Corbyn FINALLY suspends Muslim Labour MP who said Israel should be 'relocated' to the US

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

oh jayjay, it was a joke. and you're clearly ignoring the 'free stuff' joke that evoked it. if someone can say that black protestors should be used as target practice here, then surely you can tolerate a joke between teddy and me. if not, may i suggest a finding a safe place where adults the ability to joke safely frequent?

Racial charged jokes ain't funny sexist yes . Sammich?

[Rob L 3,811]

.

Yes as a White Male you are entitled to tell everyone else what is racist and misogynist

Can you replace "white male" with another demographic and make the above statement not racist and/or misogynist?

are you asking me to re diagram an elegant statement?..no I refuse to mess with perfection

Edited July 28, 2016 by Rob L

[JayJayH 546]

are you asking me to re diagram an elegant statement?..no I refuse to mess with perfection

I'm only curious as to what might happen if you switch out "white" and/or "male" and if it would still be an acceptable statement

oh jayjay, it was a joke. and you're clearly ignoring the 'free stuff' joke that evoked it. if someone can say that black protestors should be used as target practice here, then surely you can tolerate a joke between teddy and me. if not, may i suggest a finding a safe place where adults the ability to joke safely frequent?

You have my apologies. I mistake you for a campus loon. Trigger me timbers, I love it.

Edited July 28, 2016 by JayJayH

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I'm only curious as to what might happen if you switch out "white" and/or "male" and if it would still be an acceptable statement

You have my apologies. I mistake you for a campus loon. Trigger me timbers, I love it.

No, you know why? Because no other race has the ability to make declarations about racism, except white people. It happens here all the time and IRL.

We only have the ability to call something NOT racist. Hence why when a black person says something isn't racist, they're paraded in front of the camera. I've been informed more than once that my experiences as a black man and a member of BLM(which is so funny that all these BLM threads get started and my input is somehow ignored) don't matter as much as the white man who tells me what racism really is.

[Rob L 3,811]

I'm only curious as to what might happen if you switch out "white" and/or "male" and if it would still be an acceptable statement

Thats the sense of the nonsense of the phrase : Racism and Misogyny are not in the eyes of the beholder..they are just facts.yet it bites me in the backside with almost opponent of common sense who defends it as being overly politically correct.

This racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic, scumbag, homophobic a$$hat was entitled to be a king maker and standard bearer for years at Fox ( and earlier at NBC)...and only stood in place because those around him were afraid of a bully.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/28/media/roger-ailes-language/

It was 2011 and Ryan, then the CEO of Politico, was on a mission to repair relations between the two media organizations, sources with knowledge of the situation said. Years earlier, Fox News had banned Politico reporters from its airwaves because of suspicions of anti-Fox bias, and Ryan was pushing for a fresh start.

Then, according to the sources, Ailes told Ryan what he wanted: He wanted fair coverage from Politico; he wanted the website to take stock of Fox News' successes, not just its controversies; and he wanted Politico to stop taking talking points from "that faggot David Brock."

The derogatory term Ailes used to describe Brock, the founder of the liberal watchdog group Media Matters For America, so shocked Ryan that he felt compelled to relay it to friends and colleagues, three of whom told CNNMoney about it this week. (Ryan declined to comment.)

To those who know Ailes, however, the story would not be surprising at all. The former Fox News chief, who stepped down last week amid sexual harassment allegations, regularly makes coarse and derogatory statements about women, homosexuals, Jews and racial minorities, several sources who have met with him said.

Indeed, many believe Ailes' derogatory language played a role in his departure from NBCUniversal in 1996. Officially, Ailes -- then president and CEO of the CNBC and America's Talking channels -- resigned from the network because he was "uncomfortable" with recent restructuring. But a year earlier, according to biographer Gabriel Sherman, Ailes had called NBC executive David Zaslav "a little f-----g Jew #######," prompting NBC to launch an investigation.

(NBC did not address the investigation, and both Ailes and Zaslav have denied Sherman's reporting, but Bob Wright, the former NBC chairman and CEO who was Ailes's boss at the time, told Sherman, "My conclusion was that he probably said it.")

Ailes' language also contributed to his downfall at Fox News. In addition to being accused of making unwanted advances, Ailes has been accused of making a litany of inappropriate remarks about women's faces and bodies.

One former Fox host recently told CNNMoney that Ailes once said to her, "Walk down the hallway slower, I want to get a look at those legs." A former staffer told the Washington Post, "He would say things like, 'She's really got the goods' and 'look at the tits on that one.'" Sometimes, the staffer said, he joked "that he liked having women on their knees."

Susan Estrich, Ailes' legal counsel, took issue with the anecdotes included in this article.

"These worn out and inaccurate gossip items were shot down years ago," Estrich wrote in an email. "For example, the story about Roger and Mr. Zaslav was debunked by the only two participants who could have been on the call, both of whom proved that such a conversation never took place. Yet it continues to be repeated as if it were true. My experience is that if a reporter makes up and repeats phony or fabricated stories, it may make the reporter feel better but it doesn't make the stories true."

While Ailes is not always so coarse, these sources said, he is very often inappropriate. He seems to delight in making provocative observations and jokes that leave his interlocutors both shocked and amused by the words that have come out of his mouth.

"What Roger says can often be, in polite parlance, inappropriate. But it is also very funny and keenly perceptive," said Michael Wolff, the media columnist who has met with Ailes multiple times. "This is not just vulgarity or slurs, it's an original world view -- novelistic in a sense. If you haven't heard it, you've missed out on something memorable. He's the Toscanini of inappropriateness."

But often Ailes' diction is simply coarse, cruel and offensive. He used the N-word when speaking with President Richard Nixon, according to "Nixonland," a book by historian Rick Perlstein.

Sherman reports that during a post-September 11 lunch with former President Bill Clinton, Ailes suggested rebuilding the World Trade towers and filling "the last ten floors with Muslims so [the terrorists] never do it again."

He has also used the word "faggot" on several occasions, according to sources, including to describe Brock during the meeting with Ryan -- a man who was by no means a friend or close confidant.

"Why am I not surprised?" Brock told CNNMoney when informed of the alleged slur.

After all, it was Brock who noted in his own book, "The Fox Effect," that Ailes once told President George H. W. Bush he shouldn't wear a short-sleeve shirt because he'd "look like a ###### faggot."

Edited July 28, 2016 by Rob L

[JayJayH 546]

No, you know why? Because no other race has the ability to make declarations about racism, except white people. It happens here all the time and IRL.

We only have the ability to call something NOT racist. Hence why when a black person says something isn't racist, they're paraded in front of the camera. I've been informed more than once that my experiences as a black man and a member of BLM(which is so funny that all these BLM threads get started and my input is somehow ignored) don't matter as much as the white man who tells me what racism really is.

I actually appreciate a lot of your inputs on BLM. You had one a few months ago that I never had the chance to reply to - Which I do apologize for, because it actually stuck. I've never disagreed with BLM's overall message - I only disagree with the methods, politization and "marketing" thereof. Not because I think their right to protest is a bad thing, but because I think there are much better ways to get a message across to a much wider audience, in a more unifying wrapping.

As far as making declarations about racism, or even experiences, I think we'll disagree also, if only from a purely relativistic standpoint. One of the problems with the U.S. being a humongous country is that experiences and perceptions are going to vary drastically from state to state and city to city. So when a person from rural Kansas is arguing with a person from the Bronx, their experiences, perceptions and even reality are going to be completely and utterly different - Hence "marketing." They're both in America. Their worldview and perceptions of reality will greatly differ.

When I talk about bad "marketing" is this.. Saying "white men this, white men that" probably does absolutely nothing to marginalize white men, and I do understand that there is a context within American history that this all falls into. Frankly, I rarely ever take offense to any of it - Mostly, I just find it amusing to watch people say "no to racism and sexism, kill all white men."

What scares me about the questionable double standard is the rise of white nationalism we're seeing in the U.S. This type of rhetoric from the left (my own side) has been widespread in Europe for the past three decades. What it has lead to is an EU parliament in which a large portion of the seats now belong to borderline neo-Fascist parties (way beyond Trump). Why? Because working class white people are pushed into racial tribalism. Once you begin pushing identity politics, you end up pushing a white, working class which makes up nearly 50% of the country into its own identity group. Hence the rise of Donald Trump, or worse.

In a nut shell, you (not you in particular) can't keep saying "white people this, white people that", followed by "only white people are racist", "white privelege!" and then expect West Virginian coal miners, retirees in Florida and farmers in Iowa who have never even really thought about any of it to be like "oh yea, f**k me, I guess I should watch my microaggressions more." - Why do I care how I market myself towards the white working class? Because they make up half the electorate.

Edited July 30, 2016 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

I actually appreciate a lot of your inputs on BLM. You had one a few months ago that I never had the chance to reply to - Which I do apologize for, because it actually stuck. I've never disagreed with BLM's overall message - I only disagree with the methods, politization and "marketing" thereof. Not because I think their right to protest is a bad thing, but because I think there are much better ways to get a message across to a much wider audience, in a more unifying wrapping.

As far as making declarations about racism, or even experiences, I think we'll disagree also, if only from a purely relativistic standpoint. One of the problems with the U.S. being a humongous country is that experiences and perceptions are going to vary drastically from state to state and city to city. So when a person from rural Kansas is arguing with a person from the Bronx, their experiences, perceptions and even reality are going to be completely and utterly different - Hence "marketing." They're both in America. Their worldview and perceptions of reality will greatly differ.

When I talk about bad "marketing" is this.. Saying "white men this, white men that" probably does absolutely nothing to marginalize white men, and I do understand that there is a context within American history that this all falls into. Frankly, I rarely ever take offense to any of it - Mostly, I just find it amusing to watch people say "no to racism and sexism, kill all white men."

What scares me about the questionable double standard is the rise of white nationalism we're seeing in the U.S. This type of rhetoric from the left (my own side) has been widespread in Europe for the past three decades. What it has lead to is an EU parliament in which a large portion of the seats now belong to borderline neo-Fascist parties (way beyond Trump). Why? Because working class white people are pushed into racial tribalism. Once you begin pushing identity politics, you end up pushing a white, working class which makes up nearly 50% of the country into its own identity group. Hence the rise of Donald Trump, or worse.

In a nut shell, you (not you in particular) can't keep saying "white people this, white people that", followed by "only white people are racist", "white privelege!" and then expect West Virginian coal miners, retirees in Florida and farmers in Iowa who have never even really thought about any of it to be like "oh yea, f**k me, I guess I should watch my microaggressions more." - Why do I care how I market myself towards the white working class? Because they make up half the electorate.

Very true. Hence why I said the other day I thought Michael Jordan's statement was very classy, but vastly different than the msg coming out of BLM. You can't claim to be fighting racism, or prejudice, or war, and end up using not only the same rhetoric but often times even the same actions or worse as the side you claim to fight against. And I'm not talking about even just BLM but even comments such as the one from Pelosi the other day:

“I think that, so many times, white — non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose,” Pelosi told PBS’s Judy Woodruff in an interview Wednesday.

You cannot claim to be against lumping groups of people together, and then show such contempt for rural America, and expect to win their hearts. It doesn't work that way. Some here will try to tell you what is going on in Europe is due to racism; it's not. For many many decades, especially since and partially because of the holocaust, Europeans have been trying to be very accepting of immigrants and people of other cultures and religions, not only to show the world but also to show themselves that they have changed. And it worked for a while, but now people there are starting to get sick and tired of what has happened to some areas of some countries in the last couple decades in part due to these immigrants not assimilating. I am not blaming only them necessarily, just pointing out the backdrop for it. They are growing tired of it and are not afraid to show it anymore.

Edited July 30, 2016 by OriZ

[JayJayH 546]

Very true. Hence why I said the other day I thought Michael Jordan's statement was very classy, but vastly different than the msg coming out of BLM. You can't claim to be fighting racism, or prejudice, or war, and end up using not only the same rhetoric but often times even the same actions or worse as the side you claim to fight against. And I'm not talking about even just BLM but even comments such as the one from Pelosi the other day:

“I think that, so many times, white — non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose,” Pelosi told PBS’s Judy Woodruff in an interview Wednesday.

You cannot claim to be against lumping groups of people together, and then show such contempt for rural America, and expect to win their hearts. It doesn't work that way. Some here will try to tell you what is going on in Europe is due to racism; it's not. For many many decades, especially since and partially because of the holocaust, Europeans have been trying to be very accepting of immigrants and people of other cultures and religions, not only to show the world but also to show themselves that they have changed. And it worked for a while, but now people there are starting to get sick and tired of what has happened to some areas of some countries in the last couple decades in part due to these immigrants not assimilating. I am not blaming only them necessarily, just pointing out the backdrop for it. They are growing tired of it and are not afraid to show it anymore.

Nancy Pelosi's speech really was no different than any of the garbage I've seen coming from the far right. Take abortion. I'm reluctantly pro-choice, and disagree with a lot of my conservative friends on that issue. But I don't go around calling them sexist and misogynist, or somehow being "against women." If you truly believe first-trimester abortion is murder, then I'd be concerned for you if you were pro-choice for any reason. I think it's healthy to recognize the issue of abortion as a difficult one, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.

Europe's immigration debate is a different debate entirely from the one in the U.S. Or at least it has been traditionally. One of the things I've always respected about the U.S. is that "immigrant" has never had a negative connotation in this country. Growing up in Europe, the word immigrant generally was a stigma, referring to someone who was "different." While I think it's partly due to European countries historically being nation states where nationality and ethnicity were closely tied, the U.S. has generally been really good at assimilating people - There has always been an expectation here that you're welcome to come here (legally), and you are in turn expected to become an American. In Europe, there has been more of a utopian dream of people coming, but sticking to their own culture, maintaining their ways and traditions - "Expecting people to blend in too much is racist imperialism." I'm all for a diverse melting pot, it's really a beautiful thing. Europe's experiment with multiculturalism however has been terrible.

I fear the growing polarization in the U.S. - Where the right is becoming increasingly tribal, and the left is becoming increasingly infatuated with cultural marxism, will bring an end to the successes the U.S. has had.

Edited August 1, 2016 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

Nancy Pelosi's speech really was no different than any of the garbage I've seen coming from the far right. Take abortion. I'm reluctantly pro-choice, and disagree with a lot of my conservative friends on that issue. But I don't go around calling them sexist and misogynist, or somehow being "against women." If you truly believe first-trimester abortion is murder, then I'd be concerned for you if you were pro-choice for any reason. I think it's healthy to recognize the issue of abortion as a difficult one, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.

Europe's immigration debate is a different debate entirely from the one in the U.S. Or at least it has been traditionally. One of the things I've always respected about the U.S. is that "immigrant" has never had a negative connotation in this country. Growing up in Europe, the word immigrant generally was a stigma, referring to someone who was "different." While I think it's partly due to European countries historically being nation states where nationality and ethnicity were closely tied, the U.S. has generally been really good at assimilating people - There has always been an expectation here that you're welcome to come here (legally), and you are in turn expected to become an American. In Europe, there has been more of a utopian dream of people coming, but sticking to their own culture, maintaining their ways and traditions - "Expecting people to blend in too much is racist imperialism." I'm all for a diverse melting pot, it's really a beautiful thing. Europe's experiment with multiculturalism however has been terrible.

I fear the growing polarization in the U.S. - Where the right is becoming increasingly tribal, and the left is becoming increasingly infatuated with cultural marxism, will bring an end to the successes the U.S. has had.

As far as abortion goes I have always said I am pro choice in the first trimester under most circumstances, but NOT after 20 weeks under any circumstances, and not as a form of birth control even in the first trimester. Unfortunately that is more of a moral issue than a legal one, because you can't prove it one way or the other. I believe if you went around and got yourself pregnant by being stupid, not using precautions, etc, if there was a way to prove that I would not support an abortion in that case. However, rape, incest, or accidental pregnancies where every effort to avoid it was made - but as we know sometimes it just don't work - then I am fine with it. However I don't think taxpayers should cover it unless there's a risk to the mother's health and/or the assistance is completely necessary.

[smilesammich 10,727]

As far as abortion goes I have always said I am pro choice in the first trimester under most circumstances, but NOT after 20 weeks under any circumstances, and not as a form of birth control even in the first trimester. Unfortunately that is more of a moral issue than a legal one, because you can't prove it one way or the other. I believe if you went around and got yourself pregnant by being stupid, not using precautions, etc, if there was a way to prove that I would not support an abortion in that case. However, rape, incest, or accidental pregnancies where every effort to avoid it was made - but as we know sometimes it just don't work - then I am fine with it. However I don't think taxpayers should cover it unless there's a risk to the mother's health and/or the assistance is completely necessary.

not even the mother's life?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Republicans are a hypocritical hoot when it comes to birth control and abortions.

Don't you dare abort that pregnancy but we're not going to help support you when you're forced to have that baby you can't afford. Do as we say and then you're on your own.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Teddy B

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I actually appreciate a lot of your inputs on BLM. You had one a few months ago that I never had the chance to reply to - Which I do apologize for, because it actually stuck. I've never disagreed with BLM's overall message - I only disagree with the methods, politization and "marketing" thereof. Not because I think their right to protest is a bad thing, but because I think there are much better ways to get a message across to a much wider audience, in a more unifying wrapping.

As far as making declarations about racism, or even experiences, I think we'll disagree also, if only from a purely relativistic standpoint. One of the problems with the U.S. being a humongous country is that experiences and perceptions are going to vary drastically from state to state and city to city. So when a person from rural Kansas is arguing with a person from the Bronx, their experiences, perceptions and even reality are going to be completely and utterly different - Hence "marketing." They're both in America. Their worldview and perceptions of reality will greatly differ.

When I talk about bad "marketing" is this.. Saying "white men this, white men that" probably does absolutely nothing to marginalize white men, and I do understand that there is a context within American history that this all falls into. Frankly, I rarely ever take offense to any of it - Mostly, I just find it amusing to watch people say "no to racism and sexism, kill all white men."

What scares me about the questionable double standard is the rise of white nationalism we're seeing in the U.S. This type of rhetoric from the left (my own side) has been widespread in Europe for the past three decades. What it has lead to is an EU parliament in which a large portion of the seats now belong to borderline neo-Fascist parties (way beyond Trump). Why? Because working class white people are pushed into racial tribalism. Once you begin pushing identity politics, you end up pushing a white, working class which makes up nearly 50% of the country into its own identity group. Hence the rise of Donald Trump, or worse.

In a nut shell, you (not you in particular) can't keep saying "white people this, white people that", followed by "only white people are racist", "white privelege!" and then expect West Virginian coal miners, retirees in Florida and farmers in Iowa who have never even really thought about any of it to be like "oh yea, f**k me, I guess I should watch my microaggressions more." - Why do I care how I market myself towards the white working class? Because they make up half the electorate.

