Rule Britannia or not?

Janesy B said:
You can be proud of the good stuff and ashamed of the bad stuff. Doesn't have to be black or white.
Click to expand...
I certainly think that it’s being to be balanced than ‘one-sided’, although I would suggest it’s actually better to be somewhat ‘indifferent’. We cannot really take great pride or shame in things that are beyond our direct and/or realm of involvement.

I think what I’m trying to say is that any pride or shame (for our country) should be proportionate and therefore never really sit in the extremes (or be influenced by token, distant things).

....I do write a load of self-indulgent waffle sometimes :D
 
prior art - can see with google, issue was in the press last November, but, everyone familiar with the song, and LNP, knew issue was coming down the tracks,
and, would put the bbc in an invidious position.
Did youguv do a survey to find out demographic of people who knew the gist of the lyrics ? but, it is like the national anthem, who knows all the lyrics/verses.


[
could survey this too -
I've been to Woking, it's a nice place, average house prices around £500k, probably not many low paid workers can afford to live there
Click to expand...
that comment in the context implied it was nice due to lack of immigrants - that's why it solicited the replies it had
]
 
plasmahal said:
It seems to be mostly people who don't want it changed in the proms.

I have found articles where people have said if should be removed or only played as an instrumental but not reason as to why they want that.
Click to expand...

It's because of the word slave.

Though Femi Oluwole said he personally isn't protesting the songs he said that he can see why the people complaining are i.e. people singing that they won't be slaves while having slaves.
 
200sols said:
Did I say she shouldnt think this? No, so stop making things up.

This is to show why people are against the song, there's loads of outrage and support in the twitter replies.
Click to expand...
Wow. No acknowledgement that your claim she worked for the BBC was false. Nor that she's got nothing to do with the Proms. Nor that what was expressly being discussed was the source of the outcry, so posting stuff from later is at best irrelevant and at worse deceptive.

Fairly disingenuous, then, to edit that all out, and then say "stop making things up".
 
garnett said:
Wow. No acknowledgement that your claim she worked for the BBC was false. Nor that she's got nothing to do with the Proms. Nor that what was expressly being discussed was the source of the outcry, so posting stuff from later is at best irrelevant and at worse deceptive.

Fairly disingenuous, then, to edit that all out, and then say "stop making things up".
Click to expand...

You must have missed the discussion about why people have an issue with the song. If you notice I used a question mark when I said she was the producer... meaning I wasn't sure. Please do keep up.
 
BowdonUK said:
It's because of the word slave.

Though Femi Oluwole said he personally isn't protesting the songs he said that he can see why the people complaining are i.e. people singing that they won't be slaves while having slaves.
Click to expand...

I don't think many sweat shop owners with a workforce of illegal immigrants will be singing it, or the travellers with poor sods locked up in sheds doing hard manual work ;)
 
200sols said:
You must have missed the discussion about why people have an issue with the song. If you notice I used a question mark when I said she was the producer... meaning I wasn't sure. Please do keep up.
Click to expand...
My post 2 above yours refers to how nobody seems to have been found calling for a ban, so it looks like you were refering to an earlier post.

But you tell me to keep up.
 
200sols said:
You must have missed the discussion about why people have an issue with the song. If you notice I used a question mark when I said she was the producer... meaning I wasn't sure. Please do keep up.
Click to expand...

He can't, I'd shown that earlier. If I had to guess I'd say it was far more likely that he just skims reads the post and therefore doesn't really understand what is being said in it. So at that point, full of misunderstanding, he types away, even making things up about the other persons post if he has to, just to help make his point (despite his claims never actually being said in the post he's replying to) and then, when people point this out, "they" are the one that he thinks are in the wrong! It's so sadly predictable that it's comical :D

For example, here's a brief overview of my experience over the last few pages, just to show you're not alone in your dealings -

Me: Makes a stand-alone statement, not attached to anything said by anyone in the thread prior to my post.
garnett: Asks a question that is unrelated to my prior statement and with 4/5's of it just being a repeat of one of his own earlier statements.
Me: Points out the question is unrelated to my post but answers it anyway with a whole paragraph, predicts his outrage at being told his question was unrelated.
garnett: Gets outraged that I pointed out his question was unrelated, doesn't understand the paragraph which makes up my answer, then makes up several things about my initial statement (all of which are provably false as seen below) so that he can then argue against the things he made up about my posts.
Me: Points out that his outrage at being corrected was predictable, see's that he's started to make things up about what I said, ends conversation as arguing with someone who makes things up is unproductive.
garnett: Doesn't understand that answer either but thankfully also stops the discussion too.

All our respective posts are there for anyone to read, all mine are still unedited as shown in his quotes of my posts. I mean in just one post he made up 3 things that he claimed I'd said/done - not a single one of them is true or are in any of my posts -

Saying that I "self-identified as the victim - or the appointed defender of some victims - that you perceived I'd attacked in my post" - he says as a statement of fact when my post made no reference to his prior post - so he just made that up.
Saying "You assert I 'imagined them all to be one homogeneous lump of thickos and racist' " - again, given as a statement of fact when, again, I made no reference to him or his prior posts - so he just made that up.
Saying "You mentioned recent history, and I was interested to understand what you meant. I note you were unable to elaborate." - again given as a statement of fact when, again, I'd answered him (entire 3rd paragraph) - so he just made that up.

So yeah, you're not alone @200sols :D
 
ianh said:
He can't, I'd shown that earlier. If I had to guess I'd say it was far more likely that he just skims reads the post and therefore doesn't really understand what is being said in it. So at that point, full of misunderstanding, he types away, even making things up about the other persons post if he has to, just to help make his point (despite his claims never actually being said in the post he's replying to) and then, when people point this out, "they" are the one that he thinks are in the wrong! It's so sadly predictable that it's comical :D

For example, here's a brief overview of my experience over the last few pages, just to show you're not alone in your dealings -

Me: Makes a stand-alone statement, not attached to anything said by anyone in the thread prior to my post.
garnett: Asks a question that is unrelated to my prior statement and with 4/5's of it just being a repeat of one of his own earlier statements.
Me: Points out the question is unrelated to my post but answers it anyway with a whole paragraph, predicts his outrage at being told his question was unrelated.
garnett: Gets outraged that I pointed out his question was unrelated, doesn't understand the paragraph which makes up my answer, then makes up several things about my initial statement (all of which are provably false as seen below) so that he can then argue against the things he made up about my posts.
Me: Points out that his outrage at being corrected was predictable, see's that he's started to make things up about what I said, ends conversation as arguing with someone who makes things up is unproductive.
garnett: Doesn't understand that answer either but thankfully also stops the discussion too.

All our respective posts are there for anyone to read, all mine are still unedited as shown in his quotes of my posts. I mean in just one post he made up 3 things that he claimed I'd said/done - not a single one of them is true or are in any of my posts -

Saying that I "self-identified as the victim - or the appointed defender of some victims - that you perceived I'd attacked in my post" - he says as a statement of fact when my post made no reference to his prior post - so he just made that up.
Saying "You assert I 'imagined them all to be one homogeneous lump of thickos and racist' " - again, given as a statement of fact when, again, I made no reference to him or his prior posts - so he just made that up.
Saying "You mentioned recent history, and I was interested to understand what you meant. I note you were unable to elaborate." - again given as a statement of fact when, again, I'd answered him (entire 3rd paragraph) - so he just made that up.

So yeah, you're not alone @200sols :D
Click to expand...
Oh wow. The posts are all there, mate. Anyone can go back and see if they can be bothered.

So spending all that time typing out more rubbish trying to reframe it as anything other than you making yourself look silly is just a waste of time.
 
McstylisT said:
If I purposed made an advert with just white people there would be outrage.
Click to expand...

Janesy B said:
Having black people on an advert is anti white and the government should ban it, loooooooool.

Here's an advert with a pretty white girl for you, and no one said anything. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUFHDUTyugU
Click to expand...
@McstylisT, can we get a confirmation bias update?

You insisted an ad with just white people would cause outrage.

When you were confronted with an example of an ad with just white people by @Janesy B did you...

A) Find evidence you can show us of outrage you insisted there would be?

B) Take on that new evidence provided to you, learn, and adjust your thinking so it became more robust and less logically flawed?

C) Close down your brain in the face of a threat to your flawed worldview?
 
It's a bit of a naive argument to act like companies aren't pushing ethnic diversity, when we know they are using quotas.

Do you really think companies support BLM?
 
garnett said:
@McstylisT, can we get a confirmation bias update?

You insisted an ad with just white people would cause outrage.

When you were confronted with an example of an ad with just white people by @Janesy B did you...

A) Find evidence you can show us of outrage you insisted there would be?

B) Take on that new evidence provided to you, learn, and adjust your thinking so it became more robust and less logically flawed?

C) Close down your brain in the face of a threat to your flawed worldview?
Click to expand...

Oh dear someone has the knickers in a twist today. #face palm.

Are you being serious ?

You have this high horse position and self proclaimed intellect, however you seem totally inept at seeing actual events that have on numerous occasions backed what I have stated. Not just myself either. Maybe it’s your turn to “learn” something. Maybe question your ideology on the world. Because the tide is moving.

Do you not remember last year when they had a cabinet picture in the news with mostly white people. It was massively criticised. I’ll have a dig for you.
 
BowdonUK said:
That is great news.

From what I've heard of him and other decisions he's contemplating he'll be a good thing for the BBC.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it seems he's more interested in the views of actual licence fee payers rather than people with nothing to do but whinge on Twitter all day and night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom