The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

LordSutch

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

Wibbs

LordSutch wrote: »

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

I mostly take "offence" at ignorance itself, such as you seem wont to exhibit, oft painfully, as in this case, to make whatever point you're peddling around this subject(we get it, it's grand, carry on, God save the Hanovers, what what). I take far less offence, if any, at the ignorant as individuals. The best I can usually muster is a somewhat studied Meh.

LordSutch

As I said.....

"an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British."

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

As I mentioned earlier try calling a unionist exclusively Irish. Try calling a Scot English Also as someone living in England I can safely say we're quite different in culture. Dare I suggest the Brexit vote suggests we're less isolationist than Britain.

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

As I said.....

"an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British."

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

English more than British mate. It's the education system and a culture of looking inward. See Brexit.

Sweetemotion

LordSutch wrote: »

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

Meh.

You seem to take great offence, not being labeled British.

Works both ways.

Dyr

LordSutch wrote: »

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

And lets be honest, you wish we were. Just like the good old days eh?

Sweetemotion

Bambi wrote: »

And lets be honest, you wish we were. Just like the good old days eh?

I wonder does Poland and Austria see themselves and German?

After all, they are beside each other.

LordSutch

As I have said above^ that's how some misinformed British people think, hence the lack of distinction between being British or Irish (or both).

I have worked with English people who had no idea that Ireland wasn't part of the UK.

Wibbs

LordSutch wrote: »

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

Indeed.

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

I take far less offence, if any, at the ignorant as individuals. The best I can usually muster is a somewhat studied Meh.

steddyeddy

There's an intense insecurity in unionist identity that expresses itself as "we're all British really". I don't understand it. Living in Britain I don't go into conversation expressing the fact I'm Irish every five minutes.

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

As I have said above^ that's how some misinformed British people think, hence the lack of distinction between being British or Irish (or both).

I have worked with English people who had no idea that Ireland wasn't part of the UK.

As I said look at Brexit. Lack of education isn't something to be proud of. There are some misinformed people that think we're a homogenous group. Leave them too it.

LordSutch

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's an intense insecurity in unionist identity that expresses itself as "we're all British really". I don't understand it. Living in Britain I don't go into conversation expressing the fact I'm Irish every five minutes.

But do we know if the journalist is a Unionist?

The point I'm making is that generally speaking, many people in Britain are ignorant of the distinction of being Irish whilst not being British.

Dara would be the 1st to acknowledge this.

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

But do we know if the journalist is a Unionist?

The point I'm making is that generally speaking, many people in Britain are ignorant of the distinction of being Irish whilst not being British.

Dara would be the 1st to acknowledge this.

I'm talking about the unionist insecurity in general. If being British isn't brought up every five minutes the have a stroke.

The journalist is probrably ill informed. As you said ignorance is common among certain demographics.

AnGaelach

Is the show worth watching though?

LordSutch

Yes, I think it's great.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

circadian wrote: »

What?

noun
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
"it's noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things"

https://www.google.ie/#q=virtue+signalling+definition

Basically, adopting popular stances to score brownie points with your peers, even though you may not have particularly strong view on the matter. So in other words, adopting trendy causes without actually doing anything about it i.e. Palestine, inviting refugees into your house, Kony 2012 etc...

Will I Am Not

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

What in the absolute f*ck has that got to do with Dara O Brian, Ed Byrne or what you perceive to be the alt-right on boards.ie?

SnakePlissken

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Do you actually believe that bollox?

Of course he bloody doesn't, he's just one of these poor unfortnates who derive some semblance of joy from getting a rise out of people online, there's a couple such posters on here who make their sad agenda laughably obvious, best to ignore them.

SeanW

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

Well, this is from a "newspaper" that accused a Puerto Rican (Cassandra Fairbanks) of flashing white nationalist symbols, so you have to wonder if there is not some fitting of the story to a liberal narrative going on with this too.

Secondly, assuming this story is all true (which is slightly questionable) anyone who goes around threatening to kill girl scouts is acting only for themselves, or possibly others in their immediate group.

Most importantly, you are presenting a false narrative that "the right" which you may or may not assume to be a homogeneous block including conservatives, libertarians, US Republicans and Neo Nazis all as one group.

You are also excluding that virtually all of the political violence today comes from the Left. Like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-duplicate-2/And it isn't "just" Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter that these terrorists are out to intimidate into silence, fascistic enough as that would be, much more mainstream conservatives such as Ben Shapiro routinely find themselves threatened with violence, speeches interrupted and so on as a matter of routine, for example on US college campuses. That is, when he isn't barred or having speeches canceled.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why you left all of the Left's violence out your analysis?

Todd Gack

The same reviewer had similar issues with an actual white British man, Ross Kemp, visiting Libya to document the migrant crisis. Seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder, that Ross Kemp is in fact white is helpfully pointed out more than once in this snide yet favourable review.

red ears

Todd Gack wrote: »

The same reviewer had similar issues with an actual white British man, Ross Kemp, visiting Libya to document the migrant crisis. Seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder, that Ross Kemp is in fact white is helpfully pointed out more than once in this snide yet favourable review.

She managed to be racist and patronising. Amazing the times we live in she can get a way with that. There will come a time when she too will feel the rath of the outrage merchants.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

Well, this is from a "newspaper" that accused a Puerto Rican (Cassandra Fairbanks) of flashing white nationalist symbols, so you have to wonder if there is not some fitting of the story to a liberal narrative going on with this too.

Secondly, assuming this story is all true (which is slightly questionable) anyone who goes around threatening to kill girl scouts is acting only for themselves, or possibly others in their immediate group.

You have any proof of the story not being true or any actual reason to doubt it? Also, pretty much all papers mess up, its pretty common, doesn't say whether this story is false or not.

SeanW wrote: »

Most importantly, you are presenting a false narrative that "the right" which you may or may not assume to be a homogeneous block including conservatives, libertarians, US Republicans and Neo Nazis all as one group.

Your talking complete nonsense. I never mentioned the "right" at all, and the post I replied to referred to the "alt-right". Now a reasonable person, would conclude that I was referring to the "alt-right" and not the "right" in general.

Do yourself a favour and actually read what is posted, as opposed to making stuff up and attributing it to people. There is no way to have a reasonable conversation, when your making claims that have 0 basis in what was actually being said.

SeanW wrote: »

You are also excluding that virtually all of the political violence today comes from the Left. Like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-duplicate-2/

Your link doesn't actually prove your point. Firstly you would need to provides stats on all political violence and then identify what there politics are. I look forward to you providing the statistics. Still not sure how that changes what I posted btw, as I made no claims as to the prevalence of political violence for any group, as I don't have those stats.

BTW, you falsely accused me of lumping the "right" into one homegenous group, and you have literally just did the exact same thing by referring to a generic homgenous "left". I have to say its astonishing to accuse me of something falsely, and do exactly that in the same post.

SeanW wrote: »

And it isn't "just" Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter that these terrorists are out to intimidate into silence, fascistic enough as that would be, much more mainstream conservatives such as Ben Shapiro routinely find themselves threatened with violence, speeches interrupted and so on as a matter of routine, for example on US college campuses. That is, when he isn't barred or having speeches canceled.

Yeah, and you will find far right (you see not singling out the right in general, despite you false claims, you on the other hand talk about a generic "left") terror attacks like Neo-Nazis plotting false flag attacks in Germany, shooting up a Mosque in Canada, murdering black men in New York, plotting to kill Somalia immigrants in the US, shooting up a Gudwara in the US, Dylan Rouf shooting up a church, and that just the stuff off the top of my head. Now those instances don't prove that the far right are more violent, as I don't have those figures, but its something to think about.

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why you left all of the Left's violence out your analysis?

What analysis was that? Your completely inventing an arguement that wasn't made at all. Its fascinating really, that you managed to invent so much bull**** and attribute it to the following post:

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

Which was in reply to this:

robindch wrote: »

A lot of the alt-right spend an inordinate amount of time reading what they refer to as the "mainstream media" in order to find things which they can affect offence at in order to virtue-signal to their own virtual friends.

Such people would be better off finding some real friends :rolleyes:

No mention of the "right", just the alt right, a group of white supremacists, that you have chosen to defend for some utterly bizare and farcical reason, by making up stuff to argue against. Again, I was talking about the "alt right", you decided that was some attack on the "right" in general for reasons unknown to me.

Your post is astonishing nonsense I have to say, and that saying something with a thread as absurd as "The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...".

Some advice, reply to what is actually being said as opposed to making stuff up.

wakka12

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Britain's biggest social issue, the one that truly divides the people living there is its centuries old class system. A wealthy British man or woman in Britain is massively better off than a poor British man or woman.

Having a pop at Dara and Ed for simply being men is stupid nonsense, coming from a newspaper (which I like ) whose primary readership comes from people in places of privilege relatively speaking (middle class and up).

Pretty sure the divide would be bigger in India, Russia,Saudi arabia and countless other less developed countries on earth

But sure, only Britain ,Ireland and USA are the ones with big social issues according to some on here

biscuithead

HigginsJ wrote: »

How long has Dara worked and lived in the UK?

Probably not as long as Arsene Wenger.

Suckit

Ed Byrne - Dara Ó Briains useless dangly crusty cling-on.

Murrisk

Newspapers make mistakes all the time. Sure, the New York Time's corrections at the end of articles are frequent and are an institution and practically an artform at this stage. :pac:

Skullface McGubbin

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Oh deary dear. It wasn't meant to turn out like this. The Guardian were all set to score some easy virtue signalling points today with some early morning hit and run tactics against the only acceptable racist target, middle class British White people. Only things didn't turn out so easy.

It was an open goal, and somehow the Guardian have managed to screw it up spectacularly by labelling Irish comedian Dara Ó Briain a 'white British' man, and accidentally revealed their inner Colonialist attitudes:

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/the-guardian-calls-dara-briain-a-white-british-man-and-hes-not-impressed-35691697.html

Funny how they were happy to lecture about Malaysia when they can't even get their Irish history right.
I look forward to the grovelling apology.

If the Daily Mail had made such a gaffe and a thread was made on it, there wouldn't be as many salty replies directed at the OP. Probably a lot Guardian readers here (or at least people who think like them).

B_Wayne

wakka12 wrote: »

Pretty sure the divide would be bigger in India, Russia,Saudi arabia and countless other less developed countries on earth

But sure, only Britain ,Ireland and USA are the ones with big social issues according to some on here

It's pretty standard human behaviour to recognise issues that are within closest geographical proximity than those thousands of miles away. It has a far more direct effect. At same time, doubt people are oblivious to worse inequalities further afield. Also doesn't mean that since other countries have greater problems, we shouldn't be concerned with resolving the inequalities in our societies.

Richard Hillman

wakka12 wrote: »

Pretty sure the divide would be bigger in India, Russia,Saudi arabia and countless other less developed countries on earth

But sure, only Britain ,Ireland and USA are the ones with big social issues according to some on here

They are basically Just nit-picking whilst proposing affirmative action and backdoor communism.

SeanW

wes wrote: »

You have any proof of the story not being true or any actual reason to doubt it? Also, pretty much all papers mess up, its pretty common, doesn't say whether this story is false or not.

The Independent didn't "mess up" they accused people of being White Nationalists when they were not. Since white racism is probably the most serious accusation you make against a person today, newspapers throwing it glibly at conservatives cannot be taken seriously.

I don't take the article seriously because it is clearly part of a narrative. The juxtaposition was clear, that those who favour the current policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration were represented by the girl scout, while those who feel these policies are in error are represented by screaming Neo Nazis.

In a comparison of moral authority between Neo Nazis and Girl Scouts, obviously the Girl Scout will win every time - this is as it should be.

No effort was made to highlight the bad people promoting the progressive liberal consensus, nor the people other than neo Nazis that are against it.

In isolation this wouldn't be so bad, but with most of the media leaning left and pushing a similar narrative, it should be treated with suspicion.

Your talking complete nonsense. I never mentioned the "right" at all, and the post I replied to referred to the "alt-right". Now a reasonable person, would conclude that I was referring to the "alt-right" and not the "right" in general.

The line between "right" and "alt-right" is blurred. For example, is Milo Yiannopolous right, or alt-right? He would call himself the former, but is often accused of the latter, for my part, I think the former (libertarian conservative rather than alt right). Where does "right" end and "alt-right" begin?
Posting Kek memes?
Posting MAGA memes?
Actual racism?

Your link doesn't actually prove your point. Firstly you would need to provides stats on all political violence and then identify what there politics are.

Try organising a college speaking tour for Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopolous, Ann Coulter etc and see how the violence compares. I guarantee you it would be a lot easier to organise such a tour for a someone on the Left. It would be easier to get on campus as a Jew hating Hamas supporter than a conservative.

BTW, you falsely accused me of lumping the "right" into one homegenous group, and you have literally just did the exact same thing by referring to a generic homgenous "left". I have to say its astonishing to accuse me of something falsely, and do exactly that in the same post.

The left sees in the right a mirror of itself. Hateful, lacking in any diversity, that's why it treats people like Richard Spencer in a similar way to Ben Shapiro.

The "right" has diverse groups that have often radically contradictory views:
1) Libertarian-conservatives
2) Social conservatives
3) Actual racists, who are usually hated by the first two groups.

Milo would be a libertarian conservative, he can't stop talking about his black boyfriends. Ben Shapiro is more of a traditional conservative, and has explicitly stated his view that racism is evil. Yet both are harassed by Left routinely as though they were part of some homogeneous group that includes nutters like David Icke.

The Left on the other hand does not have this diversity. Most of the leftists I know agree on key points:

1. That man made climate change is real, BUT nuclear energy must not be used to combat it under any circumstances. Punitive taxes, sky high energy costs and wasting money on windmills and solar panels are the only acceptable solutions. Nuclear power plants should be decommissioned and replaced with fossil fuels if necessary.
2. There is a need for Feminism, gender quotas in some areas. Many also believe in concepts like patriarchy, rape culture and so on.
3. Multiculturalism and high/unlimited immigration.
4. Israel is evil.

You will hear people on the right disagreeing with others also allegedly on the right, but you won't hear for example, people on the left saying stuff like "Gays should marry if they want, but we should respect the beliefs of Christian bakery owners (for example) who choose not to participate" or "maybe Patriarchy isn't actually a thing" or "nuclear power might be a useful tool in the fight against climate change" or, "I disagree with what Milo, Ann, Ben etc have to say but they have a right to speak without interruption/violence by quasi-fascists" or "I think the Israel/Palestine situation is complicated with good and bad on both sides".

Yeah, and you will find far right (you see not singling out the right in general, ... Dylan Rouf shooting up a church, and that just the stuff off the top of my head.

I remember the Dylan Roof case very well, I have friends/family in the US some of them Left some of the Right, and some of the strongest outrage came from the one on the hard right, his view was something like "too bad the worshipers in the church didn't have guns they could have taken down this piece of trash. Hope they fry the bastard".