Offensive posts, compare and contrast; FAO The Fear | Vital Football

Offensive posts, compare and contrast; FAO The Fear

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#1
I'd like you to please consider two posts that have been made on here in recent times. Both of these particular posts were made as a response to a previous comment by another poster. For equity and fairness I will include the preceding posts to provide context:

1) The context:
valenciaGill: We see hundreds of births everyday too. The virus is killing less than half of one per cent of the population.
The offensive post:
Wayne_Kerr: Let's hope you're next as you seem so keen to trivialise it.

2) The context:
nitram77: I still think it started going wrong as far back as the 50's and 60's, it was a brilliant period to live through, but it's when family life started to break down, industry began losing it's way, people started too expect something for nothing.
The offensive post:
valenciaGill: And someone decided that Britain was to become a social experiment , a multicultural paradise. With different cultures , came different values. The indigenous population wasn't asked if they want it , or even consulted. From the seeds sewn back then , we are now beginning to reap the harvest.

In one sense, a very narrow one, the first post is extremely offensive because it appears to wish death on somebody.

However, it must be remembered that this was a directed at one particular individual who has, over the pages of this forum, often posted material that many people find extremely offensive. It was an OTT response, I don't think many would argue that it wasn't, but it was aimed at one individual. Although on the surface Wayne's response seems very aggressive and unnecessary, does anybody really believe that Wayne was wishing death on valencia? Was it not an expression of exasperation? Do people not ever say things in the heat of the moment that they don't really mean? How many people have said regrettable things when they have been pushed to the limit? How many of us have said things like, "I'm gonna kill you!" and actually meant it?!

Now let us consider the second exchange. Unlike the first one this second offensive post wasn't made in the 'heat of the moment'. It came out of nowhere and was not aimed directly at one poster. It was a far more general comment and I can't see how anybody could claim it was made it the 'heat of the moment'. Rather, it was delivered calmly and unlike Wayne's post, I think it would be difficult for anybody to argue that the poster didn't really mean what he was saying (part of the evidence for this is the fact that valencia has made a number of similar posts over the years).

Furthermore, the second offensive post is offensive to very many people, not directed at one person but generally offensive. Not only to the great many people who were invited to come to Britain but also to a very large proportion of the population who reject racism and xenophobia. With regard to the members of this board I think (and maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it) that a great deal more members would have found the this second offensive post to be more offensive than the first.

If we are to consider the two posts literally and in isolation, then maybe Wayne's post is more offensive than valencia's. But if we take into consideration the context and look a little bit deeper, perhaps reading between the lines a little, how on earth can Wayne be considered as the more offensive of the two? One post was made in exasperation and directed solely at the very poster who has now contributed yet another piece of vile rhetoric. The other post was deliberately designed to cause offence to a number of people. It was full of emotive phrases such as, "social experiment", "multicultural paradise" and "indigenous population" that have no basis in truth or fact but are instead intended to perpetuate an incorrect and racist interpretation of history.

I don't think valencia should be banned for making such vile and offensive comments but I think it is an absolute travesty of justice that Wayne has been banned for losing his temper with this nasty and hateful poster. Why should Wayne have to apologise for his comment if valencia is not expected to apologise for his?

Please consider what I have said here, The Fear, and rescind Wayne's ban so that he can come back on here if he wishes. It's simply unfair to ban Wayne whilst a truly offensive poster remains free to post offensive material whenever he wants.
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
#3
I inadvertently used a naughty word in reported speech and it has been replaced with 4 asterisks so you can't be sure what it was now. That made me smile.

Bring Back Wayne say I.

Campaign stickers and posters available.
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#4
Its all down to how people read it. Waynes post is far worse in my view. Its also worth pointing out that its wasn't the post in isolation that led to the ban. The fear made it clear it is the level of admin he has to do due the level of alerts. He offered wayne the chance to revoke and apologise but typical of Wayne he didn't.

I think if people want him back stick a poll up and lets go with the majority. I'll be honest I think the forum has been less belligerent without him.
 

LockdownLife

Vital Youth Team
#5
To be honest a lot of the forum is far more readable without him hijacking and arguing in all the vaguely political threads. Personally I'd already forgotten about him so I don't particularly care for him coming back. We've been chatting self entitlement and people thinking they can just do what they want. Isn't bringing him back just enabling that behaviour?

With regards to the OP - I agree there are some people on here continually spouting racist stuff. Unfortunately it's often only racist with the hidden context and the history of what we know they've said before. Much like with Wayne I'm pretty fed up of them turning threads unnecessarily into circular debates about race and religion.

It's a shame as they come across as decent folk in Gills related threads which there is a dearth of now obviously.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#6
WayneKerr was banned because of persistent complaints Buddha, not a one off over reaction.

Try looking at it from The Fear's perspective.

He just doesn't need the aggro.

I agree with Mark's post above, this forum has been a nicer place without him.
If he could come back and reign it in a little, it would be fine, but we've been there before, haven't we.

If there was a poll, I'd vote against, but what if it was 52/48%
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#7
If there was a poll, I'd vote against, but what if it was 52/48%
We'd have another endless thread to debate :-)

Simple rules. If the majority who vote want him back then we can ask the Fear. He did imply it was down to us. If put to the vote I think I would vote against, just don't think he would change. Now if you put a fancy slogan on a bus then that could sway me.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#8
We'd have another endless thread to debate :-)

Simple rules. If the majority who vote want him back then we can ask the Fear. He did imply it was down to us. If put to the vote I think I would vote against, just don't think he would change. Now if you put a fancy slogan on a bus then that could sway me.
WK is on the phone to Dominic Cummings as we speak.
Three word slogan seems to work
"Get Wayne Back"
Buddha can fire up his bus.
 

Whitstabletangerine

Vital Reserves Team
#9
As a guest on your forum I am not going to comment about WK's ban or the banning of any individual, I read the threads and enjoy the debates, but in the case of the man in Iberia I would just say that we as a nation were not consulted merely because well before my lifetime we have welcomed folk from all over the world and as the creator of the Commonwealth when we called on our member states for help during two world wars they never hesitated to come to our aid.
As the mother country of the Commonwealth of nations I would expect to see citizens of those nations come to live and work here and there was certainly a time decades ago that we needed them here and still do.
 

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#10
Ok, fair enough, I can understand that some people feel that the board is a 'nicer' place without Wayne. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we didn't have to put up with valencia's offensive contributions?

I accept that Wayne wasn't banned because of one single post. I'm not sure that he was "persistently" offensive but if he was then shirley the same is true of valencia. His latest offensive post wasn't an isolated incident either.

I also hear what you're saying about The Fear having to deal with all the alerts but are we really to believe that more people were reporting Wayne than reporting valencia? If that is the case then shame on those posters who reported/grassed Wayne but haven't reported/grassed valencia.

Mark, I accept that you found Wayne's post more offensive, that's your opinion and your right. But if I'm honest, I'm disappointed in your stance. Wayne might be belligerent but at least he isn't insidious. Wayne might appear to be more offensive but is appearance everything? Wayne is up front and shoots from the hip. Yes this can sometimes be offensive but at least it is honest. valencia by contrast is calculated and underhand. He stops short of saying anything explicit but everybody knows what he really means.

I don't want anybody banned but if people really think Wayne should continue to be banned then fair enough, but only if valencia is banned too.

To ban Wayne and not valencia is, I think, inconsistent.
 
Last edited:

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
#11
We'd have another endless thread to debate :-)

Simple rules. If the majority who vote want him back then we can ask the Fear. He did imply it was down to us. If put to the vote I think I would vote against, just don't think he would change. Now if you put a fancy slogan on a bus then that could sway me.
Yep, I vote no as well, I don't want him back for a 4th time.

Buddha, stop whining please. You have your opinions (which you are happy to share) and others have theirs. If you are uncomfortable reading different views, do what Gills58 has done and BLOCK
 

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#12
Yep, I vote no as well, I don't want him back for a 4th time.

Buddha, stop whining please. You have your opinions (which you are happy to share) and others have theirs. If you are uncomfortable reading different views, do what Gills58 has done and BLOCK
Fair comment, 3x6, but couldn't the same be said with regard to Wayne. If people found him offensive why couldn't they have just BLOCKED rather than REPORTED him?
 

