Offensive posts, compare and contrast; FAO The Fear | Page 2 | Vital Football

Offensive posts, compare and contrast; FAO The Fear

Tarian

Vital Squad Member
#21
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?.
Are you a snowflake ....if you consider Valencia's posts "offensive" ?

Each time you seem unable to explain "why" said post is "offensive" - instead harking back to some unspecified post in 2016 (?)

It is hard not to conclude that you disagree with his posts but either are;
a) too lazy to rebut
b) incapable of rebutting without abuse or innuendo.

Plenty of others on here are disagreeing in a polite, thoughtful way.

To use your own words:
I think.... this board would be a "nicer" place without you.

But I don't want you banned for being rude or different.
:please:
 
Last edited:

mehmets_curlies

Vital Squad Member
#22
I find this really difficult. WK, imo, gets too angry. if that makes sense. He is almost too opionated!! However, he says a lot of relevant stuff that opens uo debates and provokes certain individuals in to showing their true coloura. I'd like to see him back as I believe in free speech, but only if he cuts out the childish name calling. He should apologise to The Fear, at least, imo. I don't think VG is that much of a pussy to let what WK say bother him, nor would he, I suspect, that he would be bothered if WK didn't apologise to him.
 

Tarian

Vital Squad Member
#23
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 ????
Why do pro-immigration types conflate mass immigration with the act of one individual ?

If the Spanish people thought their country was "full", surely they should be entitled to put the brakes on ?
If that scuppered Valencia's grandchildren (?) from moving to Spain..... that should not be construed as a slur or "xenophobia" against his grandchildren as individuals.

This all seems so obvious, that it is exasperating when people perpetuate the idea that "controlling immigration" is a hair's breadth from "hating foreigners".:wagging:
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#24
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 like you Buddha, we have very different outlooks on life, and very different lives but I like a lot of what you post.

I don't agree with Valencia's views on many things but like many things it isn't black or white, it is somewhere in the middle. My views on immigration are closer to Whitstable's excellent post but Valencia's post has elements of truth. I don't agree with him but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. There is a problem with a lack of integration in this country in a very small number of cases. If there are some parts of the Muslim community who would shield a radicalised person who would do harm to people in this country, rather than report them, that is wrong. We need better integration. People who come to this country should abide by the laws of this country. If anyone thinks Sharia law should trump UK law in this country, then they are wrong, they haven't integrated and they are part of the problem.

This country does have a problem in those areas and I would agree with VG that we need to address that. I certainly don't agree with VG on the methods but equally I don't want to pretend its not a problem.

I think the fear called it spot on with Wayne. Gave him an opportunity to revoke and apologies. When Wayne didn't but rather continued to attack the Fear was spot on with the comment that its a red flag when people won't back down.

I actually liked Wayne as well , we had lots of debate, sometimes agreed but mostly didn't. I agree with the poster who said he posted when angry and frustrated with VG . My hunch he had a bit to drink too. We can all do that. The difference is I think most people would step back and apologise after wishing that a fellow board member caught COVID and died. I don't think he really meant it but it was what he wrote. If people can't show a bit of humility when they are wrong I thinks that's a worry.

Very few of us know each other in real life and in some ways that's why its even more important we are civil to each other and apologies if we sometimes over step the line

You are right that VG loads the gun for others to fire. I think everyone can see that and I think most people wouldn't fully agree with him or his views. He is open to discussion though without being abusive. the best way to solve differences is through discussion. Sometimes you can agree to disagree. I still find it so ironic that the most anti-immigration, pro Britain and anti-EU person is an immigrant, living in the EU. That really makes me smile.

I think you should put the poll up for reinstating Wayne. If the majority want him back then that's fine. I just don't think he will change and to be fair whilst that's his decision we should all remember we are non paying guests of the Fear. His board. His rules. We should respect that.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#25
I like you Buddha, we have very different outlooks on life, and very different lives but I like a lot of what you post.

I don't agree with Valencia's views on many things but like many things it isn't black or white, it is somewhere in the middle. My views on immigration are closer to Whitstable's excellent post but Valencia's post has elements of truth. I don't agree with him but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. There is a problem with a lack of integration in this country in a very small number of cases. If there are some parts of the Muslim community who would shield a radicalised person who would do harm to people in this country, rather than report them, that is wrong. We need better integration. People who come to this country should abide by the laws of this country. If anyone thinks Sharia law should trump UK law in this country, then they are wrong, they haven't integrated and they are part of the problem.

This country does have a problem in those areas and I would agree with VG that we need to address that. I certainly don't agree with VG on the methods but equally I don't want to pretend its not a problem.

I think the fear called it spot on with Wayne. Gave him an opportunity to revoke and apologies. When Wayne didn't but rather continued to attack the Fear was spot on with the comment that its a red flag when people won't back down.

I actually liked Wayne as well , we had lots of debate, sometimes agreed but mostly didn't. I agree with the poster who said he posted when angry and frustrated with VG . My hunch he had a bit to drink too. We can all do that. The difference is I think most people would step back and apologise after wishing that a fellow board member caught COVID and died. I don't think he really meant it but it was what he wrote. If people can't show a bit of humility when they are wrong I thinks that's a worry.

Very few of us know each other in real life and in some ways that's why its even more important we are civil to each other and apologies if we sometimes over step the line

You are right that VG loads the gun for others to fire. I think everyone can see that and I think most people wouldn't fully agree with him or his views. He is open to discussion though without being abusive. the best way to solve differences is through discussion. Sometimes you can agree to disagree. I still find it so ironic that the most anti-immigration, pro Britain and anti-EU person is an immigrant, living in the EU. That really makes me smile.

I think you should put the poll up for reinstating Wayne. If the majority want him back then that's fine. I just don't think he will change and to be fair whilst that's his decision we should all remember we are non paying guests of the Fear. His board. His rules. We should respect that.
Excellent post mark 👍

This is turning into a proper lovefest, isn’t it.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
#26
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
I wouldn't disagree with any of that but isn't it strange how the mention of Commonwealth sounds so benevolent and inclusive whereas these days Empire is something we should be ashamed of and be apologetic about, bordering upon evil?

Mostly the same countries were involved and the same family ruled over both.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#27
As Budhha seems to have such affection for WayneKerr and his absence on here is clearly troubling him, maybe he should private message WK asking him to contact The Fear and offer an apology.
Only when contrition is shown can the ban be ended.
Actions and consequences, and all that.
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
#29
As Budhha seems to have such affection for WayneKerr and his absence on here is clearly troubling him, maybe he should private message WK asking him to contact The Fear and offer an apology.
Only when contrition is shown can the ban be ended.
Actions and consequences, and all that.
Dear The Fear

I am sorry that you misinterpreted my post and didn't understand why i said what I did. I will try and be more tolerant of racist twats in the future, and not get upset when people who are less intelligent than me make incorrect posts

Yours

WayneKerr
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
#31
Your post was pretty neat too markinkent.

I'll try not to be flippant this time. It's not valencia v Wayne, who is worse, should we ban one, or both. We know why Wayne was banned and I don't recall any serious argument with the banning though some said they hadn't been offended.

I don't think we are the prison service weighing punishment and reform, mosrt of us are well past redemption. I found Wayne's posts interesting, boring, informative, tedious, abusive, cantankerous, well argued, all over the shop and a lot else. Yes there were times you could see another tortured debate being instigated, or prolonged but he often posted personal and music stuff that surprised.

I have no argument with The Fear but if I had a vote I'd vote to have him back. I wouldn't vote to kick a single one of the rest of you off.
 
#32
Why do pro-immigration types conflate mass immigration with the act of one individual ?

If the Spanish people thought their country was "full", surely they should be entitled to put the brakes on ?
If that scuppered Valencia's grandchildren (?) from moving to Spain..... that should not be construed as a slur or "xenophobia" against his grandchildren as individuals.

This all seems so obvious, that it is exasperating when people perpetuate the idea that "controlling immigration" is a hair's breadth from "hating foreigners".:wagging:
I have read and reread your post several times pal... and I have absolutely no idea on what you are going on about :blah::blah:
 
#34
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
How many more times does somebody need to be told that their posts are not acceptable. To invite him back makes him feel he can start all over again.
Having said that, I genuinely feel he has a personality problem, which he needs to get sorted. I stopped reading his posts early on as it inevitably resorted to insulting virtually everybody without good reason. Didn't a poster mention sophomania some time ago?
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#35
Buddha's post is worrying.
It underscores the lengths some people will go to stifle free speech.
It merits early and firm rebuttal.


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".


Assertion and opinion.


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.



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!!! )



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.)



"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" ?



"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.


"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:
Your right!
 

Nobby_66

Vital 1st Team Regular
#36
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%
I would vote to keep him out and the money we save can pay for the NHS




Oh, hang on 🙄
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#37
We are the board of love and tollerance!

Lets have someone put up a poll. If majority recommend forgiveness then Wayne needs to just apologise (not grovel) to come back.
 

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#38
OK, some good posts and thought provoking points.

First off, I am in no way trying to stifle free speech. As I said, my preference would be for Wayne to be given the opportunity to return. As much as I disagree with valencia, I don't really want him to be banned. I don't want anybody banned.

I am in complete agreement with jokerman on this one; Wayne is often rude, valencia is often wrong, but we're better off having them both on here. If people don't want to read their posts they can always 'ignore'.

As for Tarian, I'm not surprised that Vodapadi and shotshy have failed to understand him. I've got a feeling they're not the only ones.
 
Last edited:

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#39
Buddha's post is worrying.
It underscores the lengths some people will go to stifle free speech.
It merits early and firm rebuttal.


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".


Assertion and opinion.


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.



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!!! )



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.)



"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" ?



"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.


"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:

Nope, I wasn't trying to justify censorship. I don't want anybody censored. That's why I think Wayne shouldn't be banned.

As for countering valencia's post, I did that in the 'The British Public' thread. I responded and told him why I thought he was wrong.

Just in case you missed it, Tarian, I'll repost it here:

No, you ignorant fool, nobody, "decided that Britain was to become a social experiment , a multicultural paradise."

What actually happened is that after the end of WW2 Britain owed the US shitloads of money and the empire was crumbling, lots of colonies were wanting independence.

In a desperate effort to retain Empire and status the British government passed the British Nationality Act in 1948. This meant that suddenly anybody anywhere in the British Empire could be a British citizen. This wasn't done as a social experiment but as an attempt to hold onto Empire.

In addition to this the country needed rebuilding and members of the colonies were actively encouraged to move here to the "Mother Land" so that they might improve their lives and those of their families. In reality they came to a cold, grey country where lots of people made them feel very unwelcome.

Only a know-nothing racist could dismiss this as a "social experiment".
 

Buddha

Vital 1st Team Regular
#40
As Budhha seems to have such affection for WayneKerr and his absence on here is clearly troubling him, maybe he should private message WK asking him to contact The Fear and offer an apology.
Only when contrition is shown can the ban be ended.
Actions and consequences, and all that.
I don't have that much affection for Wayne, mate. But I think he is no more offensive than valencia and it just doesn't seem fair to me that one should be banned but not the other.

Even though I find valencia's political views to be abhorrent I quite often engage with him. And when we're not talking politics, we often 'like' each others' posts. I say again, I don't want him banned. I don't want anybody banned.

What I would like is this: anybody who finds Wayne or valencia (or anybody for that matter) too offensive, simply 'ignore' them. Don't bother The Fear with reports or alerts. Let people say what they want. If you don't agree challenge it. If you can't be bothered or just find it all too offensive, simply 'ignore'.
 
Last edited: