intentional?Laurence Fox
- Thread starter Amplus
- Start date
intentional?
Thanks for this. So if I understand correctly, they previously had a reference to setting up a safe space further to the BLM movement.
If that is correct... Uh, meh? I still don’t see why that is so terrible. When people refer to BLM they are often referring to rallying support for racial equality in light of adversity faced by black people. I’m aware that there are some radical (or at least poorly thought through) political ideals that are promoted by BLM as an organisation, but from what Sainsbury’s have said in that screenshot you posted I think it’s a giant galactic leap to say they are promoting racism and segregation. It’s not like they are even expressly saying that they support everything BLM as an organisation does, which would about the threshold where Laurence would start to have a reasonable point.
In summary, Sainsbury’s appear to have referenced a political group in what is an obvious attempt to show there support for a social cause. It was, at the very worst, clumsy. I would struggle to even go that far tbh.
Promoting racism though...?
Not heard that term in years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Did you call me racist? If so that statement is for you. This is his tweet about it.
Soldato
Lol
Look, Tony, yes I called you a racist. I did, because you are. You clearly have a different opinion of Fox because he's white. Numerous times it was you who played the race card in this thread. It was you who dismissed Fox entirely until challenged, because you thought he was saying nasty things about BLM...because he's white. None of that was me. I have not ever said a bad thing about anybody in reference to where they come from, or the colour of their skin. Feel free to prove that wrong but until you do, sorry, that accusation is as baseless as the rest of the drivel you've posted.
You know i had to look that up. Spade is a slur, really? wow. The phrase predates the use of the word as a racial slur though and to be absolutely clear, I used the phrase the way it was intended to be used. It was not a racial slur. Funny though.
If the assumption is that the safe space was for black employees only, as was the trend with safe spaces, then it promotes segregation at a minor level.
To me, it is "meh" too - however I'm also not blind to the negative impact BLM, and to a lesser extent Black History month have. And I'm also not blind to his requirement for controversy as a platform.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
I dont criticise Fox because he is white I did it because I think he is an arse. And a potential dangerous one at that.
Soldato
The only reason you aren't more dangerous is because you don't have the social platform he does.
Yeh yeh, good try mate
Soldato
Yeh yeh, good try mate
I genuinely did know spade was considered a slur lol. is fork? can i use fork, or has that been claimed too? it's soo complicated lol
We know is wasn't an intentional slur
But it's a good example of how this country has progressed and improved in the last 50 years. I remember it being in very common use in the 1970's. It was so common that it was just casually thrown around. Nowadays anyone using it intentionally would quite rightly be told to stop using it. It shows just how much things have improved. Yes we can still improve things further. But the vast majority of people in the UK would hate to accidentally use it.
I assume you mean "did not"
Caporegime
Yes. They've created something specifically for one race. How is that not driving segregation and racism? It's giving a benefit to someone because of their race to the exclusion of others of different races...
Hmm. For a start, that would be an assumption as it doesn’t say it’s for black people only. But more to the point, isn’t the idea of a ‘BLM safe space’ exclusive to other races sort of a theoretical nonsense? I mean... who else other than black people is a BLM safe space possibly going to be aimed at?
I do appreciate that there is a valid point to be made here in relation to the purported over-promotion of diversity-based issues, but I just feel that with both ‘sides’ of this (terrible) debate there is way too much jumping on each other at the slightest hint of any ‘unacceptable’ behaviour, to the detriment of both ‘sides’.
Basically, if you find yourself agreeing with a ‘side’ too often, you’re probably wrong
(‘You’re’ in the generic sense, not you specifically, of course)
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
No you must be wrong. Youve been told it is pretty much dead. The rules of this thread seems to be about what other people think is right about racism.
Soldato
Yes, like when you made up stuff Fox never said for example. You thought you were right then, didn't you?Tony Edwards said:
I just dealt with this in my post above responding to @NVP but restating this somewhat: where does it say that it’s exclusively for black people? I think you’ll find it doesn’t. But, more importantly, you are latching onto a “theoretical absurdity” - who else would possibly want to participate in the aforementioned safe space?
Is your point that it’s manifestly unjust that a white person theoretically (I say this word because of your assumption) cannot join a ‘safe space’ created for black people in light of the police brutality issues in the USA? If so... is that not a little... absurd?
Mods?!
Erm... any weak member of any other race who receive the same amount of abuse blacks apparently do stocking shelves?
I get your down play of the issue and technically yes there was no explicit statement, and it also turned out to only be an online support page/chat, however it is no leap to identify a safe space for "black" people off the back of BLM and BHM as a segregated place for them alone - otherwise it's implication would be taken that any other space within sainsburys is not safe for black people.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Yeah, spooky!
I was under the impression that these personal attacks against posters were kinda "frowned upon" - apparently not
Personal attacks on the likes of Dawn Butler are positively encouraged - until OcUK gets sued
