- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 614 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 64746
Trolled to tears.
I've no idea about fox's personal life, but he's always played middle class privileged characters so I always assume that's what he is.
Shame it has to be someone from that background to speak truths like these.
|>>|| No. 64747
He was expelled from Harrow and there's a long line of actors in his family.
The woman during the exchange at QT lectures on race and ethnicity at Edge Hill University. I sort of wonder with people like her whether they actually believe what they're saying or they know it's outright bollocks but have managed to carve a lucrative career by effectively creating a pyramid scheme.
|>>|| No. 64748
Wow couple of Ben Shapiros in this thread.
So you're affirming white privilege isn't a thing?
|>>|| No. 64749
Yeah, because it isn't.
White class privilege is a thing but so is black class privilege, or brown or yellow.
The colour of your skin makes very little difference compared to your social class and wealth.
|>>|| No. 64750
>THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN MAKES VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE COMPARED TO YOUR SOCIAL CLASS AND WEALTH.
Come on lad. Not even in /iq/ could you get away with this shit.
|>>|| No. 64751
Oh sorry I thought you were in the mould of Shapiro but you actually one of these racist Marxists. Well at least it's clearer which outdated school of ideas is being subscribed to here.
|>>|| No. 64752
Privilege is very much a thing, but breaking it down into things like white privilege or male privilege is divisive and tends to do more harm than good. It leads to the misguided notion that all white men are privilege. All those white men in scunthorpe who've been unable to find a job since the steel Mills were shut down apparently are in a very advantaged position; they don't know what struggle.
The notion that a white man can't give a differing opinion on something is ludicrous. One that apparently means he can be called a fascist and equated with the kkk. If lily Allen, lily fucking Allen, is telling someone to stop talking about things they don't understand and to stop forcing their opinions on everyone else then everything has clearly gone too far.
|>>|| No. 64753
It's not my fault all the other Marxists have succumb to a form of brain parasite that leaves them fighting shadows instead of advancing a cause that will do more good for a greater number of people. If believing wealth inequality should be addressed primarily above all other inequalities makes me a racist then so fucking be it.
|>>|| No. 64754
Lilly Allen doesn't force her opinions on people though. She just makes social media posts that the Daily Mail writes articles about to rile up its half-retarded readership.
|>>|| No. 64756
>breaking it down into things like white privilege or male privilege is divisive and tends to do more harm than good
This is very hand-wavey. Can you explain how dolphin rape and actual maritime issues are supposed to be challenged if imbalances of power can never be acknowledged?
>It leads to the misguided notion that all white men are privilege
For white and male privilege, yes, this is correct. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by the terms? Case in point:
>All those white men in scunthorpe who've been unable to find a job since the steel Mills were shut down apparently are in a very advantaged position
This is irrelevant to the concept. White privilege doesn't mean 'not oppressed'. It means 'not oppressed for your race'. You're talking about people who, in this instance, are being disadvantaged because of class/wealth. People can be disadvantaged in a variety of ways.
>One that apparently means he can be called a fascist and equated with the kkk
Has anyone actually done that outside of your imagination, lad?
|>>|| No. 64757
>THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT. WHITE PRIVILEGE DOESN'T MEAN 'NOT OPPRESSED'. IT MEANS 'NOT OPPRESSED FOR YOUR RACE'. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO, IN THIS INSTANCE, ARE BEING DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF CLASS/WEALTH. PEOPLE CAN BE DISADVANTAGED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
In the world you're defending a white male with nothing must be self aware enough to do some self reflection and accept that he has more than a black woman with nothing. While I agree that white men are just generally better than other races or sexes I believe this is a bit too much of a burden to place on a man with nothing while the chinless cousin fuckers from the shires ride roughshod over both the white men and the black women.
Maybe once we've solved the massive inequalities like that we can start to work out which race is better.
|>>|| No. 64758
I just think we should treat people as individuals with unique personal struggles. The reason addressing privilege meets such a negative reaction, even amongst those it aims to help, is that identity politics chips away at our dignity as human beings and is something best left in the 10s.
Does this make me a fascist or a libtard?
|>>|| No. 64759
It's more the age of the narcissist than anything else. Valuing the individual over the collective.
|>>|| No. 64760
Only I feel, and ironically I'm aware that I'm making this all about me, the guiding principle and success of our liberal society is the individual. The next labour leader shouldn't be a woman, it should be the one who holds the best character, acumen and beliefs for the job.