Okay, in order:

As far as BLM is concerned, I agree it could use some tweaks. Being out here I can't go to the meetings and protests like I could in STL. The peaceful protests is what's most acceptable but when you got folks getting shot for laying on the ground with your hands in the air, it's hard to be nice about it. I know folks want us to be like MLK, but let's be real, he was peaceful, but his supporters were attacked, beaten and worse, and he himself was killed. Even with being the better man white America had a 22% approval rating of MLK.

The problem with discussing race isn't about perspective, it's about people flat out denouncing another person's experience because it flies contrary to their own. It's crazy because race is a very hot topic here, but I swear every time myself of Janelle have any type of input, we're called liars or worse asked to leave since the discussion is about black people, but our input as black people doesn't count. So yeah, we feel a certain way about that.

And I've said about a million times before, there's a difference between racism and racist. Anyone can be racist, but only the majority can be accused of racism. And the majority, sorry to say, is white people in this country. In context, for us to perpetuate racism, we have to keep something from you, or oppress you in some way. We can't. There's nothing we own that we can make exclusive enough that white people want to join and we say no. Google any kind of racism and see how much white people come up. Their version of it is when they get fired for saying something racist on the air, or when they don't get admitted into a college for sub par grades. No one is trying to subjugate you on a mass scale.

Very true. Hence why I said the other day I thought Michael Jordan's statement was very classy, but vastly different than the msg coming out of BLM. You can't claim to be fighting racism, or prejudice, or war, and end up using not only the same rhetoric but often times even the same actions or worse as the side you claim to fight against. And I'm not talking about even just BLM but even comments such as the one from Pelosi the other day:

“I think that, so many times, white — non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose,” Pelosi told PBS’s Judy Woodruff in an interview Wednesday.

You cannot claim to be against lumping groups of people together, and then show such contempt for rural America, and expect to win their hearts. It doesn't work that way. Some here will try to tell you what is going on in Europe is due to racism; it's not. For many many decades, especially since and partially because of the holocaust, Europeans have been trying to be very accepting of immigrants and people of other cultures and religions, not only to show the world but also to show themselves that they have changed. And it worked for a while, but now people there are starting to get sick and tired of what has happened to some areas of some countries in the last couple decades in part due to these immigrants not assimilating. I am not blaming only them necessarily, just pointing out the backdrop for it. They are growing tired of it and are not afraid to show it anymore.

Considering what has been happening as of late, this won't happen.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Republicans are a hypocritical hoot when it comes to birth control and abortions.

Don't you dare abort that pregnancy but we're not going to help support you when you're forced to have that baby you can't afford. Do as we say and then you're on your own.

republicans and conservatives seem to think that pregnancies are punishments. oh, can't prove that you properly used contraception and you're knocked up? hmm. moral call, lets call a man to see what should be done. a man with morals, lest this important life be aborted for mere birth control.

barf.

[Teddy B 17,252]

republicans and conservatives seem to think that pregnancies are punishments. oh, can't prove that you properly used contraception and you're knocked up? hmm. moral call, lets call a man to see what should be done. a man with morals, lest this important life be aborted for mere birth control.

barf.

God fearing men always know what's best!

[OriZ 3,157]

not even the mother's life?

No, I have said in the past that would be an exception I just forgot to add it this time(I did at the end of the post but didn't clarify it pertained to that as well, as I meant under any normal circumstances and that's certainly not a normal one).

republicans and conservatives seem to think that pregnancies are punishments. oh, can't prove that you properly used contraception and you're knocked up? hmm. moral call, lets call a man to see what should be done. a man with morals, lest this important life be aborted for mere birth control.

barf.

Like I said myself, it can't be proven either way so it's kind of a moot point, just more a moral issue for me. I don't believe in using abortions as a form of birth control, but I sure don't know of a legal way to find out and stop it from happening? Either way I'm not assuming you're talking about me since I'm neither a republican nor a conservative