• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tit Monday

Well this thread hasn’t developed into what I was hoping it would be:D

I have never taken a real interest in religion so can’t contribute, but would like to say I hope comments that have offended some doesn’t drive them away from this forum. This forum offers so many benefits, way beyond simple Spurs chat and it would be a shame if a few didn’t want to visit anymore because of offence caused by a real minority of people…..
 
Using anti semitic tropes really bothered Scara. But not Islamophobic ones about Sadiq. He's got double standards. And Marky the coward has disappeared.
 
DTA said:
how about old fashion racism… I’m hoping that’s still a no no in here. And really it’s what we are talking about in relation to Marky’s post.
Click to expand...
It is obviously not accepted.

The discussion we're currently having in the private forum is which side of that line we think the comment falls.
 
Last edited:
LutonSpurs said:
This was nothing to do with offending anyone's deity or theology. Don't be a disingenuous prik just so you can come across as some sort of libertarian trail blazer. You make yourself look a tit.
Click to expand...
Did someone accidentally put their grumpy pants on this morning?
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Does that go for anti-semitism too, out of interest?
Click to expand...
The answer is more complex there.

Anti-semitism (in it's current form) is rarely aimed at the Jewish religion and more at those either from Israel or with a Jewish heritage. It's too broad a word in that sense and the two should meanings should really be split out.

Their religion is just as ridiculous as anyone else's and is equally open to (deserved) ridicule.
 
scaramanga said:
The answer is more complex there.

Anti-semitism (in it's current form) is rarely aimed at the Jewish religion and more at those either from Israel or with a Jewish heritage. It's too broad a word in that sense and the two should meanings should really be split out.

Their religion is just as ridiculous as anyone else's and is equally open to (deserved) ridicule.
Click to expand...

So if a poster said of a Jewish mayor of London, apropos of nothing in particular, “lol he’s going to make them matzo’s made of kiddies blood compulsory” would that be religious or racial intolerance?
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
So if a poster said of a Jewish mayor of London, apropos of nothing in particular, “lol he’s going to make them matzo’s made of kiddies blood compulsory” would that be religious or racial intolerance?
Click to expand...
That's what is being discussed in the mod forum and has unfortunately spilled out here.

I'm not commenting on that side of things until it's been discussed fully.
 
scaramanga said:
It is obviously not accepted.

The discussion we're currently having is which side of that line we think the comment falls.
Click to expand...

well let me help you out there my man.

What has Sadiq khan done to suggest that he is going force all Londoners to wear Burkas

Does he even openly flaunt his religion… like I know he is Muslim but I’m not sure that he practices, without looking it up do you know?

Has he introduced any parts of sharia law?? I mean I know Ulez is quite bad, not sure it’s part of Sharia law though.

So bearing in mind Khan doesn’t let his religion mix with his politics - what justification does someone have for suggesting he is going to introduce burkas apart from the fact that he is a brown Muslim?
 
DTA said:
well let me help you out there my man.

What has Sadiq khan done to suggest that he is going force all Londoners to wear Burkas

Does he even openly flaunt his religion… like I know he is Muslim but I’m not sure that he practices, without looking it up do you know?

Has he introduced any parts of sharia law?? I mean I know Ulez is quite bad, not sure it’s part of Sharia law though.

So bearing in mind Khan doesn’t let his religion mix with his politics - what justification does someone have for suggesting he is going to introduce burkas apart from the fact that he is a brown Muslim?
Click to expand...
I didn't know he was Muslim at all until the fall out from this thread caused me to Google it. Turns out I could have a lower opinion of Khan after all.

You're right, he doesn't flaunt (or even mention, to my knowledge, his religion). That doesn't make the comment racist per se, just pointless.

If the mayor were Catholic and Marky had suggested he wanted everyone to stop using contraception, would that have been racist or just pointless?
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
It unfortunately spilled out here only because you restored the sodding thread with an inflammatory comment after everything had calmed down!

Who moderates those who moderate?
Click to expand...

The very recent approach has been hugely disappointing but not surprising.

I don’t think it is exaggeration or libel to say @scaramanga (who still owes me a response on another issue I may add but appreciate he is busier than I) will have enjoyed kicking a calm bees nest, whilst declaring we shouldn’t discuss it further and the thread should just go back to creepy leering sad old men who seemingly think they have the right to make women uncomfortable.
 
scaramanga said:
I didn't know he was Muslim at all until the fall out from this thread caused me to Google it. Turns out I could have a lower opinion of Khan after all.

You're right, he doesn't flaunt (or even mention, to my knowledge, his religion). That doesn't make the comment racist per se, just pointless.

If the mayor were Catholic and Marky had suggested he wanted everyone to stop using contraception, would that have been racist or just pointless?
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Your last 'example' screams that loudly.
 
scaramanga said:
The answer is more complex there.

Anti-semitism (in it's current form) is rarely aimed at the Jewish religion and more at those either from Israel or with a Jewish heritage. It's too broad a word in that sense and the two should meanings should really be split out.

Their religion is just as ridiculous as anyone else's and is equally open to (deserved) ridicule.
Click to expand...

Read the official definition I posted for you. Please. It's a govt document. It has some credibility too. It doesn't go far enough IMO but it does go far enough to prove your position to be wrong.
 
scaramanga said:
Please explain the difference, they seem pretty much the same to me.
Click to expand...

It's so incredibly simple. With your example, there is an extremely high chance an individual making such a remark has an issue with catholicism/religion in general.

With the comment Marky made (someone who has previous for being a bit of a racist, prejudiced dimwit), there is an extremely high chance the Islam part is just a topping for the insinuated racism behind it. This has been cross-referenced and verified over generations by racist dimwits using a symbol such as a burka to validate their dislike of anyone brown.

@LutonSpurs has explained this quite clearly in this thread and in other threads. I have also experienced 'Islamophobia' despite not being religious, simply because of my skin colour and because racists in general are too stupid or too lazy (or both) to research what 'type of brown' I am when hurling abuse and hate-speech. I appreciate this is not your experience but to fob him off as having 'grumpy pants on' when he has witnessed hate and violence simply because of the colour of his skin is pretty low, even for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back