FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Xenophobic, bigoted, racist…
Xenophobic, bigoted, racist…
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " What's going on with Tea Monkey?! He's turned into Tom ??!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " Why should they be removed simply by the nature of the thread? Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Mods would remove them if they broke rules. I think it’s better to keep them, so you can see who to avoid! " This  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Mods would remove them if they broke rules. I think it’s better to keep them, so you can see who to avoid! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think it is healthy to remove the opinions and thoughts of those we disagree/find distasteful. You could engage with them and demonstrate why you believe them to be wrong. " You can, but 9/10 times you get back veriment abuse. The ideal of toleranting intolerant ideas is a dangerous one because it ligetimises their point of view as one to be respected. Which an intolerant view isn’t to be respected it’s to be challenged. The problem being, to attack an idea is a difficult concept. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. " Is that so? Nero. Meli. Out!!!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think it is healthy to remove the opinions and thoughts of those we disagree/find distasteful. You could engage with them and demonstrate why you believe them to be wrong. You can, but 9/10 times you get back veriment abuse. The ideal of toleranting intolerant ideas is a dangerous one because it ligetimises their point of view as one to be respected. Which an intolerant view isn’t to be respected it’s to be challenged. The problem being, to attack an idea is a difficult concept." Agree ?? Although, It isn't actually x Bad Fabbers with bad ideals unfortunately, are real people with bad ideals. Let them speak their garbage. And then ridicule them. Into submission. ;-) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. " Sorry to say (not).., But we do live in a democracy  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think it is healthy to remove the opinions and thoughts of those we disagree/find distasteful. You could engage with them and demonstrate why you believe them to be wrong. You can, but 9/10 times you get back veriment abuse. The ideal of toleranting intolerant ideas is a dangerous one because it ligetimises their point of view as one to be respected. Which an intolerant view isn’t to be respected it’s to be challenged. The problem being, to attack an idea is a difficult concept." That would make you intolerant then wouldn’t it, to demonstrate that you will not tolerate things you find intolerant. Better to acknowledge the existence of these things and deal with them, sweeping things away is never a good way to deal with things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Sorry to say (not).., But we do live in a democracy "We certainly do and are free to discuss on the forums but the key words are discriminatory or abusive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Is that so? Nero. Meli. Out!!!! "Discriminatory or abusive, you sweet old dear. We show nothing but respect to our elders.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Mods would remove them if they broke rules. I think it’s better to keep them, so you can see who to avoid! " We so. If seen of course. But some of us might be busy eating eggs (or like me, working), so if any rule breaking isn't spotted straight away it generally will be at some point.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
They're just words which have been so far diluted they have almost no meaning these days. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely the whole reason to have a forum is to discuss difficult subjects occasionally ? I have been a member of several different forums from running to motorbikes, all have members who have one thing in common but often different opinions on other subjects that are occurring in modern life. Debate surely is a good thing, even if it helps you to stay away from those whose views you find distasteful or disturbing ? " Totally f*cking agree
Debate is democracy.
'No-platforming..?"
Really is quite fascistic.
Aye, I said that
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Welcome to today folks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we removed everything we found offensive or didn't agree with we'd be living in 2024
Welcome to today folks "Yup. George Orwell was really a bit of a prophet, wasn't he? So sad. Life is tough as all f*ck for most of us, but... it's to be lived. Not online. In the moment xx  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. " Oh?
So my post about octogenarian, black, Icelantic Man who was transitioning to female but wanted to remain a homosexual needing to hop back to his wife on his one remaining leg and take her to church was wrong on several levels?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " The people that start them have quite often been the subject of racial abuse but having been brought up in an area of london where i suffered abuse myself i have no time for the people who stir the pot, for me if a person is good to me I'm good to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am part of minority groups but am not woke and do not believe healthy debate and discussions should be stifled. We have a politics section, maybe a social issues section would be a good idea too. That way they are not scattered randomly all over the forum. But in meantime, no one has to get involved in opening or contributing if they do not want to. I mainly avoid contentious subjects on here, only occasionally dipping into one. " Fair play to you mate: sincerely
..But I'm (as tha yoot' might say...)
Old. School.
Relatively well educated, also told - and proud - to think for myself, question everything, and have avoided 'tribes...' all my days x
And (you may have guessed), from the above perspective, there's nothing wrong with a good old Fab barney :D
Why not?
Still getting laid on the regular
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've been called all of those things on this forum
They're just words which have been so far diluted they have almost no meaning these days. "Similar to stuff like woke and snowflake really. It's thrown about that it's lost all its meaning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Mods would remove them if they broke rules. I think it’s better to keep them, so you can see who to avoid! " I absolutely agree with you. I love it when people expose their true selves because I can start hexing them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Oh?
So my post about octogenarian, black, Icelantic Man who was transitioning to female but wanted to remain a homosexual needing to hop back to his wife on his one remaining leg and take her to church was wrong on several levels? "
So wrong.
On so many, many levels
And yet... as funny a retort as f*ck.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Is that so? Nero. Meli. Out!!!!
Discriminatory or abusive, you sweet old dear. We show nothing but respect to our elders. "Thank you my young padawan  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We will always carry on... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdZPzz2qLE" Yer pronouns say absolutely everything about you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've been called all of those things on this forum
They're just words which have been so far diluted they have almost no meaning these days.
Similar to stuff like woke and snowflake really. It's thrown about that it's lost all its meaning "Pretty much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we removed everything we found offensive or didn't agree with we'd be living in 2024
Welcome to today folks " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure the forum rules don’t allow this type of behaviour So is it possible your looking for it to be there or maybe misinterpreted? " My thoughts exactly. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Is that so? · Nero. Meli. Out!!!! "• You've just blown your chances for Åfternoon Teå, Nørå. (But she's a good blower. Allegedly) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. " I can confirm this, I have been removed on numerous occasions over the years. I think I have been victimised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We will always carry on... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdZPzz2qLE Yer pronouns say absolutely everything about you "I thought unsolicited profile advice was against forum rules. Oh well. I will give your thoughts all due consideration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We will always carry on... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdZPzz2qLE Yer pronouns say absolutely everything about you
I thought unsolicited profile advice was against forum rules.
Oh well. I will give your thoughts all due consideration."Aye, you do that. And take as much time as you need | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. " I think anything blatant is. Some people are smart at dog whistling and commenting things that don't technically break the rules, but are thinly veiled enough that you still know what they mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. I think anything blatant is. Some people are smart at dog whistling and commenting things that don't technically break the rules, but are thinly veiled enough that you still know what they mean." You're so right xx I do that all the time
Democracy.
Come on in!
The water's lovely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. · I think anything blatant is. Some people are smart at dog whistling and commenting things that don't technically break the rules, but are thinly veiled enough that you still know what they mean." • Agreed. They also (try to) absolve themselves by inserting successive smiley emojis as a method to temper their remarks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven’t paid enough attention yet to notice those but if I prefer to keep them, as long as they are not breaking forum rules. What I’ve noticed recently though there’s been more than a few people showing their true colours by their comments. " It's a great filter though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. · I think anything blatant is. Some people are smart at dog whistling and commenting things that don't technically break the rules, but are thinly veiled enough that you still know what they mean. • Agreed. They also (try to) absolve themselves by inserting successive smiley emojis as a method to temper their remarks." I’m sure I don’t know what you mean | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure anything against the rules will be removed. It usually is. I think anything blatant is. Some people are smart at dog whistling and commenting things that don't technically break the rules, but are thinly veiled enough that you still know what they mean." Very much this. The private notes function is a wonderful thing. J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven’t paid enough attention yet to notice those but if I prefer to keep them, as long as they are not breaking forum rules. What I’ve noticed recently though there’s been more than a few people showing their true colours by their comments. It's a great filter though "Exactly. Even better when combined with private notes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Tom is not sure what that means but he likes that old saying" I'm not sure it's the sort of flattery I'd want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Tom is not sure what that means but he likes that old saying I'm not sure it's the sort of flattery I'd want. " If being those things is flattering then that says a lot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We shouldn't be tolerant of the intolerant, plain and simple really. People pointing out the paradox are not revealing something new - it's literally a paradox, which we have to engage with, if we want healthy spaces/communities/societies. It would be better if threads that seem to be deliberately incendiary, and clearly upset many users, were filed off to a part of the site where the people who want to engage with them can do so. These threads generally are created by a couple of users, so they're pretty easy to spot." They are cordoned off. It's called the Lounge... Please be tolerant of all posters ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We shouldn't be tolerant of the intolerant, plain and simple really. People pointing out the paradox are not revealing something new - it's literally a paradox, which we have to engage with, if we want healthy spaces/communities/societies. It would be better if threads that seem to be deliberately incendiary, and clearly upset many users, were filed off to a part of the site where the people who want to engage with them can do so. These threads generally are created by a couple of users, so they're pretty easy to spot." It would be, but sadly it's not going to happen. I will continue to point it out and then avoid. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. And sometimes those consequences are people pointing out how unpleasant you* are. *Not you, TFG, a general 'you' aimed at those who are unpleasant. J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We shouldn't be tolerant of the intolerant, plain and simple really. People pointing out the paradox are not revealing something new - it's literally a paradox, which we have to engage with, if we want healthy spaces/communities/societies. It would be better if threads that seem to be deliberately incendiary, and clearly upset many users, were filed off to a part of the site where the people who want to engage with them can do so. These threads generally are created by a couple of users, so they're pretty easy to spot. It would be, but sadly it's not going to happen. I will continue to point it out and then avoid. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. And sometimes those consequences are people pointing out how unpleasant you* are. *Not you, TFG, a general 'you' aimed at those who are unpleasant. J" Yeh, and it's a shame, because I know a fair few people who have stopped using the forums (or fabs altogether) because staying here means either ignoring the issue and staying silent, or fight your corner expending energy you wanted to direct to, you know, swinging. The irony being that outside of these forums swinging itself is considered deviant and worthy of asking "legitimate questions" and making edgy jokes, ultimately aimed at dehumanising people who stray from vanilla, monogamous relationships. So if you fit into an out-group in both spaces - ah, no space for you, unless you accept the prejudices in one or the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " Free Speech exists for now. If you don't like the subject matter don't go back to it. Simples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums Free Speech exists for now. If you don't like the subject matter don't go back to it. Simples. " As Julie said; freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences and there are rules as to what can be posted. Ignoring the issues solves nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums Free Speech exists for now. If you don't like the subject matter don't go back to it. Simples. As Julie said; freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences and there are rules as to what can be posted. Ignoring the issues solves nothing" Exactly what happened yesterday when I posted in response to a NHS post about queues etc. I said immigration was the issue due to lack of funding by the government but mass immigration creating more need. Some troll kicks off because I blamed immigration when I was actually blaming the government. The lady ignored the issue as blinded by a senseless refusal to accept immigration is causing issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " You haven't said you read them on FAB You haven't said they are recent. I did a search and the only time I can find those terms are on old threads. Where and When were the thread ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Oh?
So my post about octogenarian, black, Icelantic Man who was transitioning to female but wanted to remain a homosexual needing to hop back to his wife on his one remaining leg and take her to church was wrong on several levels?
So wrong.
On so many, many levels
And yet... as funny a retort as f*ck.
"It's not wrong at all. Not on any level. This is part of the problem. People have little idea of what 'protected' means and make up their own rules e.g. you can't say old, or black or disabled..... and worse still they point fingers at those expressing valid opinions that are not designed to cause harm or discriminate . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im ok with these threads as long as there is no incitement of violence "That's one of the last steps though, right. Dehumanise a group enough that incitement to violence against that specific group is acceptable. Some people realise that's the point, and that's their goal. Some are just attention-seeking and it's an easy win. Some are just offended by the idea that they might be restricted from saying anything they like, regardless of the consequences for others. The final step is subjugation and/or extermination of the group in question, depending on what is achievable. And every time we tolerate a bit of intolerance we're creating a debt of intolerance that will have to be paid back, at some point, usually through a great deal of violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Oh?
So my post about octogenarian, black, Icelantic Man who was transitioning to female but wanted to remain a homosexual needing to hop back to his wife on his one remaining leg and take her to church was wrong on several levels?
So wrong.
On so many, many levels
And yet... as funny a retort as f*ck.
It's not wrong at all. Not on any level.
This is part of the problem. People have little idea of what 'protected' means and make up their own rules e.g. you can't say old, or black or disabled..... and worse still they point fingers at those expressing valid opinions that are not designed to cause harm or discriminate .
"But sometimes remarks can cause harm and discriminate, even when not designed to. What one person finds acceptable, another may not. There are people who think it’s acceptable to say p*ki for instance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are just some of the threads that I’ve read this morning? Should these types of threads stay? Is it something that should be removed? What’s going on here folks, it’s all over the forums " I must admit, i tend to give them a wide berth if i see any, having been told in the past that these are often 'conversation starters' I quite liked Felix's thoughts from the 'say hello/wave goodbye' thread: "and there are, of course, some utter cunts. You probably #dontknowwhoyouare because that’s your fabric. Sadly you won’t ever change and the world is a worse place because of you. If someone nice tells you you’re a cunt, you probably are." If nothing else they are useful as a filter for people that i know i wouldn't have much in common with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source." This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If nothing else they are useful as a filter for people that i know i wouldn't have much in common with "On the whole I'd rather they stayed for this reason. I like to know who I'm deeply incompatible with. J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We really are in a world where our free speech has gone aren’t we. 90% of posts/comments aren’t racist it’s people looking to find something that isn’t there. There are racists biggots sexists on here of course we’re all part of a big network, but seriously people if go any further left we won’t be able to open our mouths for fear of being labelled. Do we not encourage free speech, well ok let’s all move to North korea then and be done with it "Don't mention Korea ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We really are in a world where our free speech has gone aren’t we. 90% of posts/comments aren’t racist it’s people looking to find something that isn’t there. There are racists biggots sexists on here of course we’re all part of a big network, but seriously people if go any further left we won’t be able to open our mouths for fear of being labelled. Do we not encourage free speech, well ok let’s all move to North korea then and be done with it "Your free speech hasn't 'gone'. You can say pretty much what you want without being put in prison for your views. People can tell you what they think of your views. That's their free speech. J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We really are in a world where our free speech has gone aren’t we. 90% of posts/comments aren’t racist it’s people looking to find something that isn’t there. There are racists biggots sexists on here of course we’re all part of a big network, but seriously people if go any further left we won’t be able to open our mouths for fear of being labelled. Do we not encourage free speech, well ok let’s all move to North korea then and be done with it
Your free speech hasn't 'gone'. You can say pretty much what you want without being put in prison for your views. People can tell you what they think of your views. That's their free speech.
J"Cunty cunts need to watch out
Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. " Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved " We’re not allowed to name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved We’re not allowed to name" lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved We’re not allowed to name" Well how can we answer your question you’re asking then? If we don’t know what you’re referring to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved We’re not allowed to name" That’s bunkum, since when have you not been allowed to reference other threads, your OP specifically talks about ‘threads’ not individuals, so just make people aware of the threads you perceive to be falling foul and then they can read them and judge for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. This. To make that kind of accusation, you’d need to say which ones. Even better, just report them. Agree. I saw this yesterday and had a quick scroll and couldn’t see anything. Then I thought nah don’t get involved We’re not allowed to name Well how can we answer your question you’re asking then? If we don’t know what you’re referring to " If you know full-well that within the rules he can't answer this question, then you're just using the question to imply that there are no examples. There are many examples of threads that have been controversial and where many people have called out a small group that keep pushing prejudices, either through edgy jokes or "just asking questions" and "having the debate", and they're not hard to find. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We really are in a world where our free speech has gone aren’t we. 90% of posts/comments aren’t racist it’s people looking to find something that isn’t there. There are racists biggots sexists on here of course we’re all part of a big network, but seriously people if go any further left we won’t be able to open our mouths for fear of being labelled. Do we not encourage free speech, well ok let’s all move to North korea then and be done with it "What is it that you aren’t allowed to say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not necessarily the OP of a thread but the posts within a thread. This sort of semantics to defend dog whistling and nasty analogies is completely transparent. J" Precisely my point, just say which threads then people can read the thread and decide for themselves if any of the posts fall into the description of xenophobic racist etc etc, no need to be breaking any rules about naming individuals, surely that’s not difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a section in the forum for political matters and for me they should be in that part. Not topics I will be getting involved in on fab. While they are big issues and while unfortunately things such as racism still happen in todays world, I don't think fab is the place for it. Hence if others feel the need to then it should be in the politics section. " Racism isn't necessarily a political issue. It might be if a politician has been racist, but racism is something people experience in their daily lives. That's an every day issue, not a political one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. Oh?
So my post about octogenarian, black, Icelantic Man who was transitioning to female but wanted to remain a homosexual needing to hop back to his wife on his one remaining leg and take her to church was wrong on several levels?
So wrong.
On so many, many levels
And yet... as funny a retort as f*ck.
It's not wrong at all. Not on any level.
This is part of the problem. People have little idea of what 'protected' means and make up their own rules e.g. you can't say old, or black or disabled..... and worse still they point fingers at those expressing valid opinions that are not designed to cause harm or discriminate .
But sometimes remarks can cause harm and discriminate, even when not designed to. What one person finds acceptable, another may not. There are people who think it’s acceptable to say p*ki for instance."Apologies for not making my point clear. 'As long as remarks are not designed to cause harm or discrimination.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The adjectives used in the thread title are open to interpretation depending on how sensitive or even how relevant some find the subject. Just in my time using the forums here I have found that often the people who are so laser focused on raising certain topics display all the characteristics of those they are calling out. Narcissists describing what they see as narcissism in others, bigots with one point of view pointing the finger at those with a differing opinion, xenophobes who insist that it's only foreigners who are xenophobic and fabbers being called racist because for some everything really is just black and white and isn't open for discussion. Misogyny challenged where none exists but hey the bandwagon was passing so might as well jump on it and hope no-one notices my misandry. Obviously these are all just my thoughts on the way certain words are bandied about as the tar and feathers are being mixed but apparently there are actually people here who genuinely believe that beating others around the head with whatever big stick they have today on an anonymous forum will make them change their ideas or think about their actions and try and do better in future. We need more threads about gullibility. " My goodness I couldn’t agree with you more. This is so true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well op I have no idea what threads your referring to. You could just report them instead of making a cryptic thread when no one knows what your referring to" It's all smoke and mirrors, the OP should name those threads and end all of the speculation.. it is not conducive to harmony in the forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well op I have no idea what threads your referring to. You could just report them instead of making a cryptic thread when no one knows what your referring to It's all smoke and mirrors, the OP should name those threads and end all of the speculation.. it is not conducive to harmony in the forum" Cryptic threads that are difficult to report because of smoke and mirrors. The irony is beautiful. And you're right Tom. Such threads are not conducive to harmony in the forum. J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ironing is delicious" Damn that auto carrot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are very keen to dismiss claims of -isms. Racism, sexism, xenophobia is all over these forums. Lots gets removed, but an awful lot also gets left. Fabs is a cross section of general society; if anything it’s probably more right-leaning. It’s inevitable that these views will appear on the forum, and trying to deny it just shows rather extreme naivety at best." You will need to provide new evidence if you wish to place a last minute appeal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom I'm going to be honest - and since you seem to be directly calling out the op here and it's considered acceptable I think this will be too - a lot of your posts are examples. You have a habit of "side-swiping" people on unrelated issues to have a dig and provoke a reaction - the most recent ones being the digs against Koreans and against people who need to attend food banks. A couple of people here clearly find it funny but more people are put off. Personally I wish we could have a swingers "lounge" where everyone feels welcome, but that necessarily requires us to not take jabs at various groups all the time." Unfortunately not everyone is allowed an opinion on here. Calling out the people being intentionally flagrant often ends up in a ban for you and no consequences for them. Sometimes it's best just to ignore them and leave them to entertain themselves in the hope they do it less - a don't feed the beast type thing as reacting is all they really want | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom I'm going to be honest - and since you seem to be directly calling out the op here and it's considered acceptable I think this will be too - a lot of your posts are examples. You have a habit of "side-swiping" people on unrelated issues to have a dig and provoke a reaction - the most recent ones being the digs against Koreans and against people who need to attend food banks. A couple of people here clearly find it funny but more people are put off. Personally I wish we could have a swingers "lounge" where everyone feels welcome, but that necessarily requires us to not take jabs at various groups all the time. Unfortunately not everyone is allowed an opinion on here. Calling out the people being intentionally flagrant often ends up in a ban for you and no consequences for them. Sometimes it's best just to ignore them and leave them to entertain themselves in the hope they do it less - a don't feed the beast type thing as reacting is all they really want "Caramel eggs Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are very keen to dismiss claims of -isms. Racism, sexism, xenophobia is all over these forums. Lots gets removed, but an awful lot also gets left. Fabs is a cross section of general society; if anything it’s probably more right-leaning. It’s inevitable that these views will appear on the forum, and trying to deny it just shows rather extreme naivety at best." This reads as - my opinion is this forum is right leaning and if you deny that you're naive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think it is healthy to remove the opinions and thoughts of those we disagree/find distasteful. You could engage with them and demonstrate why you believe them to be wrong. You can, but 9/10 times you get back veriment abuse. The ideal of toleranting intolerant ideas is a dangerous one because it ligetimises their point of view as one to be respected. Which an intolerant view isn’t to be respected it’s to be challenged. The problem being, to attack an idea is a difficult concept." Better to just take the piss then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. " How the fuck did religious belief get on this list ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are very keen to dismiss claims of -isms. Racism, sexism, xenophobia is all over these forums. Lots gets removed, but an awful lot also gets left. Fabs is a cross section of general society; if anything it’s probably more right-leaning. It’s inevitable that these views will appear on the forum, and trying to deny it just shows rather extreme naivety at best. This reads as - my opinion is this forum is right leaning and if you deny that you're naive. " Then your reading comprehension needs work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a list of protected characteristics- Age Race including colour, nationality or national origin, ethnicity Sex Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Marital status Religious belief So any member posting discriminating or abusive comments with reference to the above should be informed that these break the rules and banned. How the fuck did religious belief get on this list ???" It’s religion or believe on the equality act 2010. People have a right to not be discriminated against in society due to their religion or due to their beliefs. That feels very reasonable to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are very keen to dismiss claims of -isms. Racism, sexism, xenophobia is all over these forums. Lots gets removed, but an awful lot also gets left. Fabs is a cross section of general society; if anything it’s probably more right-leaning. It’s inevitable that these views will appear on the forum, and trying to deny it just shows rather extreme naivety at best. This reads as - my opinion is this forum is right leaning and if you deny that you're naive. Then your reading comprehension needs work." Nothing like insults to start the morning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mr here. Anyone else find it ironic that anyone would express issues with racism and bigotry on a forum where it's legit and even necessary to state things like... "Black guys to the front"... "No Asian guys please - no offence, just my preference"... "VWE guys only need reply"... The facility for any of us to legitimatrly express our preference or kink surely means a) we're not being racist when we say "not interested in black guys", or "single males don't message us", etc., and b) we must make an assumption that members on here are mature enough and worldly enough to see the difference (in the context of this being a swinging site) between being racist or bigoted and legitimately expressing legitimate preferences? Without seeing the threads or comments mentioned by op, my post here is related to the broader subject of racism, bigotry, exclusion etc. across the site, and not express abuse of or toward any group." I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are very keen to dismiss claims of -isms. Racism, sexism, xenophobia is all over these forums. Lots gets removed, but an awful lot also gets left. Fabs is a cross section of general society; if anything it’s probably more right-leaning. It’s inevitable that these views will appear on the forum, and trying to deny it just shows rather extreme naivety at best. This reads as - my opinion is this forum is right leaning and if you deny that you're naive. Then your reading comprehension needs work. Nothing like insults to start the morning "It’s not an insult to say that you’ve not read what I said properly. Either your reading comprehension needs work or you’re being deliberately obtuse. I went with the option I felt allowed the most grace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom I'm going to be honest - and since you seem to be directly calling out the op here and it's considered acceptable I think this will be too - a lot of your posts are examples. You have a habit of "side-swiping" people on unrelated issues to have a dig and provoke a reaction - the most recent ones being the digs against Koreans and against people who need to attend food banks. A couple of people here clearly find it funny but more people are put off. Personally I wish we could have a swingers "lounge" where everyone feels welcome, but that necessarily requires us to not take jabs at various groups all the time. Unfortunately not everyone is allowed an opinion on here. Calling out the people being intentionally flagrant often ends up in a ban for you and no consequences for them. Sometimes it's best just to ignore them and leave them to entertain themselves in the hope they do it less - a don't feed the beast type thing as reacting is all they really want "Very wise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...It’s religion or believe on the equality act 2010. People have a right to not be discriminated against in society due to their religion or due to their beliefs. That feels very reasonable to me." ____________________ Mr here. Perhaps a tad OT, but does that also mean we have the right to not be discriminated against for not having any religion or any beliefs? A whole other can of worms, but isn't Ireland spectacularly successfully accomplished at accommodating some groups to the cost of others? As an example... burglars, car thiefs, drug dealers, assaulters, et al are frequently ejected from courtrooms after multiple repeat offences with effectively zero consequence, free to continue unhindered on their lawless society-disrespecting path while their victims bear the financial cost of replacing items, hospital bills, etc., and suffer the emotional cost of increased fear and anger and desperation and anxiety and frustration...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...It’s religion or believe on the equality act 2010. People have a right to not be discriminated against in society due to their religion or due to their beliefs. That feels very reasonable to me. ____________________ Mr here. Perhaps a tad OT, but does that also mean we have the right to not be discriminated against for not having any religion or any beliefs? A whole other can of worms, but isn't Ireland spectacularly successfully accomplished at accommodating some groups to the cost of others? " The act includes protection for no belief or religion as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope there isn't harmony in the forums as that would kind of defeat the point. I think if people are airing their views/ opinions which someone doesn't like or finds offensive then we can choose whether to engage or not (and block) As difficult as it may be to read, at least you find out who the narrow minded idiots are." ^^^^^^^ this - we dont have to participate in a thread - or engage with those who's view raise your eyebrows. I haven't a clue whats happening half the time anyway i just drink tea and eat kit kats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle." I'm not assuming that you necessarily feel the same. So those people might feel that P not being attracted to black guys* is racist? Or that me not being attracted to men is homophobic? Or someone not being attracted to older men is ageist? Or not being attracted to someone with down's syndrome is discriminatory? Or put another way... P should force herself to be with black guys in order to not be perceived as racist? I should force myself to be with men so that I'm not being homophobic? I'm struggling to imagine that that perspective could be held by anyone capable or reasoning and rational thinking? Who we're attracted to and what dlturns us on are natural innate internal non-choice things. I didn't decide to be attracted to P - I met her and she "did it" for me There were hundreds of other people there that night - men, women, old, young, overweight, skinny, long hair, short hair, outgoing & dancing, quiet & chatting with friends... I wasn't looking for anyone, not on the hunt... but we just happened to meet and were attracted to each other. Not sure how attraction to one person or type of person equates to being racist or discriminatory toward every other person or type of person? * I actually think P might be attracted to black guys... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle. I'm not assuming that you necessarily feel the same. So those people might feel that P not being attracted to black guys* is racist? Or that me not being attracted to men is homophobic? Or someone not being attracted to older men is ageist? Or not being attracted to someone with down's syndrome is discriminatory? Or put another way... P should force herself to be with black guys in order to not be perceived as racist? I should force myself to be with men so that I'm not being homophobic? I'm struggling to imagine that that perspective could be held by anyone capable or reasoning and rational thinking? Who we're attracted to and what dlturns us on are natural innate internal non-choice things. I didn't decide to be attracted to P - I met her and she "did it" for me There were hundreds of other people there that night - men, women, old, young, overweight, skinny, long hair, short hair, outgoing & dancing, quiet & chatting with friends... I wasn't looking for anyone, not on the hunt... but we just happened to meet and were attracted to each other. Not sure how attraction to one person or type of person equates to being racist or discriminatory toward every other person or type of person? * I actually think P might be attracted to black guys... "There have been numerous other threads discussing these things, and many of those threads feature black voices and how they feel about this kind of treatment. I'm not going to reply to your other straw man arguments; you are aware that they are ridiculous and that's why you posted them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ideal of tolerating intolerant ideas is a dangerous one because it ligetimises their point of view as one to be respected." So you should be intolerant of those views you consider intolerant? "Which an intolerant view isn’t to be respected it’s to be challenged." How do you challenge an intolerant view, if you show intolerance toward that view and insist it be silenced? I ask as I'm following your advice. I find your view that speech should be censored intolerant... and as such I'm challenging your view. Of course I can only do this as I'm also ignoring your advice by not insisting your view be censored. In short, your stated view is an oxymoron. You cannot censor intolerant views to prevent their legitimisation, whilst simultaneously challenging the intolerant view in debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle. I'm not assuming that you necessarily feel the same. So those people might feel that P not being attracted to black guys* is racist? Or that me not being attracted to men is homophobic? Or someone not being attracted to older men is ageist? Or not being attracted to someone with down's syndrome is discriminatory? Or put another way... P should force herself to be with black guys in order to not be perceived as racist? I should force myself to be with men so that I'm not being homophobic? I'm struggling to imagine that that perspective could be held by anyone capable or reasoning and rational thinking? Who we're attracted to and what dlturns us on are natural innate internal non-choice things. I didn't decide to be attracted to P - I met her and she "did it" for me There were hundreds of other people there that night - men, women, old, young, overweight, skinny, long hair, short hair, outgoing & dancing, quiet & chatting with friends... I wasn't looking for anyone, not on the hunt... but we just happened to meet and were attracted to each other. Not sure how attraction to one person or type of person equates to being racist or discriminatory toward every other person or type of person? * I actually think P might be attracted to black guys... "I would encourage you to think about why P might not be attracted to black guys, what has influenced that view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive and of course individuals should be able to choose who they meet and have sex with. This will never change despite any laws brought in. If a fabber fancies a person of a particular look are we saying that they should not state this. It saves a lot of time if they state a preference. Tom is classicly Tall Dark and Handsome, the type who would be cast as Mr Darcy in any TV period Drama so if a lady prefers shorter, ginger men then Tom would prefer that she states her preferences. It saves everybody's time. It's just a preference. " Does Tom belong to a ‘race’ that has been historically oppressed and still suffers today due to structural racism? If not then what Tom thinks about it is largely meaningless as it’s coming from a view that has little understanding of the situation, unless Tom can accept that Tom has little understanding of the situation, that would certainly show that Tom has some self awareness, rather than viewing it through a very limited lens. I find it quite fascinating that people don’t understand why saying that they don’t find black or Asian people attractive may come across as seeming a little racist. It’s very different from saying they don’t find a particular black or Asian person attractive. One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive. Does Tom see the difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In short, your stated view is an oxymoron. You cannot censor intolerant views to prevent their legitimisation, whilst simultaneously challenging the intolerant view in debate." It's not an oxymoron, which applies to words - these are ideas, so it's a paradox. It's called the paradox of tolerance (or, popper's paradox). As I stated above, pointing out that it's a paradox isn't really a criticism - paradoxes exist. Taking an absolutist perspective on the paradox - that all ideas and expression should be tolerated - always leads to the intolerant views becoming more popular and, eventually, crowding out the tolerant ones. This is why almost all discussion revolves around which ideas are too intolerant to be tolerated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle. I'm not assuming that you necessarily feel the same. So those people might feel that P not being attracted to black guys* is racist? Or that me not being attracted to men is homophobic? Or someone not being attracted to older men is ageist? Or not being attracted to someone with down's syndrome is discriminatory? Or put another way... P should force herself to be with black guys in order to not be perceived as racist? I should force myself to be with men so that I'm not being homophobic? I'm struggling to imagine that that perspective could be held by anyone capable or reasoning and rational thinking? Who we're attracted to and what dlturns us on are natural innate internal non-choice things. I didn't decide to be attracted to P - I met her and she "did it" for me There were hundreds of other people there that night - men, women, old, young, overweight, skinny, long hair, short hair, outgoing & dancing, quiet & chatting with friends... I wasn't looking for anyone, not on the hunt... but we just happened to meet and were attracted to each other. Not sure how attraction to one person or type of person equates to being racist or discriminatory toward every other person or type of person? * I actually think P might be attracted to black guys...
I would encourage you to think about why P might not be attracted to black guys, what has influenced that view?"You missed my last sentence? But going with a hypothetical assumption... I'm pretty sure that a primary influence in this example is the same as what influences ANY preference or non-preference... Nature. Other (hypothetical) influences outside nature could be an experienced with a black guy who was rude or disrespectful, or had body odour... exposure to misleading education or information while growing up... naively presuming all blackbguys are like the stereotypical bad guy in the movies. But because I know P and have observed and experienced her authenticity and integrity and honesty and sense of adventure and open-mindedness, if she wasn't attracted to black guys, it would simply be nature. I've never been wronged by a gay man, never had any negative encounter or experience with a gay man, was never exposed to endeavours to render me negatively-didposed toward gay men. But I'm still not attracted to men... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hold on, let me grab my thesaurus and I'll join in." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a lot of people here feel that the examples you’ve given above are rooted in racism and would like to see them eradicated from the lifestyle. I'm not assuming that you necessarily feel the same. So those people might feel that P not being attracted to black guys* is racist? Or that me not being attracted to men is homophobic? Or someone not being attracted to older men is ageist? Or not being attracted to someone with down's syndrome is discriminatory? Or put another way... P should force herself to be with black guys in order to not be perceived as racist? I should force myself to be with men so that I'm not being homophobic? I'm struggling to imagine that that perspective could be held by anyone capable or reasoning and rational thinking? Who we're attracted to and what dlturns us on are natural innate internal non-choice things. I didn't decide to be attracted to P - I met her and she "did it" for me There were hundreds of other people there that night - men, women, old, young, overweight, skinny, long hair, short hair, outgoing & dancing, quiet & chatting with friends... I wasn't looking for anyone, not on the hunt... but we just happened to meet and were attracted to each other. Not sure how attraction to one person or type of person equates to being racist or discriminatory toward every other person or type of person? * I actually think P might be attracted to black guys...
I would encourage you to think about why P might not be attracted to black guys, what has influenced that view?
You missed my last sentence?
But going with a hypothetical assumption... I'm pretty sure that a primary influence in this example is the same as what influences ANY preference or non-preference...
Nature.
Other (hypothetical) influences outside nature could be an experienced with a black guy who was rude or disrespectful, or had body odour... exposure to misleading education or information while growing up... naively presuming all blackbguys are like the stereotypical bad guy in the movies.
But because I know P and have observed and experienced her authenticity and integrity and honesty and sense of adventure and open-mindedness, if she wasn't attracted to black guys, it would simply be nature.
I've never been wronged by a gay man, never had any negative encounter or experience with a gay man, was never exposed to endeavours to render me negatively-didposed toward gay men. But I'm still not attracted to men..."I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the view that finding someone unattractive because they have a different skin colour is ‘nature’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive and of course individuals should be able to choose who they meet and have sex with. This will never change despite any laws brought in. If a fabber fancies a person of a particular look are we saying that they should not state this. It saves a lot of time if they state a preference. Tom is classicly Tall Dark and Handsome, the type who would be cast as Mr Darcy in any TV period Drama so if a lady prefers shorter, ginger men then Tom would prefer that she states her preferences. It saves everybody's time. It's just a preference. Does Tom belong to a ‘race’ that has been historically oppressed and still suffers today due to structural racism? If not then what Tom thinks about it is largely meaningless as it’s coming from a view that has little understanding of the situation, unless Tom can accept that Tom has little understanding of the situation, that would certainly show that Tom has some self awareness, rather than viewing it through a very limited lens. I find it quite fascinating that people don’t understand why saying that they don’t find black or Asian people attractive may come across as seeming a little racist. It’s very different from saying they don’t find a particular black or Asian person attractive. One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive. Does Tom see the difference?" An excellent reply and well presented. In answer to your question. Yes. Tom comes from a family and bloodline which faced persecution on both grounds of race and religion and language. It caused his mother to flee a country for her own safety. Tom does not believe that this makes him any more authoritive than the next man. Tom accepts that his views are meaningless to some and of interest to others. Tom would not like to diminish the opinions of others just because they have not 'suffered' like Tom and his family have suffered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory," Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
) say you owned a hotel, describe your worst guest and why.
Ultimately its all about our choice and preference as an individual and the right to others, whether we agree with it or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point." The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive" I don't choose not to like broccoli. Or death metal. They just don't appeal to me. ____________________ "...One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive..." Not quite... On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference. And importantly... One person's non-attraction to any type of person should be automatically assumed and judged to be racist (or ageist, or whatever)... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive and of course individuals should be able to choose who they meet and have sex with. This will never change despite any laws brought in. If a fabber fancies a person of a particular look are we saying that they should not state this. It saves a lot of time if they state a preference. Tom is classicly Tall Dark and Handsome, the type who would be cast as Mr Darcy in any TV period Drama so if a lady prefers shorter, ginger men then Tom would prefer that she states her preferences. It saves everybody's time. It's just a preference. Does Tom belong to a ‘race’ that has been historically oppressed and still suffers today due to structural racism? If not then what Tom thinks about it is largely meaningless as it’s coming from a view that has little understanding of the situation, unless Tom can accept that Tom has little understanding of the situation, that would certainly show that Tom has some self awareness, rather than viewing it through a very limited lens. I find it quite fascinating that people don’t understand why saying that they don’t find black or Asian people attractive may come across as seeming a little racist. It’s very different from saying they don’t find a particular black or Asian person attractive. One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive. Does Tom see the difference? An excellent reply and well presented. In answer to your question. Yes. Tom comes from a family and bloodline which faced persecution on both grounds of race and religion and language. It caused his mother to flee a country for her own safety. Tom does not believe that this makes him any more authoritive than the next man. Tom accepts that his views are meaningless to some and of interest to others. Tom would not like to diminish the opinions of others just because they have not 'suffered' like Tom and his family have suffered" I would say that if Tom’s family has suffered historical and ongoing persecution and disadvantage because of their race then Tom has a greater knowledge of how it feels to be discriminated against because of Tom’s family’s race. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point."
That's it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive I don't choose not to like broccoli. Or death metal. They just don't appeal to me. ____________________ ...One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive... Not quite... On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference. And importantly... One person's non-attraction to any type of person should be automatically assumed and judged to be racist (or ageist, or whatever)..." So you are saying it is ‘natural’ for a white person not to be attracted to an Asian person, or vice versa? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc." However, some won't understand this as is demonstrated. Some simply believe its a case of, 'your fit, let's fuck'. I could talk about social constructivist stance, social learning theory blah blah blah. How our attraction biases are not even ours.....but what's been passed on to us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive I don't choose not to like broccoli. Or death metal. They just don't appeal to me. ____________________ ...One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive... Not quite... On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference. And importantly... One person's non-attraction to any type of person should be automatically assumed and judged to be racist (or ageist, or whatever)..." * shouldn't Damn auto-correct... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive I don't choose not to like broccoli. Or death metal. They just don't appeal to me. ____________________ ...One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive... Not quite... On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference. And importantly... One person's non-attraction to any type of person should be automatically assumed and judged to be racist (or ageist, or whatever)... So you are saying it is ‘natural’ for a white person not to be attracted to an Asian person, or vice versa?" No, I'm not saying that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc." Nope. not racist/xenophobic/classist or whatever else ist to find a person unattractive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive I don't choose not to like broccoli. Or death metal. They just don't appeal to me. ____________________ ...One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive... Not quite... On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference. And importantly... One person's non-attraction to any type of person should be automatically assumed and judged to be racist (or ageist, or whatever)... So you are saying it is ‘natural’ for a white person not to be attracted to an Asian person, or vice versa? No, I'm not saying that." So what does “ On individual's natural non-attraction to any type of person isn't an empirical statement that that type of person is objectively unattractive. It's their own personal preference.” mean? Does it mean the preference is chosen rather ‘natural’? Does ‘type’ mean skin colour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Choice still exists in who we find attractive and of course individuals should be able to choose who they meet and have sex with. This will never change despite any laws brought in. If a fabber fancies a person of a particular look are we saying that they should not state this. It saves a lot of time if they state a preference. Tom is classicly Tall Dark and Handsome, the type who would be cast as Mr Darcy in any TV period Drama so if a lady prefers shorter, ginger men then Tom would prefer that she states her preferences. It saves everybody's time. It's just a preference. Does Tom belong to a ‘race’ that has been historically oppressed and still suffers today due to structural racism? If not then what Tom thinks about it is largely meaningless as it’s coming from a view that has little understanding of the situation, unless Tom can accept that Tom has little understanding of the situation, that would certainly show that Tom has some self awareness, rather than viewing it through a very limited lens. I find it quite fascinating that people don’t understand why saying that they don’t find black or Asian people attractive may come across as seeming a little racist. It’s very different from saying they don’t find a particular black or Asian person attractive. One is saying that an entire group of people is unattractive because of their race, the other is saying a person who happens to be a particular race isn’t attractive. Does Tom see the difference? An excellent reply and well presented. In answer to your question. Yes. Tom comes from a family and bloodline which faced persecution on both grounds of race and religion and language. It caused his mother to flee a country for her own safety. Tom does not believe that this makes him any more authoritive than the next man. Tom accepts that his views are meaningless to some and of interest to others. Tom would not like to diminish the opinions of others just because they have not 'suffered' like Tom and his family have suffered I would say that if Tom’s family has suffered historical and ongoing persecution and disadvantage because of their race then Tom has a greater knowledge of how it feels to be discriminated against because of Tom’s family’s race." Tom does not see it that way but your view is valid and presented very eloquently. Tom met a lady last week who had fled a middle eastern country (allegedly) because of the government oppression. Tom won't name the country. Tom asked what it's like living in such a hot country. The lady replied, it's not hot all year round and we have four seasons and it can be very cold in the winter. It shows what we often assume is not always true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc. Nope. not racist/xenophobic/classist or whatever else ist to find a person unattractive. " Definitely not, but you could argue that finding a whole group of people who have a particular skin colour unattractive because of their skin colour, is racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hold on, let me grab my thesaurus and I'll join in." You got a spare | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source." Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only " A bunch of people did this and they promptly had their posts removed and a temporary ban from the forums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only A bunch of people did this and they promptly had their posts removed and a temporary ban from the forums." Ah so the threads aren’t there? Someone could have said that about 100 comments ago when it was asked! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely the whole reason to have a forum is to discuss difficult subjects occasionally ? I have been a member of several different forums from running to motorbikes, all have members who have one thing in common but often different opinions on other subjects that are occurring in modern life. Debate surely is a good thing, even if it helps you to stay away from those whose views you find distasteful or disturbing ? " Mps debate all the time look where we are with their controlling minds on us. As for open debate.Only if it is not derogatory or discrimination | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc. Nope. not racist/xenophobic/classist or whatever else ist to find a person unattractive. Definitely not, but you could argue that finding a whole group of people who have a particular skin colour unattractive because of their skin colour, is racist." Nope. If you aren’t attracted to light skinned people you are not going to be attracted to light skinned people. The same goes for dark skinned and everything in between. Now, if you said you are not attracted to French people beacause they are French, or Chinese people because they are Chinese etc. Then I would agree that would be racist / xenophobic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should be cancelled. We spent the last 10 years allowing these horrible idea to go rogue unchecked, the results have been trump, brexit and division. The only ones who had any positive from this are the russians. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of hate, freedom of lying, freedom of misinformation " It certainly does not, but surely we can be allowed to have a preference, my sexual preference is mine, i own it and im allowed to choose who has access to me. It doesn't impact on who my friends are, the people i associate with when i have my clothes on. Society becone stale and monotone if we were all the same. I love people, across the board, and people turn me on for different reasons. Im not entitled to say as i please , my words have consequences and impact on others. I feel this acceptance of others is lost and people too quick to ram their views down your throat as the only acceptable one. Having said all that, some solid points raised, and i still have my sexual preference
Happy Thursday xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
J | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only A bunch of people did this and they promptly had their posts removed and a temporary ban from the forums. Ah so the threads aren’t there? Someone could have said that about 100 comments ago when it was asked! " I said that I couldn’t say as I’d be banned. I was told that was rubbish. Someone else says it and that’s ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is why it's so hard to report threads and posts. Because people use analogies that are completely transparent but vague enough to fit within the rules.
J"This. And, of course, it is against the site rules to bring up any instance where you have reported a thread or post but admin has left it in place, since it is against the rules to criticise the forum moderators. (Mods - please note, I'm not criticising you in this post. I am stating factually that it is against the site rules to disagree publically with a moderators decision, which is what I had my forum ban for a couple of days ago. Pls don't timeout me again. Thx.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only A bunch of people did this and they promptly had their posts removed and a temporary ban from the forums. Ah so the threads aren’t there? Someone could have said that about 100 comments ago when it was asked! I said that I couldn’t say as I’d be banned. I was told that was rubbish. Someone else says it and that’s ok? " ???You could have said the threads had been removed when asked which threads you were referring to. You wouldn’t be banned for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is why it's so hard to report threads and posts. Because people use analogies that are completely transparent but vague enough to fit within the rules.
J"This. I have also noticed that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"research has shown that people often attribute their dating patterns to personal preference as a defense mechanism. I think people are trying to hide that they know that their preferences are discriminatory, but they don’t want to be called discriminatory, Or maybe they just want to have sex with those they find attractive? No need for research on that obvious point. The key is that all sorts of things influence who we find attractive. Who we find attractive isn't genetically inbuilt to us, otherwise we'd never change the kind of person that we fancy as we change as a person ourselves. Who we find attractive is influenced by all kinds of outside factors, and some of those are social factors. And some of those social factors may well be rooted in racism, classism, xenophobia, etc. Nope. not racist/xenophobic/classist or whatever else ist to find a person unattractive. Definitely not, but you could argue that finding a whole group of people who have a particular skin colour unattractive because of their skin colour, is racist." _______________ This could be an issue of semantics of language. "I find you unattractive." is not the same as "I don't find you attractive." To me, the latter means there's nothing objectively "wrong" with them - they simply don't float your boat, tick your boxes. The former means there's something about them that actually turns you off them. Should I expect or demand that every woman in a swinger club be attracted to me? Should I declare and judge those who aren't to be being discriminatory toward me? Am I crushed that I'm not every woman's cup of tea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we have some examples tea? We need a source. Exactly what threads and who are you accusing of ..no proof not happened. I have seen pleasantries only A bunch of people did this and they promptly had their posts removed and a temporary ban from the forums." I have just checked all posts that were removed from this thread and can confirm your comment is not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is why it's so hard to report threads and posts. Because people use analogies that are completely transparent but vague enough to fit within the rules.
J
This.
And, of course, it is against the site rules to bring up any instance where you have reported a thread or post but admin has left it in place, since it is against the rules to criticise the forum moderators.
(Mods - please note, I'm not criticising you in this post. I am stating factually that it is against the site rules to disagree publically with a moderators decision, which is what I had my forum ban for a couple of days ago. Pls don't timeout me again. Thx.)"Talking constantly about bans you have had will get another time out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
