The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Racism
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Yep, there it is.
> Muuuuuuuuuuuuuh
> For hundreds of years, Blacks weren't allowed to
> play/celebrate/mention/enjoy their "own" music (despite
> pretty much creating it in the first place).
> So now they can mostly enjoy their culture and heritage without being
> hung from a tree, they do.
> And white folk still don't get it.
Nobody is disputing that, but you can't go from one extreme to another. From a position where blacks couldn't celebrate but now they can, but now whites can't for fear of society calling them racist.
Also who says I'm white!!
> Yep, there it is.
> Muuuuuuuuuuuuuh
> For hundreds of years, Blacks weren't allowed to
> play/celebrate/mention/enjoy their "own" music (despite
> pretty much creating it in the first place).
> So now they can mostly enjoy their culture and heritage without being
> hung from a tree, they do.
> And white folk still don't get it.
Nobody is disputing that, but you can't go from one extreme to another. From a position where blacks couldn't celebrate but now they can, but now whites can't for fear of society calling them racist.
Also who says I'm white!!
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British?
> Your
> talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from
> conflict
> not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of
> there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before
> they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the
> refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
>
> So...on the one hand, you think that anyone fleeing for their life
> should be sent back to face death eh? Surely the whole basis of the
> UKIP immigration policy is that not everyone is in genuine fear of
> their life, but have to use that as an excuse? And finally; just how
> does one proves they're crossing other ports of call? Surely the fact
> that they're missing other ports means (according to your logic) that
> they're not fleeing for their lives, but they want to get to the UK?
> Which, in turn, backs up my earlier point, no?
>
>Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes. And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel tunnel was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering the country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage of illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status? Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying taxes.
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>
> >Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they
> would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as
> refugees.
>
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry.
>
> One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue
> your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
>
>
> Well, why do you disagree? What evidence have you to offer that he's
> not an opportunistic, egomaniacal, mammon-whoring, bigoted,
> self-obsessed bucket of vaginal slugs?
Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted how?
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British?
> Your
> talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from
> conflict
> not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of
> there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before
> they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the
> refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
>
> So...on the one hand, you think that anyone fleeing for their life
> should be sent back to face death eh? Surely the whole basis of the
> UKIP immigration policy is that not everyone is in genuine fear of
> their life, but have to use that as an excuse? And finally; just how
> does one proves they're crossing other ports of call? Surely the fact
> that they're missing other ports means (according to your logic) that
> they're not fleeing for their lives, but they want to get to the UK?
> Which, in turn, backs up my earlier point, no?
>
>Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes. And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel tunnel was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering the country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage of illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status? Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying taxes.
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are safe"
> points I've commented on?
>
>
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>
> >Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they
> would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as
> refugees.
>
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry.
>
> One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue
> your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
>
>
> Well, why do you disagree? What evidence have you to offer that he's
> not an opportunistic, egomaniacal, mammon-whoring, bigoted,
> self-obsessed bucket of vaginal slugs?
Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted how?
kevstar wrote:
>
> >Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes.
> And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be
> given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives.
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel tunnel
> was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to
> enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering the
> country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away
> by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage of
> illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status?
> Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying
> taxes.
Heh. Amazing how any post not agreeing with you is simply ignorance...
I don't actually see your point. First you say that "we're talking about people fleeing for their lives". Then you seem to think that these people fleeing should simply stop at the very first port of call, and if they don't do that then they should simply be sent back to face death or torture. Is that right? If not, please do explain exactly what you mean because at the moment your argument has no logical structure beyond a callous disregard for human life.
The cockle pickers were smuggled in by Triads; the whole thing was part of an organised criminal ring. Organised crime isn't noted for it's willingness to pay taxes. And what you're suggesting is that the people who've paid out all of their money to get here, and who are willing to work for a pittance, should just be sent straight back to China? You don't...you don't think that their willingness to work is something that we desperately need in this country? And that if they were given economic migrant status and a minimum wage job, they wouldn't show a gratitude and love for this country that is missing from 90% of population who were actually born here?
>
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't really bode well, does it?
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
> As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later,
> or away from the point of entry.
I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in, and THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want immigrants to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK then". They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if they're already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get within sniffing distance of government.
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one clue...
Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
>
> >Another example of your ignorance yes, an excuse no, a fact yes.
> And the ones who are genuine and in need of help will no doubt be
> given refugee status and the help needed to get on with thier lives.
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, the old camp at the channel tunnel
> was a prime example of people crossing other ports of call just to
> enter Britain. It is also one of many examples of people entering the
> country illegally, just like the cockle pickers who were swept away
> by the sea. Which leads me on to there employers, taking advantage of
> illegal immigrants, and are they looking to claim asylum status?
> Instead take jobs from the economy as i'm sure they wont be paying
> taxes.
Heh. Amazing how any post not agreeing with you is simply ignorance...
I don't actually see your point. First you say that "we're talking about people fleeing for their lives". Then you seem to think that these people fleeing should simply stop at the very first port of call, and if they don't do that then they should simply be sent back to face death or torture. Is that right? If not, please do explain exactly what you mean because at the moment your argument has no logical structure beyond a callous disregard for human life.
The cockle pickers were smuggled in by Triads; the whole thing was part of an organised criminal ring. