign up to victim-identity groups and to view their every misfortune in life as being a direct result of their chosen identity.

Most likely these women were minding their own business. But maybe they over-reacted to a slight and confronted these temperamental teenagers with insults also (and the problem with insulting third-wordlers as opposed to the English is that insults are nearly always avenged). That's just a presumption of mine. Maybe the women weren't streetwise, and handled the situation clumsily thinking they could insult them back harder and being women they wouldn't be physically touched. This dilutes the story and blunts the homophobic angle somewhat (which would disappoint many indignant people).

So therefore I must be chastised for having the temerity to even suggest such a notion.
 
Last edited:

The Truth

about Ruth
Jussie Smollett's case is still ongoing. As to why it was originally dismissed maybe Cook County didn't want to spend money on it. It was always a politically driven stunt and it failed miserably. He is disgraced.
Probably letting it end that way would have been best. If they spend millions of dollars prosecuting him he may again appear to some as a martyr. In a couple of years he will be acting again. The way it was going he would have been licky to make it to Big Brother. Chicago is a very violent place with hundreds of murders every year and those things are probably a priority.
While the decision to let him go was unpopular with MAGAts it might have made the most sense for Chicago.
But now due to political pressure the case is ongoing. One of his lawyer's is Mark Geragos who got your idol Michael Jackson off on child molestation charges so he may actually be tried and found not guilty.

I do see your point about the way crimes are reported. You're saying that if the suspect is white that information is shared with the public and if that isn't mentioned you can assume he is not white. I don't know if that is true, since sometimes when they don't mention it the person could be white, but maybe it's true. I can see a situation where, to avoid inflaming racial tensions, the media doesn't say "four black teens." I don't know. Maybe that is how it is done in your country. It isn't like that in the US. Either way I don't see the need to say that the victim may have overreacted, or the need to say that the crimes were not partially motivated by the victim's sexuality. I think you feel it gives these victims a special status, but I think that is more about the media needing a constant stream of stories to tell.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A more important question to consider is why Jussie Smollett was allowed to get away with it.

If a white actor did the same thing he would be disgraced and in prison now.

Just for the record, I have no sympathy for the young (non-English) men who attacked the two women on the bus. I don't care what the argument was about, I would have them put down like dogs with rabies. I know their type well: they hassle everyone in London for one reason or another when they have the chance. Thay are anti-social scum. For example on a nightbus if you have blonde hair they'd shout: Hey blondie, wanna suck my d***? These people are irritants whose gang is their family and power-provider.

When a story is massively hyped in the way this one was - and especially when the description of the suspects is not mentioned - it does ring alarm bells. There was a "homophobic attack" the other day involving a man stabbing someone in the leg outside a supermarket in South London and straight away reports stated the suspect was a "white man". This is a routine pattern in the UK (and Ireland now too, which is being massively Kalergi'd also and reaping the anti-social benefits). When no description is issued it sends the message loud and clear that the suspect is non-white.

And though the facial shots of the bus gang will never be released as they are all under 18 (unless a judge says so, which happens occasionally) their names will be released when it comes to court and I can guarantee you there will be lots of Mustafas and Mohammeds or Duwaynes and Tyrones in the mix.

Drunken or high arguments on nightbuses or at bus stops etc. when people are returning from evenings out are hardly infrequent. And nowadays women are sometimes treated roughly by men (especially those whose roots are in misogynistic cultures and may have observed their mum being routinely beaten as they grew up). But there is nothing wrong with speculating on the full story when we've only heard one side. And sadly, victim ideology is encouraged these days. People are encouraged to sign up to victim-identity groups and to view their every misfortune in life as being a direct result of their chosen identity.

Most likely these women were minding their own business. But maybe they over-reacted to a slight and confronted these temperamental teenagers with insults also (and the problem with insulting third-wordlers as opposed to the English is that insults are nearly always avenged). That's just a presumption of mine. Maybe the women weren't streetwise, and handled the situation clumsily thinking they could insult them back harder and being women they wouldn't be physically touched. This dilutes the story and blunts the homophobic angle somewhat (which would disappoint many indignant people).

So therefore I must be chastised for having the temerity to even suggest such a notion.
A more important question to ask is: how far up your own arse is your head and are the lights on?
 

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
Jussie Smollett's case is still ongoing. As to why it was originally dismissed maybe Cook County didn't want to spend money on it. It was always a politically driven stunt and it failed miserably. He is disgraced.
Probably letting it end that way would have been best. If they spend millions of dollars prosecuting him he may again appear to some as a martyr. In a couple of years he will be acting again. The way it was going he would have been licky to make it to Big Brother. Chicago is a very violent place with hundreds of murders every year and those things are probably a priority.
While the decision to let him go was unpopular with MAGAts it might have made the most sense for Chicago.
But now due to political pressure the case is ongoing. One of his lawyer's is Mark Geragos who got your idol Michael Jackson off on child molestation charges so he may actually be tried and found not guilty.

I do see your point about the way crimes are reported. You're saying that if the suspect is white that information is shared with the public and if that isn't mentioned you can assume he is not white. I don't know if that is true, since sometimes when they don't mention it the person could be white, but maybe it's true. I can see a situation where, to avoid inflaming racial tensions, the media doesn't say "four black teens." I don't know. Maybe that is how it is done in your country. It isn't like that in the US. Either way I don't see the need to say that the victim may have overreacted, or the need to say that the crimes were not partially motivated by the victim's sexuality. I think you feel it gives these victims a special status, but I think that is more about the media needing a constant stream of stories to tell.
I think they do it in the US also. Have you read the reports of a recent beating of a single white man outside the Hilton in Washington. He was viciously battered and stomped by an enormous crowd of blacks, both men and women (one of whom at the end purposely walks over to his unconscious body to spit down into his face) and all the reports say is "teenagers". Had it been the other way round the racial shit-stirring from the Jewish media would have caused blacks to set America's inner cities ablaze.

For example, the last time a gang of whites killed a black boy in London was in 1993. The opposite happens frequently and gets reported for one day (bad luck, wrong time wrong place) but this 1993 white-on-black killing has its own official day of commemoration with a widely-publicised service attended yearly by the prime minister and the royal family. It's still widely talked about in the media ensuring it remains seared in public consciousness to remind British whites of how evil and racist they are.
 
Last edited:

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
A more important question to ask is: how far up your own arse is your head and are the lights on?
Sticking a part of my own anatomy up my posterior seems like the sort of act more suited to a proud homosexual like yourself.

Tell me something. Now that the suited nonces in power are disseminating LGBTQ propaganda to school children, does this include the teaching and demonstrating of its practiced acts also? The mind boggles. Telling young kids they have a hundred sexualities and genders to choose from is twisted enough, but considering a foot is now in the door and the future awaits us how far will this nonsense be taken?

Why do tall buildings and flying faeries suddenly spring to mind...
 
Last edited:

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Sticking a part of my own anatomy up my posterior seems like the sort of act more suited to a proud homosexual like yourself.

Tell me something. Now that the suited nonces in power are disseminating LGBTQ propaganda to school children, does this include the teaching and demonstrating of its practiced acts also? The mind boggles. Telling young kids they have a hundred sexualities and genders to choose from is twisted enough, but considering a foot is now in the door and the future awaits us how far will this nonsense be taken?

Why does tall buildings and flying faeries suddenly spring to mind...
Kids............this is how you fist someone..........does that sound like fun? Hands up who wants to fist Jeremy
_59877928_classroom.jpg
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Sticking a part of my own anatomy up my posterior seems like the sort of act more suited to a proud homosexual like yourself.

Tell me something. Now that the suited nonces in power are disseminating LGBTQ propaganda to school children, does this include the teaching and demonstrating of its practiced acts also? The mind boggles. Telling young kids they have a hundred sexualities and genders to choose from is twisted enough, but considering a foot is now in the door and the future awaits us how far will this nonsense be taken?

Why do tall buildings and flying faeries suddenly spring to mind...
First of all, your idea and @Stephen Hofmann's ideas of what is being taught to schoolkids is more a reflection of your own "twisted" mentality. But telling children that different kinds of people exist is not going to make them gay.
This idea makes you sound like an old crank.
We live in a world that is accepting marriage equality and human rights. On the one hand you want to talk about how backward Islam is but then you support some of the killings done in its name?
 

The Truth

about Ruth
I think they do it in the US also. Have you read the reports of a recent beating of a single white man outside the Hilton in Washington. He was viciously battered and stomped by an enormous crowd of blacks, both men and women (one of whom at the end purposely walks over to his unconscious body to spit down into his face) and all the reports say is "teenagers". Had it been the other way round the racial shit-stirring from the Jewish media would have caused blacks to set America's inner cities ablaze.

For example, the last time a gang of whites killed a black boy in London was in 1993. The opposite happens frequently and gets reported for one day (bad luck, wrong time wrong place) but this 1993 white-on-black killing has its own official day of commemoration with a widely-publicised service attended yearly by the prime minister and the royal family. It's still widely talked about in the media ensuring it remains seared in public consciousness to remind British whites of how evil and racist they are.
Where did you read about it?
 

reelfountain

Well-Known Member
First of all, your idea and @Stephen Hofmann's ideas of what is being taught to schoolkids is more a reflection of your own "twisted" mentality. But telling children that different kinds of people exist is not going to make them gay.
This idea makes you sound like an old crank.
We live in a world that is accepting marriage equality and human rights. On the one hand you want to talk about how backward Islam is but then you support some of the killings done in its name?
It might not make them gay, but it will confuse their young minds and probably make many of them commit suicide before the end of their teens. There are two genders, end of story. Teaching kids LGBTQ propaganda will not hep them in any way. But this is the Kalergi Plan in action. Weaken and f*** up society so in the end it looks like this...

riots.jpg
 
Last edited:

The Truth

about Ruth
It might not make them gay, but it will confuse their young minds and probably make many of them commit suicide before the end of their teens. There are two genders, end of story. Teaching kids LGBTQ propaganda will not hep them in any way. But this is the Kalergi Plan in action. Weaken and f*** up society so in the end it looks like this...

View attachment 51248
I don't think that it's going to confuse kids when they already know gay people exist. That is not propaganda. How is it going to make them commit suicide? In fact the opposite, because many gay teens, and many teens in general, do commit suicide. Being more accepting can help solve the problem.

I know you would rather talk about far right conspiracy theories of plans for "white genocide" but maybe not in the same post?
 

Similar threads

Trending Threads

Top Bottom