Gills 58

Vital 1st Team Regular
#13
As a guest on your forum I am not going to comment about WK's ban or the banning of any individual, I read the threads and enjoy the debates, but in the case of the man in Iberia I would just say that we as a nation were not consulted merely because well before my lifetime we have welcomed folk from all over the world and as the creator of the Commonwealth when we called on our member states for help during two world wars they never hesitated to come to our aid.
As the mother country of the Commonwealth of nations I would expect to see citizens of those nations come to live and work here and there was certainly a time decades ago that we needed them here and still do.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
 
#14
I'd like you to please consider two posts that have been made on here in recent times. Both of these particular posts were made as a response to a previous comment by another poster. For equity and fairness I will include the preceding posts to provide context:

1) The context:
valenciaGill: We see hundreds of births everyday too. The virus is killing less than half of one per cent of the population.
The offensive post:
Wayne_Kerr: Let's hope you're next as you seem so keen to trivialise it.

2) The context:
nitram77: I still think it started going wrong as far back as the 50's and 60's, it was a brilliant period to live through, but it's when family life started to break down, industry began losing it's way, people started too expect something for nothing.
The offensive post:
valenciaGill: And someone decided that Britain was to become a social experiment , a multicultural paradise. With different cultures , came different values. The indigenous population wasn't asked if they want it , or even consulted. From the seeds sewn back then , we are now beginning to reap the harvest.

In one sense, a very narrow one, the first post is extremely offensive because it appears to wish death on somebody.

However, it must be remembered that this was a directed at one particular individual who has, over the pages of this forum, often posted material that many people find extremely offensive. It was an OTT response, I don't think many would argue that it wasn't, but it was aimed at one individual. Although on the surface Wayne's response seems very aggressive and unnecessary, does anybody really believe that Wayne was wishing death on valencia? Was it not an expression of exasperation? Do people not ever say things in the heat of the moment that they don't really mean? How many people have said regrettable things when they have been pushed to the limit? How many of us have said things like, "I'm gonna kill you!" and actually meant it?!

Now let us consider the second exchange. Unlike the first one this second offensive post wasn't made in the 'heat of the moment'. It came out of nowhere and was not aimed directly at one poster. It was a far more general comment and I can't see how anybody could claim it was made it the 'heat of the moment'. Rather, it was delivered calmly and unlike Wayne's post, I think it would be difficult for anybody to argue that the poster didn't really mean what he was saying (part of the evidence for this is the fact that valencia has made a number of similar posts over the years).

Furthermore, the second offensive post is offensive to very many people, not directed at one person but generally offensive. Not only to the great many people who were invited to come to Britain but also to a very large proportion of the population who reject racism and xenophobia. With regard to the members of this board I think (and maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it) that a great deal more members would have found the this second offensive post to be more offensive than the first.

If we are to consider the two posts literally and in isolation, then maybe Wayne's post is more offensive than valencia's. But if we take into consideration the context and look a little bit deeper, perhaps reading between the lines a little, how on earth can Wayne be considered as the more offensive of the two? One post was made in exasperation and directed solely at the very poster who has now contributed yet another piece of vile rhetoric. The other post was deliberately designed to cause offence to a number of people. It was full of emotive phrases such as, "social experiment", "multicultural paradise" and "indigenous population" that have no basis in truth or fact but are instead intended to perpetuate an incorrect and racist interpretation of history.

I don't think valencia should be banned for making such vile and offensive comments but I think it is an absolute travesty of justice that Wayne has been banned for losing his temper with this nasty and hateful poster. Why should Wayne have to apologise for his comment if valencia is not expected to apologise for his?

Please consider what I have said here, The Fear, and rescind Wayne's ban so that he can come back on here if he wishes. It's simply unfair to ban Wayne whilst a truly offensive poster remains free to post offensive material whenever he wants.
Another cracking and thought provoking post Buddha..........

IMO Wayne posted what he did when he was very angry and beyond reason which is never a great time to do it. I do understand his anger as I have often felt very frustrated challenging stuff on here which IMO is way beyond acceptable.

However he could have replied to admin with a politicians apology .... ie on the face apologise but not really.... but as I said IMO he was beyond reason.

