Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:42 pm  

Euclid wrote:

Well I wasn't fishing but I certainly got a bite.
Resorting to insult doesn't really advance your argument or earn respect.
Oh, and concepts like racism, ageism or any other "ism" are not number specific, they can apply to one, many or all of any group.

Apparently you were, or why would you reference it?

Where have I insulted you?

I'm not interested in your respect, why would I be?

You accused me of ageism, I might be a little dim, but I presume from your opening gambit that that might, just might be as you so elequently put it "number specific".

Give it up squire and go back to reading your old O Level sociology text books.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:01 pm  

I am quite curious as to what fuels your anger?

You say you might be a little dim...if the cap fits...

Calling someone puerile could be interpreted as an insult don't you think? Which is rather ironic from someone who calls themself Sandra the Terrorist

Got to get back to my O level (that gives a bit away!) Sociology textbooks now...

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:22 am  

I think being "age-ist" (whatever the fook that is) fits the bill quite well here, it IS an age thing, absolutely, its age related prejudice and stereotyping, Dave Whelan is 77 years old, for the first 40 years of his life until the introduction of the Race Relations Act it was perfectly acceptable to use words like "Chinky" and to assume that Jewish people were money-grabbers, black people were lazy, asians weren't to be trusted, etc etc - indeed not only were those beliefs part of the national vocabulary they were promoted constantly on prime time TV, hardly surprising that it was part of the (white) national sub-consciousness.

In more enlightened times and through the next two generations those characteristics have been quashed to some extent, although they can resurface from time to time depending on how well one or other national newspapers circulation figures are doing, and of course you have throw-backs like Whelan who simply believes that he is allowed to say these things because thats what he's always thought and always said, albeit mainly in a private circle of his yes-people.

Its absolutely age-ist, the generations born pre-1970(ish) should know better, should curtail their language even if they are still thinking those words, some simply refuse to even though they know its unacceptable.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:14 am  

cod'ead wrote:

You are completely barking, stark-staring barmy

Your posts are invariably littered with staw-men and non-sequiturs. Instead of responding to them, it's far easier for anyone to just roll their eyes, point and continue laughing behind their hands

Only when they read your stuff - "Let's have a land tax"!! - another pearl of wisdom from Mr Fish

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:36 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Like it or not there are some things that you may think but not express, or at least keep within a very select bunch of friends and associates, you wouldn't stand up in a crowded pub taproom and declare out loud the "All Jews are money-grabbers" but you may mention it around a table in a low voice, its called being circumspect and like it or not opinions which target certain sections of society are always going to offend someone, and the news is - they always have, even in the good old days when you couldn't be prosecuted for it.

Politicians are well coached in this and most of them pay heed to their media training, occasionally one of them will forget and revert to type but on the whole they know, and the ones who speak to the media regularly, are coached regularly and spoon fed lines and phrases, hence the reason who most politicians won't answer pointed questions designed to trip them up.

Media training doesn't appear to be on the agenda for business folk though, although you'd think that someone high profile like Dave Whelan, who is bound to be interviewed or asked for statements on a regular basis would partake of a little coaching, possibly ego may play a part, possibly the fact that in his daily life he will be surrounded by people who's livelyhood depends on them saying "Yes Sir" or laughing at the opportune moments may blind him to the fact that his 78 year old opinions and stereotypes are not valid in 2014 - its difficult for them to change the habits of a lifetime, especially when no-one explains why.

People can say all Yorkshiremen/Scotsmen are tight - but cannot say a similar thing against Jews because it might offend them. No matter what you say you will offend somebody. This very website is full of criticism of players performances, the players will be offended their families will be offended etc. so why not stop that too - where do you draw the line? Another straw man (sic)

I fully understand how and why politicians answer questions the way they do thank you - the problem is the real issues never get properly discussed and as an electorate we are poorly served in that respect. Question time is a damage limitation exercise rather than the lively debate it should be

Again I fully understand why restraint is required thank you- however you can't even discuss matters of fact without being branded something or other. Another straw man (sic)

In 5/10 years time where will debate be - non existent as more things become off limits - which was my original point in my original post.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:11 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Only when they read your stuff - "Let's have a land tax"!! - another pearl of wisdom from Mr Fish

Strangely, you have yet to offer any intelligent criticism of Land Value Taxation

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:51 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Strangely, you have yet to offer any intelligent criticism of Land Value Taxation

When you come up with a properly thought out proposition then I will offer some intelligent criticism - I won't hold my breath.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:48 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

When you come up with a properly thought out proposition then I will offer some intelligent criticism - I won't hold my breath.

It is obvious that you have absolutely no comprehension of how LVT works, as evidenced over the years. But that's not surprising because apart from your "real world", you seem to have little grasp on reality in general

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:34 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

It is obvious that you have absolutely no comprehension of how LVT works, as evidenced over the years. But that's not surprising because apart from your "real world", you seem to have little grasp on reality in general

Classic Mr Fish - I have been found out so I will try a little insult as a diversionary tactic - you must think we are all as stupid as you are.

Come clever nuts - lay out your plan for LVT and then I will dismantle it for you!!

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

People can say all Yorkshiremen/Scotsmen are tight - but cannot say a similar thing against Jews because it might offend them. No matter what you say you will offend somebody. This very website is full of criticism of players performances, the players will be offended their families will be offended etc. so why not stop that too - where do you draw the line? Another straw man (sic)

I fully understand how and why politicians answer questions the way they do thank you - the problem is the real issues never get properly discussed and as an electorate we are poorly served in that respect. Question time is a damage limitation exercise rather than the lively debate it should be

Again I fully understand why restraint is required thank you- however you can't even discuss matters of fact without being branded something or other. Another straw man (sic)

In 5/10 years time where will debate be - non existent as more things become off limits - which was my original point in my original post.

There is still plenty of leeway in which to express an opinion on any topic, be it political or not, without making ridiculous racial stereotyping part of an argument, for examples you simply need to look at the current incumbents in government who have been quite happy to use IDS and more often anonymous "Department Spokesperson" to vilify certain sections of society.