• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

the gardener

I cannot discuss this topic as I will have a stroke

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, swissy_fit said:

No.

This shouldn't be about race, you are falling into this despicable cunt Lammy's trap.

It should be about illegal or criminal behaviour and everyone of all races being equal before the law as far as possible.

However, the intersectionality we have here in the Left insists that the oppressed are by definition oppressed more under the law that the unoppressed, ie the white males.

 

This is where all this BS comes from...the hierachy of oppression, in order to get rid of it, there must be a relaxing of law on the oppressed. You see, that will even things out. until it doesnt. But when YOU are at the top and are truly free, as white males are, then what?

Edited by BLOOLOO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Great Guy said:

Tbh, you can see why Africa is such a shithole when you see the quality of "African" politicians in the UK. Lammy and Dianne Abbot are both an embarrassment and clearly only senior politicians due to tokenism.

 

They are there to hit the percentage targets not for there ability this has been blatantly clear for years ...the public sector is rife with it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, the gardener said:

It's a cool flag. Might put one on the bonnet of my car too.

Have to practice my rebel yell.

The roof seems to be the appropriate place.p184010_b_v8_ab.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Great Guy said:

Tbh, you can see why Africa is such a shithole when you see the quality of "African" politicians in the UK. Lammy and Dianne Abbot are both an embarrassment and clearly only senior politicians due to tokenism.

 

Almost all politicians are an embarrassment in my opinion, whatever their ethnicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, This Time said:

Lesbians being transphobic for not wanting to fuck men is an idea that's been around for a good few years now (started by said men of course). Being racist if you don't fancy black/chinese/indian/etc people is more recent - first started popping up a couple of years ago.

Yes, I had the misfortune to work with a bloke back in the 90's, who had transitioned and decided he was a radical, butch feminist.

He was really pissed off that lesbians were absolutely not interested in him.

Unluckily for me he was very vocal about his issues of which there were many!

I write "him /he" because he looked like a scraggy bloke in "feminist" dungarees.

Personally I considered him a total nutter on every level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swissy_fit said:

o.O

I have no doubt I'm living in the past, and have every intention of leaving my head there, it seems a better place to me, but Joking apart, I've never seen this kind of idea put forward by anyone. (this may be because I don't have a Twatbook or Twatter account) 

 

There was a whole channel 4 programme dedicated to it here a few months back. An hour of utter shite, so I'm told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Carl Fimble said:

Black Cunt Reeeeeeeeeeeee!

Another Black MP being stupid:

 

 

She must be a nazi , bigot and racist to not recognise the symbolism of British people being in chains since chains were invented and even before that time - especially in the industrial Black Country (at any rate how many people of colour worked in the Black Country in those times 9_9).   

It's not only those of colour who might have been subjugated to a rough time in those days.

It's possible to not agree with the symbolism but still recognise what it is trying to symbolise.

She is also a total imbecile.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, twocents said:

 

She must be a nazi , bigot and racist to not recognise the symbolism of British people being in chains since chains were invented and even before that time - especially in the industrial Black Country (at any rate how many people of colour worked in the Black Country in those times 9_9).   

It's not only those of colour who might have been subjugated to a rough time in those days.

It's possible to not agree with the symbolism but still recognise what it is trying to symbolise.

She is also a total imbecile.

Dies n't she know that the chains represent the enslavement of native Briton's by those imperialist black Roman soldiers and their 'African' Emperor Septimius Severus ?

Actually that is complete bollocks that I made up just like the idiot who is moaning about the Black Country flag.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, swissy_fit said:

Wasn't aware sexual preferences were in any way considered to be discrimination, I don't think they are, and you aren't wrong. Otherwise not fancying men is homophobia.

August Ames...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from anything else the English word black was chosen to represent the colour of the night sky and long before anyone from England ever caught sight of a black person.    I just made that up as well - everyone can make stuff up -  it might even be true.  Chains don't know race.

Next they be wanting to ban vegetables with roots - the word roots you see.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 15:34, Knock Out Johnny said:

Why do you want to throw him out of cambodia?

He's British and living in the UK. 

I was referring to the U.K. obviously.

I am British, ethnically and culturally. I also hold a Khmer passport. No one of sound mind would describe me as ethnically or culturally Khmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck 'positive' discrimination and quotas based on such things as race. For a start, positive discrimination is an oxymoron. It's discrimination, therefore it's not equality, therefore it's not positive. Any discrimination breeds resentment, which breeds hate and division. I don't understand how all this isn't obvious to some people? 

Quotas are the same deal. One of the things I considered when there were complaints about not enough black actors being nominated for oscars, that it isn't an argument for anything. Maybe there weren't many who gave worthy performances. Now if they had been saying here's some examples where black actors have clearly been overlooked, that would be an argument. And what about actors of other races? Was there enough of those nominated? And what about LGBTQ, disabled, special needs and so on? The fact that they only talked about black nominees is discriminatory. With this way of thinking Jar Jar Binks could have won a fucking oscar for covering multiple bases! Equality is the only way forward, it's that fucking simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FudgePacker said:

Fuck 'positive' discrimination and quotas based on such things as race. For a start, positive discrimination is an oxymoron. It's discrimination, therefore it's not equality, therefore it's not positive. Any discrimination breeds resentment, which breeds hate and division. I don't understand how all this isn't obvious to some people? 

Quotas are the same deal. One of the things I considered when there were complaints about not enough black actors being nominated for oscars, that it isn't an argument for anything. Maybe there weren't many who gave worthy performances. Now if they had been saying here's some examples where black actors have clearly been overlooked, that would be an argument. And what about actors of other races? Was there enough of those nominated? And what about LGBTQ, disabled, special needs and so on? The fact that they only talked about black nominees is discriminatory. With this way of thinking Jar Jar Binks could have won a fucking oscar for covering multiple bases! Equality is the only way forward, it's that fucking simple.

What's wrong with discrimination? Isn't that what makes us human? I'm guessing the average molusc isn't very discriminating but the more complex and social creatures become the more they are able to discern and discriminate.

There are all sorts of people we choose not to associate with based upon whether or not we believe those interactions will have positive results. That's just acting as a rational, healthy and self interested person. 

I tend to favour white people of my own culture when it comes to social interaction. I feel precisely zero guilt for acting this way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

What's wrong with discrimination? Isn't that what makes us human? I'm guessing the average molusc isn't very discriminating but the more complex and social creatures become the more they are able to discern and discriminate.

There are all sorts of people we choose not to associate with based upon whether or not we believe those interactions will have positive results. That's just acting as a rational, healthy and self interested person. 

I tend to favour white people of my own culture when it comes to social interaction. I feel precisely zero guilt for acting this way. 

I was assuming he meant equality before the law, rather than socially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bkkandrew said:

I was assuming he meant equality before the law, rather than socially.

What he said. And furthermore:

"Discrimination is what make us human, because molluscs don't do it" is what you said. All higher order animals discriminate, so no, discrimination is not what defines us as humans; unless we should be cunts. Like Richard Littlejohn or Katie Hopkins, for example.

20 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

What's wrong with discrimination? Isn't that what makes us human? I'm guessing the average molusc isn't very discriminating but the more complex and social creatures become the more they are able to discern and discriminate.

There are all sorts of people we choose not to associate with based upon whether or not we believe those interactions will have positive results. That's just acting as a rational, healthy and self interested person. 

I tend to favour white people of my own culture when it comes to social interaction. I feel precisely zero guilt for acting this way. 

"Discrimination is what make us human, because molluscs don't do it" is what you said. All higher order animals discriminate, so no, discrimination is not what defines us as humans; unless we should be cunts. Like Richard Littlejohn or Katie Hopkins, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FudgePacker said:

 

"Discrimination is what make us human, because molluscs don't do it" is what you said. All higher order animals discriminate, so no, discrimination is not what defines us as humans; unless we should be cunts. Like Richard Littlejohn or Katie Hopkins, for example.

It's just a mangling of the language that has been allowed to go unchallenged. Personally I think that discrimination and intolerance can be admirable qualities in a human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eight said:

It's just a mangling of the language that has been allowed to go unchallenged. Personally I think that discrimination and intolerance can be admirable qualities in a human being.

In which circumstances do you you think discrimination and intolerance are admirable qualities? I can find myself thinking like that. We're queuing to pay for car parking, the person in front of me puts the ticket into the machine; and THEN they fucking realise they need their wallet. My intolerance seems reasonable, right? Where does yours come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Alonso Quijano
      Do these businesses really think this kind of nonsense virtue-signalling is going to endear them to their core customer base?
      I give you Procter & Gamble brand Pampers.
      Surely they'd be better off using a baby.
    • By Horrified Onlooker
      Paging @Cunning Plan!
       
      https://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/does-anyone-have-a-fag-mans-first-words-as-hes-rescued-after-three-days-trapped-in-sewer-system-36613528.html
    • By One percent
      Suprised that there isn't a thread on this as it brokevin the wail a couple of days ago. Now on the So-Called BBC website 
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41966554
      A teacher is facing disciplinary action at his school after he referred to a transgender pupil as a girl, although the student identifies as a boy. 
      Joshua Sutcliffe, a Christian pastor from Oxford, admitted he said "Well done girls" when addressing a group including the student. 
      He described it as a "slip of the tongue", but said he believed biological sex was defined at birth
      The school said it would be "inappropriate" to comment.
      Mr Sutcliffe, who teaches children aged between 11 and 18, said the incident took place on 2 November.
      He said a week-long investigation found he had "misgendered" the pupil.
       
      i have nothing to add really, other than who the fuck would want to be a teacher. The world really has gone mad, or the establishment is really trying to provoke us all.
       
      speechless
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.