Social Media getting a bit...overbearing.

arknor said:
I'm not saying they matter less I'm saying they should be counting as equals.
Click to expand...

No you're missing the point AND THIS IS NOT MY VIEW THIS IS THE VIEW OF AROUND SIX BLACK PEOPLE THIS MORNING ON TV.

They want to deal with Black Lives Matters first since this has reared it's head first and then later you can have your All Lives Matter.
 
okay so it's only about "them" and they want a "divide" between the races rather than to be welcome with open arms as equals.

I shall no longer offer any kind of support for their cause and will refrain from posting any more on this subject.

they clearly arent reasonable people.

silence is violence and all that send the popo
 
arknor said:
I wasn't offering anyone out but you know damm well most people on the internet say crap they wouldnt have the courage to say in real.

little man childs

and no im not going to read up on why "all lives matter" triggers a minority of protesters


ALL = everyone
lives
matter

I don't care if you're pink, red , green white , black, tortoise, you know what offends them the most about it?
the fact it sticks them in the same category as everyone else instead of being given preferential treatment
Click to expand...
‘Black Lives Matter’ is not saying ‘Only Black Lives Matter’, nor is it contrary to ‘All Lives Matter’.

The people promoting ‘Black Lives Matter’ are saying ‘Black’ because they believe that black lives should be treated the same as other lives.

Think of it as saying “Black Lives Matter Too.”
 
Alex_6n2 said:
[..]
I infer Florence is suggesting Priti does not understand racism in the way that she does. Which is an odd suggestion to a fellow BAME colleague....
[..]
Click to expand...

It's a No True Scotsman fallacy. If you don't conform to whatever X-ists decree, you're not a True X. For whatever group identity is X.
 
Nitefly said:
‘Black Lives Matter’ is not saying ‘Only Black Lives Matter’, nor is it contrary to ‘All Lives Matter’.

The people promoting ‘Black Lives Matter’ are saying ‘Black’ because they believe that black lives should be treated the same as other lives.

Think of it as saying “Black Lives Matter Too.”
Click to expand...

Why should I think of it as something other than what it is?

They are saying "Only Black Lives Matter". That's why they're making the distinction, very clearly and very explicitly. That's why they don't care about all the people killed by the police in the USA who are not "black" in their eyes. That's why they're passionately and vehemently opposed to the idea that all lives matter. That's why they don't care about "black lives" when they can't use those lives to promote racism.
 
Angilion said:
Why should I think of it as something other than what it is?
Click to expand...
Because you’re capable of seeing the limitations of using only three words.

Suggesting that the headline ‘banner phrase’ actually means “Only Black Lives Matter” is deliberately obtuse. It could only be advocated for using an unconvincing ‘merely technical’ linguistics argument and it nevertheless would remain incorrect for the reason that it’s not actually the reality (for the vast majority).

I actually think the pop star Billy Eelish (sp?) of all people made quite a good example of it:

"If your friend gets a cut on their arm are you gonna wait to give all your friends" a Band-Aid first "because all arms matter?" she asked. "No," she said, adding that you would help your friend who was bleeding because they are in pain and in need.
Click to expand...
That’s the jist - however much you want to argue of the merit of the cause, it cannot be fairly said to mean “put on a band aid for one friend but leave all others to bleed out”.

It’s not saying that it’s the exclusive issue in society either.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Because you’re capable of seeing the limitations of using only three words.

Suggesting that the headline ‘banner phrase’ actually means “Only Black Lives Matter” is deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

That's one word to describe it, probably not the one I would have chosen. It's quite hilarious that he feels he can insert an extra word (of his choosing) into a statement which changes the context then argue it's the ONLY definition it can be.
 
Because anyone under 35 is delicate and cries when people do anything they do not like, sometimes they even get outraged but this is more the under 30s.
 
Nitefly said:
Because you’re capable of seeing the limitations of using only three words.

Suggesting that the headline ‘banner phrase’ actually means “Only Black Lives Matter” is deliberately obtuse. It could only be advocated for using an unconvincing ‘merely technical’ linguistics argument and it nevertheless would remain incorrect for the reason that it’s not actually the reality (for the vast majority).
Click to expand...

Freakbro said:
That's one word to describe it, probably not the one I would have chosen. It's quite hilarious that he feels he can insert an extra word (of his choosing) into a statement which changes the context then argue it's the ONLY definition it can be.
Click to expand...

I'll just repeat myself, since you ignored my post in order to attempt to distract from it by you making an (as Nitefly phrased it) "unconvincing ‘merely technical’ linguistics argument"

Angilion said:
That's why they're making the distinction, very clearly and very explicitly. That's why they don't care about all the people killed by the police in the USA who are not "black" in their eyes. That's why they're passionately and vehemently opposed to the idea that all lives matter. That's why they don't care about "black lives" when they can't use those lives to promote racism.
Click to expand...

I don't find your technical linguistics argument at all convincing. Freakbro's was particularly fine as it relied on criticising me for briefly doing something purely in a linguistic sense that they and Nitefly (and all other supporters of the idea that people only matter if they're the "right" race) are doing permanently as their core defence of their racism.
 
The world would be in a better place if social media was just shut down, is the divide it's causing really worth it? It's only going to get worse and what with the MSM whipping everything into a frenzy it's a slippery slope.

I grew up without it but there is a whole spectrum of society that couldn't cope without it. People need to realise that the world would not come to an end without it.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I really like OCUK, look at my posts
Click to expand...

Come on man, OcUK was even a different type of discussion pre twitter/Facebook. It still has its funny moments today but it's always topics coming from what's on social media heard via radio/tv/work and wherever. I'd bet you'd get a shock looking on The Way Back Machine to see what the type of topics they were back then.

Sadly nearly every forum is the same, replace the top logo and colour of the forum pages and they all look the same topics mostly.
 
Angilion said:
I'll just repeat myself, since you ignored my post in order to attempt to distract from it by you making an (as Nitefly phrased it) "unconvincing ‘merely technical’ linguistics argument"

I don't find your technical linguistics argument at all convincing. Freakbro's was particularly fine as it relied on criticising me for briefly doing something purely in a linguistic sense that they and Nitefly (and all other supporters of the idea that people only matter if they're the "right" race) are doing permanently as their core defence of their racism.
Click to expand...
For clarity, to the extent that I omitted to quote part of your last post it was because I didn’t think it made sense. I’m not saying that as a rebuttal. You just sort of... went off on one. So I quoted the part that I could make sense of and assumed you are of the genuine belief that the bona fide interpretation of ‘black lives matter’ is ‘only black lives matter’.

I’m not even sure I follow your new post (the one I am now quoting). You may wish to rephrase, but if you are still saying ‘black lives matter’ means ‘only black lives matter’, then I would still say that’s obtuse, so I don’t think we will get any further!
 
V F said:
Come on man, OcUK was even a different type of discussion pre twitter/Facebook. It still has its funny moments today but it's always topics coming from what's on social media heard via radio/tv/work and wherever. I'd bet you'd get a shock looking on The Way Back Machine to see what the type of topics they were back then.
Click to expand...

Yeh alright, you asked for it.

Overclockers Forum in 2001 - https://web.archive.org/web/20010413020143/http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/index.php

It's a shame we can't see the old posts though.
 
mrbell1984 said:
Yeh alright, you asked for it.

Overclockers Forum in 2001 - https://web.archive.org/web/20010413020143/http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/index.php

It's a shame we can't see the old posts though.
Click to expand...

I remember looking it up years ago and seeing the forum discussions before the site got the big overhaul. There were hardly any political talk except General Election times.


Go into the archive section. It's an interesting list from 2008 and older. You don't see the outrage like you see todays topics with everyone getting offended.
 
V F said:
I remember looking it up years ago and seeing the forum discussions before the site got the big overhaul. There were hardly any political talk except General Election times.


Go into the archive section. It's an interesting list from 2008 and older. You don't see the outrage like you see todays topics with everyone getting offended.
Click to expand...

You'll probably find it's the people who didn't exist before the internet and have been more recently "educated". Older people can be more intransigent and set in their ways but the youth are more impressionable and easily influenced. Any organisation worth its salt targets the young for a reason.
 
The tearing down of statues and banning of older comedy shows smacks of the "Cultural Revolution" of Chairman Meo in China.

It's a very dark path and we all know how many millions suffered at the hands of people with that train of thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom