Lily Allen: "History is racist"

[FoxEye]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...ng-battle-of-rorkes-drift-is-an-a3749026.html

On the one hand, you'd by forgiven for thinking that station notices should probably just stick to information about the trains, the network, etc. It does say "Service Information" after all.

On the other hand, apparently recalling historical events in a matter-of-fact manner is now racist. At least if it has anything to do with Empire/colonialism. I guess these things shouldn't be taught in school either, unless Lily Allen is there to say how evil the Brits were.

Tbh, I was never going to buy or listen to her crap anyhow, but all this does is make me want to avoid anything that she has anything to do with, as she's obviously a ****. History is history, yo. Even the stuff with ancient aliens.

 

[FoxEye]

Was she the one who complained or just posted a comment on the tweet?

If you read the article she made a big deal about how you can't "pay tribute" to British soldiers who died fighting for empire. That apparently includes simply recalling what happened in famous historical battles. Because just recalling a historical event is apparently pining for Empire.

She said it makes a large number of Brits "upset" to read historical accounts of Empire. She also said that if some people didn't agree with her complaint, "that's fine" but that she was right to condemn it, and it was right for it to be removed. Because her opinion matters, apparently.

She also said that the Service Information board was for "uplifting comments" - no silly, it's for Service Information. The non-erasable title on the board really gives the game away.

 

[FoxEye]

OP ended a sentence with "yo", and called someone else a "****"

Big Lily Allen fan, yo?

 

[FoxEye]

Oh look it's the "liberal" dream team, glad you could join us guys

 

[FoxEye]

I linked the article in the OP.

There is no "made up controversy" here. People responding did so after reading the linked article.

You can't invalidate everything people have said because of the thread title, which you happen to feel is misleading. I personally think it's a fair representation of what's going on. Completely fair.

 

[FoxEye]

Nope, nowhere in that article does it say the word racist. Hence you've decided to make it up. I'm not disagreeing with other posters as I too agree that it's a petty complaint.

I'm disagreeing with the way youve manipulated it to cause controversy, as if the original article wasn't pointless enough.

I'm sure you can work out the difference between colonialism and racism but I'm sure you'll now back-pedal for about 3 pages to get the last word.

And frankly not a single flying **** was given about what you think. Do come again.

 

[FoxEye]

Maybe you should stop posting on a public forum then?

Or lying, whichever is easier.

No buddy, I'm going to keep posting whatever the hell I feel like, and you can keep being triggered if you like You're not even the tiniest bit important and neither is your opinion. Of course neither is mine, so why should anyone stop posting? I don't get it.

 

[FoxEye]

Lol why are you taking this so personally? Not enjoy getting called out for BS?

Not sure I'm the one getting triggered here...

Nah I 100% stand by the thread title. I think it perfectly encapsulates what we all know is going on here, once you cut out all the actual BS - which is the pretence that this doesn't boil down to playing the "racist" card. Which is absolutely does. After all Empire was an empire of mostly what we'd now call "developing" nations, even if that is something of a misnomer in the case of many corrupt African nations.

 

[FoxEye]

But she didn't say that, and neither did the article. I agree that inherently colonialism is linked to racism ( the air of superiority held over those developing nations) but she wasn't even alluding to that in the first place.

I will agree that we shouldn't be ashamed of our past though, rather learn from it and not make the same choices again. If she had played the racist card then she would look even more of a prat than she already does.

"British colonialism" and "racism" are used pretty much interchangeably. You yourself just said that they are inherently linked. And yes - it's because we did tend to believe ourselves superior and did some pretty horrific things at times to the natives. Indefensible things which we'd like to think wouldn't happen with our modern sensibilities (but probably underneath the fake Twitter outrage we're not that different sadly).

I summarised the whole thing with a deliberately provocative thread title, but I do not believe it was misleading. They are inherently linked, you yourself just said so. I kind of rest my case after quoting what you just said.

 

[FoxEye]

It’s really easy to win arguments when you just make things up.

At least I don't just ****post one liners in every thread where I see a poster I don't like. Lawd you're tiresome, Von. I actually sigh a little every time I see your name. I refuse to use the ignore function, but damn it's tempting at times.

 

[FoxEye]

Another leftie mob at it again. Utter cringe. Apols for DM, but it’s got a video.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5323519/Winston-Churchill-inspired-Blighty-cafe-stormed.html

Revealed: Labour activist, 24, who led the 'hard left' charge against Churchill at themed 'Blighty' cafe is a Corybn fan who 'idolises' Russell Brand

So... a brain-dead role-model (Brand) for a brain-dead politics student.

I wonder what "chains" she truly is labouring against. The chains of being a spoilt, brain-dead moron, I assume.

Not sure what "anti-colonial policies" she wants us to focus on and prioritise. Certainly isn't going to win anyone over that has any working grey matter with that display anyhow. She might as well have dropped her pants and crapped on the floor; it would have been equally as persuasive as far as intelligent debate goes.

 

[FoxEye]

I was actually in there when this happened...you see the confusion on everyone's faces, made no real sense to be honest! Thought they were joking.

It doesn't have to make sense, nor do they even have to know what exactly they're protesting about.

Remember the BLM UK event where they closed an airport? They tried to interview one of the girls lying on the runway - they asked her what her reasons were and what she was trying to promote. Instead of replying, she lay there and giggled at the camera.

Right then you realised what you were dealing with. Spoilt, bored, purposeless twenty-somethings with issues. Not societal issues, personality issues.

 

[FoxEye]

Ok, except I’ve not said anything about whether we use two different definitions depending on skin colour. I’ve challenged foxeye on his misleading thread title and you’ve bewilderingly leapt to his defence despite seemingly taking similar exception to his use of the term.

No you did what you always do, pronounced everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint as being wrong. Threw around some one-liner insults and generally rode around on your white horse calling us all right-wing. It's nothing more than we've come to expect from you.

e: Correction "far-right".

 

[FoxEye]

British Colonists 'absorbed' women too, they put people in camps, massacred people, and their poor handling of the famine in India (and just their involvement in India as a whole) resulted in millions of deaths.

Again the scale is important, a small corner of southern Africa doesn't really compare to a quarter of the world. I don't want to know how many people had to die for an empire that big.

Why doesn't anybody hate the Romans, the Persians, the Greeks?

Why just the British?

 

[FoxEye]

Isn't getting worked up at people who have different opinions on the British Empire and the actions of Winston Churchill sort of a bit hypocritical?

I'm not sure it is. I've never stormed into someone's place of business and demanded they shut down/change their decor/erase one of their messageboards because I'm offended.

If I had done that, or similar, then yes it would be hypocritical.

We're dealing with a group and a way of thinking that will not tolerate any other viewpoint than its own, and will go to lengths to suppress other's viewpoints.

 

[FoxEye]

I wasn’t defending the actions of people causing criminal damage.

You do have to be pretty special to apparently care enough about Churchill to theme two cafes around him and assume that he’s universally revered. Especially in relation to India. Either that or your research consisted of Googling for pictures to put on the wall and very little else.

It doesn't matter if Churchill is beloved of the majority or not.

Allowing these perpetually offended types to shut anyone down is unacceptable. Even if it's a niche cafe with only a few patrons, it's still perfectly harmless.

So the people storming in there demanding they alter their business are abhorrent whether Churchill is still a fan favourite or not. They don't have the right to choose for us.

The people who are against them are against the tyranny of the so-called "liberal" types who want to re-make the world in their image.

The groups you mean are probably about 5 people but because of the publicity they get come across as some sort of army, they arent.

Seems that our universities are cultivating them at a quite alarming rate. 5 people it is not.