O/T:- Mr George Floyd RIP

[navypie]

This is brilliant

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271862438351290371

[navypie]

This is brilliant

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271862438351290371

I heard that she went to Caesars Palace and asked if she could meet him.

[drillerpie]

The SDP is a very fringe political party comprising of some of the dregs of UKIP. Literally no elected representatives in the whole country(councillors or otherwise) Cobley is a representative of Civitas, part of the right wing cabal operating out of Tufton St which of course is anti-EU, anti-immigration and who of course refuse to disclose who funds them.

I’m not saying I agree with all elements of the BLM campaign, you’ve highlighted some of the more questionable objectives, but Christ, we’ve currently got a white supremacist in the White House, a fully paid up racist in 10 Downing St, and a pandemic which is killing a disproportionate number of BAME people. I can’t blame some elements with getting a bit fed up with how the system is working. To write the whole thing off as a Trojan Horse far left plot is a bit unfair.

The idiots fighting the police in London imo are neither here nor there. They don’t like forriners, but are generally just after a day on the sniff and the piss, and a fight with whichever poor sod happens to be in their way.

I still don't know how you're defining 'extremely dodgy' BFP. Are you suggesting I should disregard the article because the party's website is anti-EU? It would be more accurate to look at whether there are any factual errors in the sources (I posted some videos as well, and would also recommend Sam Harris's latest podcast) rather than if it comes from a trendy source I can agree with.

I noticed you did that with the video someone posted of Fox News talking about Trump's speech in which he mentioned George Floyd. Fox News is an absurdity and nobody has criticised Trump on here more than me, but on this occasion they were right.

This is actually the core question. Should we evaluate claims and arguments based on whether they are factually correct and stand up to rigorous examination? This is what we started to do during the enlightenment and it led to the greatest period of human achievement ever, after centuries of superstition and religious fanaticism. Or should we evaluate claims based on who makes them and their status and power in the social hierarchy, with ritual humiliation for those who disobey? That's a great way to get back to the witch-dunking, heretic-burning 1500s.

I don't think I'm being unfair to BLM or picking on small unimportant points. They want to overthrow capitalism, dismantle the state and abolish the police. It's not like I'm picking fault with their choice of font on the website. These are the most important issues imaginable.

The only thing I can get behind is their general anti-racism stance but as soon as I dig down there I don't like what I see. They expect unthinking praise, refuse
to defend their opinions and resort to cult-like methods to brow beat people into obedience. If that isn't forthcoming they resort to ritual humiliation. They don't represent my ideas of the best way to reduce racism, nor is it clear they even represent a majority of black people's ideas.

The football hooligans and EDL-ers in London yesterday are bovine rent-a-mob but the people guiding them and paying people like Tommy Robinson are intelligent and well funded and will exploit any opportunity they can.

[BigFatPie]

I still don't know how you're defining 'extremely dodgy' BFP. Are you suggesting I should disregard the article because the party's website is anti-EU? It would be more accurate to look at whether there are any factual errors in the sources (I posted some videos as well, and would also recommend Sam Harris's latest podcast) rather than if it comes from a trendy source I can agree with.

I noticed you did that with the video someone posted of Fox News talking about Trump's speech in which he mentioned George Floyd. Fox News is an absurdity and nobody has criticised Trump on here more than me, but on this occasion they were right.

This is actually the core question. Should we evaluate claims and arguments based on whether they are factually correct and stand up to rigorous examination? This is what we started to do during the enlightenment and it led to the greatest period of human achievement ever, after centuries of superstition and religious fanaticism. Or should we evaluate claims based on who makes them and their status and power in the social hierarchy, with ritual humiliation for those who disobey? That's a great way to get back to the witch-dunking, heretic-burning 1500s.

I don't think I'm being unfair to BLM or picking on small unimportant points. They want to overthrow capitalism, dismantle the state and abolish the police. It's not like I'm picking fault with their choice of font on the website. These are the most important issues imaginable.

The only thing I can get behind is their general anti-racism stance but as soon as I dig down there I don't like what I see. They expect unthinking praise, refuse
to defend their opinions and resort to cult-like methods to brow beat people into obedience. If that isn't forthcoming they resort to ritual humiliation. They don't represent my ideas of the best way to reduce racism, nor is it clear they even represent a majority of black people's ideas.

The football hooligans and EDL-ers in London yesterday are bovine rent-a-mob but the people guiding them and paying people like Tommy Robinson are intelligent and well funded and will exploit any opportunity they can.

Every single word of Cobley’s piece could be reasonably aimed at him and the organisation he represents. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Racism still exists in every strata of society . I’m not black and I can see that. If anyone’s criticising BLM that’s fine, but then they also have to say what THEY’RE going to do about it, because the direction of travel both with racism and other social injustices isn’t promising.

[navypie]

Every single word of Cobley’s piece could be reasonably aimed at him and the organisation he represents. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Racism still exists in every strata of society . I’m not black and I can see that. If anyone’s criticising BLM that’s fine, but then they also have to say what THEY’RE going to do about it, because the direction of travel both with racism and other social injustices isn’t promising.

To be fair Lardy, you are an expert on hypocrisy.

[Disturbed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GHkljX-So

[BigFatPie]

To be fair Lardy, you are an expert on hypocrisy.

Why’s that Sinbad?

[upthemaggies]

John Cleese "Hard to tell if I recorded this 30 years or 10 minutes ago..."

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/statu...35485467283457

[navypie]

Why’s that Sinbad?

The bloke having a piss's been rightly arrested and great compassion shown by the bloke, gives me hope for the future. I condemn violence by both sides in recent weeks, would you like to join me and do the same?

[ForeignLegion]

get out from under your rock and google it.