Would I want WK back .... of course ..... very astute and clever poster .... but would he change or is it just postponing another ban ???

re Valencia’s post ..... IMO it could be taken as offensive to some but not to others ..... whereas WK’s comment received quite wide condemnation of a mix of people quite rightly.

Valencia is a clever poster ..... he posts something to put the idea out there without breaking boundaries before the gang of 4 argue it ..... dog whistle politics which is dangerous and needs challenging always....

What i find slightly amusing is Valencia’s post is taking aim at people moving to the UK and the indigenous population not being consulted ...... he himself lives in a different country ..... did he consult the indigenous population over there before moving out there ????
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#16
Ok, fair enough, I can understand that some people feel that the board is a 'nicer' place without Wayne. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we didn't have to put up with valencia's offensive contributions?

I accept that Wayne wasn't banned because of one single post. I'm not sure that he was "persistently" offensive but if he was then shirley the same is true of valencia. His latest offensive post wasn't an isolated incident either.

I also hear what you're saying about The Fear having to deal with all the alerts but are we really to believe that more people were reporting Wayne than reporting valencia? If that is the case then shame on those posters who reported/grassed Wayne but haven't reported/grassed valencia.

Mark, I accept that you found Wayne's post more offensive, that's your opinion and your right. But if I'm honest, I'm disappointed in your stance. Wayne might be belligerent but at least he isn't insidious. Wayne might appear to be more offensive but is appearance everything? Wayne is up front and shoots from the hip. Yes this can sometimes be offensive but at least it is honest. valencia by contrast is calculated and underhand. He stops short of saying anything explicit but everybody knows what he really means.

I don't want anybody banned but if people really think Wayne should continue to be banned then fair enough, but only if valencia is banned too.

To ban Wayne and not valencia is, I think, inconsistent.
If you want Valencia banned, then go through the proper channels.
I personally 100% disagree with VGs politics but find him more personable than WK.
His views need challenging but in a measured way.
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
#17
Fair comment, 3x6, but couldn't the same be said with regard to Wayne. If people found him offensive why couldn't they have just BLOCKED rather than REPORTED him?
Because it is different. WK was relentlessly abusive towards individuals (which is why he was banned, not once, not twice, but three times). VG has posted something which you don't agree with.

Can you read Whitstable Tangerine's post above before you comment again? He has responded to a comment with an opinion of his own, without resorting to insults. Clearly you are very upset about this, but this is a forum - people have opinions, and you don't need to convert everyone on every subject
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
#18
Valencia's post just reads like his opinion on past UK immigration policy. Every country had an immigration policy until free movement removed it in the EU so it is purely a political stance, much like your occasional comments proposing anarchy that some could find frightening, Buddha.

Agree or disagree. Consider blocking if you like.
 

Tarian

Vital Squad Member
#19
Buddha's post is worrying.
It underscores the lengths some people will go to stifle free speech.
It merits early and firm rebuttal.

2) The context:
nitram77: I still think it started going wrong as far back as the 50's and 60's, it was a brilliant period to live through, but it's when family life started to break down, industry began losing it's way, people started too expect something for nothing.
The offensive post:
valenciaGill: And someone decided that Britain was to become a social experiment , a multicultural paradise. With different cultures , came different values.
The indigenous population wasn't asked if they want it , or even consulted.
From the seeds sewn back then , we are now beginning to reap the harvest.
In what universe is this passage offensive ?
Surely it is "fair comment" ? (As Buddha breaks it down later, so will I)

By contrast "offensive" comment No.1 wished ill on an individual.
Some might construe that as "incitement to violence".

Furthermore, the second offensive post is offensive to very many people, not directed at one person but generally offensive.
Assertion and opinion.

Not only to the great many people who were invited to come to Britain....
Again, assertion and opinion.
No attempt is made to explain "why" those words are "offensive"....
....or and implies that "all" of the "great many people" are offended.


.....but also to a very large proportion of the population who reject racism and xenophobia.
Being "offended" on behalf of other people before those other people have expressed their own opinion is one of the scourges of Politically Correct censors.
e.g. Assuming that Muslims would be insulted by "Christmas".
Most Muslims seem to love a good knees up during those dark, miserable days !!

No attempt is made to explain why a comment on "culture" and "values" can only be interpreted as "racism" or "xenophobia".