To take this in a more theological angle, a good deed isn't about pleasing the collective but in doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Narcissism is in the why and what you do.
|>>|| No. 64761
I don't think it makes you either, just a bit naive. If folk from Wakefield got eggs chucked at them whenever they left Wakefield and it happened to about 80% of people from Wakey, the suggestion that you just need to be a more exemplary Wakefieldoid wouldn't probably feel like quite hollow advice. You'd probably prefer it if something was done about the egg throwing, or even the beliefs and ideas that encouraged it in the first place.
This arsehole on QT pissing and moaning about having facts about his background pointed out is just insecure because the truth of the matter is lads of his age who spent their GCSE/A Level years getting pissed and shagging around rather than revising usually can't get their daddy to put in a good word at RADA after coasting through their time at Harrow. He can pretend it's unfair to have that highlighted, but what's actually unfair is that some people wind up in significant hardship because they were playing silly buggers when they were 17 rather than being given the means to live a safe and stress free life. I'm not saying everyone should be given an uncnoditional offer at RADA, but the system we've got now creates cycles of despair and forces people to suffer because well fucking loads of reasons really, but in part because people like QT-Cunt are literally incapable of understanding how fortunate they are. They genuinely don't have the life experiences to fathom what being an anxiety ridden pauper is like. It's not far removed from the "is you've got a fridge and a flat screen telly you can't be poor" mindset. I, personally, don't know how shit it is being out on the streets camping in a bush off the highstreet, but I've made a decision to trust that it's fucking horrible. Whereas someone like QT-Cunt have made the inverse to decision to assume that those who struggle more are just pissing and moaning for the sake of it.
Fuck QT-Cunt. Slash his tires, bleach his lawn, burn down his shed, that'll give him something to whinge about.
Now fuck off because I was sick of this story the moment it broke.
|>>|| No. 64762
>THIS ARSEHOLE ON QT PISSING AND MOANING ABOUT HAVING FACTS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND POINTED OUT
It was used to dismiss his viewpoint. His opinion was that the press attacks on meghan markle weren't driven by dolphin rape. Whether you agree with him or not, there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's a valid opinion, you shouldn't say someone's beliefs don't count because of [skin colour/sex/upbringing].
|>>|| No. 64763
It's dangerous to say that. A person's background contributes massively to who they are and what they believe unless that person has done massive introspection on their beliefs. If we allow ourselves to lose such a potent tool against the bourgeoisie because it's easier than slapping anyone who says the word privilege we deserve to be slaves.
|>>|| No. 64764
There's something very wrong with this post but i lack the capacity to decypher it.
It seems perfectly reasonable to cosider an idea by its own merit rather than who expressed it.
|>>|| No. 64765
So why does being a white man specifically bar you from having an opinion on how the press have been treating markle?
|>>|| No. 64766
If Sandra, working mum of 8 tells me why zero hours contracts are great for her and therefore great for everyone I'll take the time to explain why they're awful for society. If Lord Earl Earlington III of Derbyshire tries to tell me why zero hours contracts are great I'm going to tell him to stuff it because his background does not meet the minimum experience required for the position of eating up my time while I explain why he's wrong.
>IT SEEMS PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO COSIDER AN IDEA BY ITS OWN MERIT RATHER THAN WHO EXPRESSED IT.
Only if you assume horse owning cousin fuckers are arguing in good faith. They're usually not.
|>>|| No. 64767
He's resorting to ad hominem which is all this argument is about. It should be possible to prove that Princess Not-A-Former-Boat-Whore is subject to racist treatment and by that I mean something that goes beyond usual criticism on account of her race. As an addition it should be possible to show an area where something or other has been missed because of white privilege.
Unfortunately people such as >>64761 lack the capacity to demonstrate and articulate such a argument. Something that is perhaps encouraged as the royal dolphin rape argument emerged from twitter where there's a word-count and you're rewarded for strong opinions.
|>>|| No. 64768
That doesn't explain why an opinion by Laurence Fox on the press treatment of Markle should be outright dismissed.
The press were extremely hostile to Diana before her death and also to Sarah Ferguson, dubbed the duchess of pork. The Mail weren't exactly keen on Kate Middleton before she was married to William, with regular articles calling her 'waity katie', disparaging her for being a 'commoner' and her parents for raising their daughters to be social climbing gold-diggers.
You might not agree with this viewpoint, but outright dismissing it because it was raised by a white man when it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold means people are less likely to take you seriously on an occasion where pointing out privilege is actually relevant and applicable.
|>>|| No. 64776
When people seem to care more about calling things crypto racist, because they have no evidence that they are actually racist to the point that they raise above what is demonstrably privileged such as wealth or power, and the absence there of as signs of not being privileged. I am lead to conclude that the Unabomber was right about this all being a distraction from the point, and capitalism will slip back into feudalism long before we even tackle a fairer distribution of prosperity in our society.
|>>|| No. 64782
There's an article in the Graun about QT following last week's episode. The more popular comments btl tend to supportive of fox and disagreeing with the writer's view of what happened.
I'm going off on a tangent here, but how come there is such a disconnect between the stance often taken by the paper and its readership? There's been a number of occasions where the editorial output has been completely at odds with the views of its readers. I can't think of any paper in this country with such a wide chasm. I don't know why it exists. Perhaps it's because other sites have a paywall so telegraph readers and the like have decided to troll the comments of the Graun instead. Perhaps it's because it's pretty much the only paper in the country that's left of centre so this is where all lefties end up, regardless of whether they're a little bit left or full blown crusty. Perhaps it's because 4he paper is often detached from reality. I dunno.
|>>|| No. 64787
I think it's a combination of journo detachment and the fact it's shifted strongly towards clickbait recently. Editorial contributors like toynbee and Jones often use inflammatory provocative clickbait headlines and seem to intentionally lean into the daft, out of touch type of middle class cuckoo liberalism that passes off sensible lefties as well as mail readers.
|>>|| No. 64793
The disconnect between writers and readers is rampant throughout the legacy media.
Just look at the comments of any Daily Mail article about cannabis - The DM is constantly trying to demonise and call for harsher enforcement/punishment yet the top rated comments are all pro-legalisation.
|>>|| No. 64794
Oh look, absolutely fucking nothing. Just people reacting on social media. Who'd have thought?
|>>|| No. 64795
By the same token, the kind of twarts who comment on newspaper articles are not representative of the electorate as a whole.
|>>|| No. 64796
So really when you think about it, everything we read and watch is a load of bollocks made by media twats and boorish idiots. Maybe we should go back to the days when we were fed lines direct from institutions and experts? At least back then we had the warm feeling of establishment jingoism.
Question Time was a mistake. Although the other lad was clearly talking about readership rather than electorate, riling people up seems to be a business strategy these days.
|>>|| No. 64798
Sounds like he's just cottoned on to the fact that being in the middle of a media shitstorm like this is both lucrative and ultimately relatively harmless to your longer term career; the fact he doesn't appear to have had much of one lately being not uncoincidental. Wasn't he the cowardly poof brigade captain in deathwatch? pretty sure that's the last time I saw him in owt, ironically a world war one film so historically accurate it had possessed barbed wire in it.
I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war but largely in indian regiments from actual india. if it's just riz ahmed playing corporal sunil who happens to be part of the 23rd north yorks regiment yeah that will be pretty disconcerting. this is like what happened in battlefield- I feel like a lot of people (fox not included) aren't actually being racist when they complain about racial hisorical innacuracy, they're just being anal. Have you ever seen the TV tropes page for trains painted the wrong livery in historical films, for fuck's sake?
|>>|| No. 64799
>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war but largely in indian regiments from actual india.
You spent a lot of time complaining about Tomb Raider on the grounds that most of the actual archaeologists were men, right? Nobody ever complained about historical accuracy in games until it became a social justice thing where all the racists got triggered.
|>>|| No. 64800
>YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME COMPLAINING ABOUT TOMB RAIDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT MOST OF THE ACTUAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS WERE MEN
It's surprising there isn't more female archaeologists, seeing as they're fucking experts at digging up the past.
|>>|| No. 64801
Mate the Indian Army was fighting in France from the very beginning of the war, because we were too pussy to send white people. Operation Get Behind The Darkies.
Does that address your concerns?
|>>|| No. 64802
I for one have always been sceptical of Lara Croft's credentials. For an archaeologist she spends an awful lot of time chasing rare artefacts and an awful lot less time writing papers on the many ruins she discovers.
>NOBODY EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT HISTORICAL ACCURACY IN GAMES
BF1 was an travesty and you full know it. There is a real difference between elements made necessary for the purposes of core gameplay (AoE's RTS elements for example) and playing silly buggers because you don't like history.
Even then I remember the historical narrative presented in old Civilization and AoE games was rightly criticised as all too linear.
|>>|| No. 64803
Why do carpet-baggers like you insist that anyone who holds X belief must also hold Y belief? Can't someone care about WWI without having an ulterior motive about keeping the darkies and the womenfolk in their place? Why does everyone who cares about WWI also have to be a racist, whale poacheric cunt who wanked themselves silly over Lara Croft in your mind?
It's all a very American idea. Everything a person believes is rooted in either some form of ism or some kind of anti-ism. No mate, in this country we're just autistic little spackers who really fucking care about our niche subjects of interest. If you don't want to hear why the olive colour on the uniforms is half a shade out and why the khaki colour on the skin of the racist inserts is 3 shades out maybe you should fuck off to an interest without hundreds of thousands of people who autistically obsess over it.
|>>|| No. 64804
>WHY DO CARPET-BAGGERS LIKE YOU INSIST THAT ANYONE WHO HOLDS X BELIEF MUST ALSO HOLD Y BELIEF?
It's just online discussions all over.
"I prefer dogs over cats."
"That must mean you hate cats then. I bet you torture them and pin their dead bodies onto their owner's doors. You sick animal torturing fascist."
|>>|| No. 64805
I'm a little bit alarmed at how you've managed to misinterpret my post so wildly mate. try reading it again slowly.
since when was tomb raider, a game where there were literal dinosaurs, based on anything resembling real world history? i feel like you could have made a point here if you'd thought a bit harder.
And for both your sake's here's the apex of historical accuracy autism i mentioned.
>Enigma features 1950s Mk1 British Rail Stock (with Eastern Region numbering) in a scene that takes place near Bletchley in 1943. This is quite common due to the large number of BR Mk1s in preservation (and the large number built; they were a standard carriage used throughout the system, replacing many previous designs, and the last of them weren't taken out of service until 2005), compared to the accurate pre-war types which are in comparison quite rare. The Mk1s are also all steel construction, whereas earlier types were often wooden framed or wooden bodied, which didn't help their survival.
When people are willing to go to those lengths to spot something out of place in a historical production, you shouldn't be at all surprised when they get up in arms about conspicuous brown people.
And again, for clarity, I'm not saying there weren't any brown people on the western front. there were at least 300,000, the number of troops india committed to the colonial call to arms. much greater numbers were committed to the conflict with the ottomman empire.
What's exceedingly unlikely, however, is that they'd turn up in regular tommy regiments.
|>>|| No. 64807
>i feel like you could have made a point here if you'd thought a bit harder.
I'd had most of a bottle of mezcal before I posted that.
|>>|| No. 64808
>WHAT'S EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY, HOWEVER, IS THAT THEY'D TURN UP IN REGULAR TOMMY REGIMENTS.
So in this film, despite having not seen it, you are asserting that said Sikh soldier is part of a British regiment?
|>>|| No. 64809
No, i specifically said I was going to reserve judgement until I had seen it. do you have the attention span to check that far back? okay, here, i'll do it for you.
>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war
Did you catch that?
>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it
You're really trying very hard to be offended over a post that really had nothing to be offended over mate. i was very clearly not even defending fox's statements, so i don't know why exactly you think i'm part of the horrible racist brigade, other than perhaps because you're a mentally feeble fuckwit who sees phantom discrimination in every blade of fucking grass.
|>>|| No. 64811
Lads, I'm going to reserve judgment on Planet of the Apes until I've seen it, but I think it's really unlikely for astronauts to go into space and then just happen to land on a planet where apes and humans have their roles reversed but are otherwise exactly the same as on Earth, and not only that but speak English too.
Like I said I'll reserve judgement until I see it but I understand why this heavy-handed metaphor just doesn't land because it stretches the bounds of believability.
|>>|| No. 64813
>PLANET OF THE PRIMATES OF HAIR
These word filters are getting out of hand.
|>>|| No. 64815
So, true to my word I went to see 1917 so i can pass judgement on it.
fucking great film actually, i can only fault it for one slow scene that felt somewhat forced in the middle of an otherwise consistently tense runtime. even the two chavs in the back corner of the cinema shut their gobs after five minutes and i'm convinced i heard one of them sniffling in the emotional bits.
as for our out of place sikh, it really wasn't distracting from the film. he is dressed in regular tommy attire, but he's clearly shown as a foreigner with basic english and one of the other lads even gives him a jibe about barely knowing the language. i've not bothered googling it to see how many sikhs there actually were in british regiments as opposed to colonials, but in this film it didn't feel out of place. it could have been done badly, but it wasn't.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]