Thommo | Page 14 | Vital Football

Thommo

impede said:
What I have explained over and over again in a number of different ways is that you compare like for like. Yes, the Queen and Meghan Markel are immensely privileged compared to you and me (for the record I am a republican) but Megan Markel gets terrible treatment in the right wing press compared to Kate Middleton because she is black. Kate Middleton has the privilege of being white. If you fail to get it now, I will give up because you will be either unwilling to get it or incapable of ever getting it.
Click to expand...

Meghan Markel gets treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were white she would get treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were a man she would be treated like a whiny woke man. The fact she is mixed race has made woke people draw straight lines that don't have much to do with it at all.

The woke BBC numpties kept on speaking during the days and weeks prior to the wedding about the royal family opening up and trying to be more diverse???? You mean they had a family discussion and decided that Harry should marry someone not white and not from noble blood? Wasn't about love then?

Contrast with many other royals that kept their heads down. Other than Fergie who was unfairly treated because she was a Ginge.

This whole debate is driven by a hoity "new" middle class, mostly white, mostly comfortable that think they should talk on behalf of those "less priviliged" whether that be due to sexuality, race or financial position.

It peeves me off whenever there is a debate on telly and lots of comfortable do gooders bang on about how people "in poverty" live from their "day trips" into the poor parts or from their "research." Especially seeing as I and my family are classed in that bottom 10% group of being in poverty. A reality that is certainly not true.

My wife (who is a foreign black woman) couldn't understand the argument over coloured/black a few weeks ago. So I the priviliged white man had to explain to her what the problem was. She was still none the wiser. She refers to herself as Black but she also has family living in the US who refer to themselves as "people of colour" as well as black. Then John Barnes came on the telly saying the same and that we should be talking about attitudes and not what this week's acceptable terms are. We both nodded our heads.

My Dad in his 70s was virtually trained (by society) to say coloured instead of black in his younger years. I don;t feel the need to pull him up because he isn't racist. He is just a victim of groups that keep deciding that terminology should be changed constantly which will end up with the majority in the wrong as no-one knows what should or can be said.

If they've pulled Thommo on the above then fair enough but the left's obsession with "white privilege" is a typical example of what is wrong with the left. The left should be a force for good, trying to crush barriers to advancement. Making opportunity equal. However what they actually do and seem to want is to limit opportunity for everybody to equalise things.

If some people "have it better" then they introduce "positive discrimination" in order to cancel out "negative discrimination." So they fight against discrimination not by trying to eliminate discrimination but by discriminating "the other way."

I think most people can understand what you and others mean by white privilege however, the answer is not to discriminate the other way. It is to properly tackle the discrimination itself. Something that they are loathe to do. Those who follow the 'positive discrimination" train of thought should really be asking themselves why? Why are those that lead the argument not trying to wipe discrimination out.

This argument over discrimination will never ever die because people don't want it to die. It is far too politically valuable to maintain divides of "them and us." Far too politically valuable to try and make out that more and more of the population are "us." If everybody was equal (you know, the end goal they profess to want to achieve) then those political arguments would be gone and they would lose their lever to herd votes their way.

For me, I am 45. Like my Dad was "braintrained" to say coloured instead of black, I have grown up "braintrained" to say black instead of coloured. If we speak to someone from South Africa I am in trouble. If he speaks to someone from England he is in trouble!!! Do either of us mean to offend anyone? Or are just results of a society we have been brought up in, a society that does improve generation upon generation, no matter what people think and a society that should be assessed on intent rather than this decades list of allowable terminology.
 
Norfolk Imp said:
Did you hear the Carla Greene interview with John Inverdale on Radio Lincs 40th Birthday Anniversary? .... I think it is on BBC Sounds and is a great listen?
Click to expand...
Is this the John Inverdale that got into trouble for commenting that Marion Bartoli "had never been a looker" live on air?? And for several other sexist comments? The fact he is blind for the former is besides the point but he is still on the tellybox.
 
GreenNeedle said:
Meghan Markel gets treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were white she would get treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were a man she would be treated like a whiny woke man. The fact she is mixed race has made woke people draw straight lines that don't have much to do with it at all.

The woke BBC numpties kept on speaking during the days and weeks prior to the wedding about the royal family opening up and trying to be more diverse???? You mean they had a family discussion and decided that Harry should marry someone not white and not from noble blood? Wasn't about love then?

Contrast with many other royals that kept their heads down. Other than Fergie who was unfairly treated because she was a Ginge.

This whole debate is driven by a hoity "new" middle class, mostly white, mostly comfortable that think they should talk on behalf of those "less priviliged" whether that be due to sexuality, race or financial position.

It peeves me off whenever there is a debate on telly and lots of comfortable do gooders bang on about how people "in poverty" live from their "day trips" into the poor parts or from their "research." Especially seeing as I and my family are classed in that bottom 10% group of being in poverty. A reality that is certainly not true.

My wife (who is a foreign black woman) couldn't understand the argument over coloured/black a few weeks ago. So I the priviliged white man had to explain to her what the problem was. She was still none the wiser. She refers to herself as Black but she also has family living in the US who refer to themselves as "people of colour" as well as black. Then John Barnes came on the telly saying the same and that we should be talking about attitudes and not what this week's acceptable terms are. We both nodded our heads.

My Dad in his 70s was virtually trained (by society) to say coloured instead of black in his younger years. I don;t feel the need to pull him up because he isn't racist. He is just a victim of groups that keep deciding that terminology should be changed constantly which will end up with the majority in the wrong as no-one knows what should or can be said.

If they've pulled Thommo on the above then fair enough but the left's obsession with "white privilege" is a typical example of what is wrong with the left. The left should be a force for good, trying to crush barriers to advancement. Making opportunity equal. However what they actually do and seem to want is to limit opportunity for everybody to equalise things.

If some people "have it better" then they introduce "positive discrimination" in order to cancel out "negative discrimination." So they fight against discrimination not by trying to eliminate discrimination but by discriminating "the other way."

I think most people can understand what you and others mean by white privilege however, the answer is not to discriminate the other way. It is to properly tackle the discrimination itself. Something that they are loathe to do. Those who follow the 'positive discrimination" train of thought should really be asking themselves why? Why are those that lead the argument not trying to wipe discrimination out.

This argument over discrimination will never ever die because people don't want it to die. It is far too politically valuable to maintain divides of "them and us." Far too politically valuable to try and make out that more and more of the population are "us." If everybody was equal (you know, the end goal they profess to want to achieve) then those political arguments would be gone and they would lose their lever to herd votes their way.

For me, I am 45. Like my Dad was "braintrained" to say coloured instead of black, I have grown up "braintrained" to say black instead of coloured. If we speak to someone from South Africa I am in trouble. If he speaks to someone from England he is in trouble!!! Do either of us mean to offend anyone? Or are just results of a society we have been brought up in, a society that does improve generation upon generation, no matter what people think and a society that should be assessed on intent rather than this decades list of allowable terminology.
Click to expand...
Your blood pressure must be through the roof
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
Remarkable isn’t it? The willingness to believe and get wound up about any old shite spewed out of Facebook or slurry like the Sun and the Daily Mail. You wonder about the mental faculties of some people.
Click to expand...

In fairness the Mirror is well into it as well, many of it’s readers have gone apoplectic.
 
Huntsward said:
Your blood pressure must be through the roof
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I just find it laughable (and to be honest quite disappointing) that so many people are conned into thinking the way to fight against discrimination is........to discriminate the other way.

I'm not on twitter, don't read papers nor watch much television. I just watch the news on BBC or CH4 and decipher what is news from what is nonsense.
 
GreenNeedle said:
Is this the John Inverdale that got into trouble for commenting that Marion Bartoli "had never been a looker" live on air?? And for several other sexist comments? The fact he is blind for the former is besides the point but he is still on the tellybox.
Click to expand...
Inverdale was wrong anyway. I have met Marion and she is a looker.
 
cherryexile said:
I'm not sure that they have proved it. They have suggested it certainly. But peers have challenged the suggestion e.g.

https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm

The burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, totalling 31% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, followed by transportation at 15%, manufacturing at 12.4% and animal agriculture at 11% (World Resources Institute).

and,

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/fossil-fuels-vs-animal-agriculture

In 2006, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published a global study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It stated, among other things, that livestock was contributing a staggering 18 percent to the world’s GHG emissions. The FAO drew a startling conclusion: Globally, livestock was emitting more GHGs than all modes of transportation combined.

The claim was incorrect, having come about as the result of an error in the methodology used to gather data.

As a result, transportation’s impact was underestimated and thus, livestock’s relative impact overestimated, in an apples-to-oranges comparison. Though the committee owned up to its error, the information was already out, and a bell cannot unring.

If you spend 30 minutes looking at the internet you will find that there are broadly two camps, supporting two views, 1) that animal agriculture is the worst contributor to global warming, and 2) that it is significant, but not the worst. The second group counter the methodology of the results propagated by the first. The first group seems to be made up primarily of environmentalists, vegans and animal liberation promoters, supported by some scientists and the second seems primarily made up of animal farming groups, scientists and peer reviewers.

Now I don't pretend to know the answer to where animal agriculture sits in the pecking order of climate destruction, but I think it is a clear example that it is easy to find supporting evidence for a view that you want to be true and that the internet feeds self-justifying belief loops.

The same thing works for Politics, Religion, Equal Rights activism and Football supporting (we are all in a Lincoln City one now).
Click to expand...

Yes but let’s not stop the facts getting in the way of trying to prove an invalid point. Good research!
 
Red Wimp said:
No probably none of us middle aged white males ever have
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward too old
GreenNeedle said:
Meghan Markel gets treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were white she would get treated like a whiny woke woman. If she were a man she would be treated like a whiny woke man. The fact she is mixed race has made woke people draw straight lines that don't have much to do with it at all.

The woke BBC numpties kept on speaking during the days and weeks prior to the wedding about the royal family opening up and trying to be more diverse???? You mean they had a family discussion and decided that Harry should marry someone not white and not from noble blood? Wasn't about love then?

Contrast with many other royals that kept their heads down. Other than Fergie who was unfairly treated because she was a Ginge.

This whole debate is driven by a hoity "new" middle class, mostly white, mostly comfortable that think they should talk on behalf of those "less priviliged" whether that be due to sexuality, race or financial position.

It peeves me off whenever there is a debate on telly and lots of comfortable do gooders bang on about how people "in poverty" live from their "day trips" into the poor parts or from their "research." Especially seeing as I and my family are classed in that bottom 10% group of being in poverty. A reality that is certainly not true.

My wife (who is a foreign black woman) couldn't understand the argument over coloured/black a few weeks ago. So I the priviliged white man had to explain to her what the problem was. She was still none the wiser. She refers to herself as Black but she also has family living in the US who refer to themselves as "people of colour" as well as black. Then John Barnes came on the telly saying the same and that we should be talking about attitudes and not what this week's acceptable terms are. We both nodded our heads.

My Dad in his 70s was virtually trained (by society) to say coloured instead of black in his younger years. I don;t feel the need to pull him up because he isn't racist. He is just a victim of groups that keep deciding that terminology should be changed constantly which will end up with the majority in the wrong as no-one knows what should or can be said.

If they've pulled Thommo on the above then fair enough but the left's obsession with "white privilege" is a typical example of what is wrong with the left. The left should be a force for good, trying to crush barriers to advancement. Making opportunity equal. However what they actually do and seem to want is to limit opportunity for everybody to equalise things.

If some people "have it better" then they introduce "positive discrimination" in order to cancel out "negative discrimination." So they fight against discrimination not by trying to eliminate discrimination but by discriminating "the other way."

I think most people can understand what you and others mean by white privilege however, the answer is not to discriminate the other way. It is to properly tackle the discrimination itself. Something that they are loathe to do. Those who follow the 'positive discrimination" train of thought should really be asking themselves why? Why are those that lead the argument not trying to wipe discrimination out.

This argument over discrimination will never ever die because people don't want it to die. It is far too politically valuable to maintain divides of "them and us." Far too politically valuable to try and make out that more and more of the population are "us." If everybody was equal (you know, the end goal they profess to want to achieve) then those political arguments would be gone and they would lose their lever to herd votes their way.

For me, I am 45. Like my Dad was "braintrained" to say coloured instead of black, I have grown up "braintrained" to say black instead of coloured. If we speak to someone from South Africa I am in trouble. If he speaks to someone from England he is in trouble!!! Do either of us mean to offend anyone? Or are just results of a society we have been brought up in, a society that does improve generation upon generation, no matter what people think and a society that should be assessed on intent rather than this decades list of allowable terminology.
Click to expand...
In a few years from now anyone calling a .......er, hmm, dark skinned person black, will go through the hand bags torment.
 
Now in the Echo:-

"Steve 'Tommo' Thompson, who works as a freelancer, has been stood down until after the New Year following his remarks, which included referring to a scuffle between players as 'handbags'.

At one point he also said: "[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt."

Thompson made the comments on BBC Radio Lincolnshire during City’s game with Accrington Stanley on Saturday, November 21."

What has the world come to...
 
mikeosullivan said:
Now in the Echo:-

"Steve 'Tommo' Thompson, who works as a freelancer, has been stood down until after the New Year following his remarks, which included referring to a scuffle between players as 'handbags'.

At one point he also said: "[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt."

Thompson made the comments on BBC Radio Lincolnshire during City’s game with Accrington Stanley on Saturday, November 21."

What has the world come to...
Click to expand...

Probably one where sexism isn’t acceptable on the national broadcasting station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.