"Culture" does not equal "race".
There are plenty of "cultures" within the UK, that some people like and others dislike (and many not bothered).
They may or may not express approval / disapproval.
Caribbean culture is different from West African culture - which is different form other parts of Africa.
Mediterranean culture is different form Scandi culture etc, etc,etc.

How is it wrong to say:
"With different cultures , came different values." ?
Let's debate whether those "different values" amount to much - but surely it is absurd to deny this as a "fact" ?

".....wasn't asked if they want it , or even consulted."
Surely this is a "fact" ?

Does it not matter if there is an imposition on people ?
This applies whether it around expressing a view .... or that a "culture" is somehow "imposed". (Surely that is a legitimate discussion - whatever "culture" we are talking about ? Not everyone appreciates football!!! )


With regard to the members of this board I think (and maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it) that a great deal more members would have found the this second offensive post to be more offensive than the first.
A) " a great deal more members" is pure supposition - is an appeal to emotion.

B) "more offensive" still has not been explained but ...

C) .... should be irrelevant - if we have Free Speech (supposedly !)
As Nick Clegg told Nick Ferrari:
"No one has a right not to be offended".
(Incitement to violence, to commit a crime are explicit limitations on Free Speech.)


But if we take into consideration the context and look a little bit deeper, perhaps reading between the lines a little, how on earth can Wayne be considered as the more offensive of the two?
One post was made in exasperation and directed solely at the very poster who has now contributed yet another piece of vile rhetoric.
The other post was deliberately designed to cause offence to a number of people.
"context" "look a little deeper".
Go on then, do so - otherwise this remains just innuendo - another "appeal to emotion".

How is "vile rhetoric" not highly emotive ?
And unjustified.

"deliberately designed".... Supposition - and surely "emotive" ?


It was full of emotive phrases such as, "social experiment", "multicultural paradise" and "indigenous population" ....
"Full of...." ? Isn't that "emotive" ?

Is "social experiment" "emotive" ? And if so, "bad" or "good" emotive ?
Surely it depends if you think "social experiments" are mostly good - or mostly bad ?

How about the "social experiment" on 12 y/o - shown on Channel 4 last Thursday - entitled:
"The School that tried to end racism" ?
Now that was "emotive".
i.e. The "experiment", not the description

"Multicultural paradise" is emotive.
Surely a "paradise" is intended to invoke pleasure ?
But here, there may be sarcasm. So what ?

Critics could easily point out that here, VG uses "argument by extreme".
Instead the motive behind the criticism seems censorious.

...... that have no basis in truth or fact but are instead intended to perpetuate an incorrect and racist interpretation of history
"No basis in truth fact ....?"
Which bits of VG's statement ?

By all means challenge something as "incorrect" (all-be-it prefaced by the emotive "perpetuate"...!!)
But tagging with "racist interpretation of history" is not only an assertion, it is an insulting one - intended to bully people into not discussing the matter.

It seems pretty obvious from the numbers that recent decades have shown MUCH larger numbers of immigrants.
In the 18th Century, around 50,000 Hugenots escaped persecution in France (many to Medway) .... over a decade.

Currently, 50,000 is about 2 months' worth of new arrivals.

So where are the counter "facts" ?

What is "racist" or "xenophobic" about discussing "culture and values" ?


This post is nothing more than a carefully crafted whinge:
- full of assertions and insulting innuendo
- full of "emotive language" while hypocritically criticising "emotive language"
.......to justify censorship. :mad:
 
Last edited:

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#20
Whitstabletangerine said:
As a guest on your forum I am not going to comment about WK's ban or the banning of any individual, I read the threads and enjoy the debates, but in the case of the man in Iberia I would just say that we as a nation were not consulted merely because well before my lifetime we have welcomed folk from all over the world and as the creator of the Commonwealth when we called on our member states for help during two world wars they never hesitated to come to our aid.
As the mother country of the Commonwealth of nations I would expect to see citizens of those nations come to live and work here and there was certainly a time decades ago that we needed them here and still do


Beautifully put. Thank you.
I echo that. Best post on this site for a long time. That's Whitstable's post by the way, although yours is very nice as well 58 :-)
 
Last edited: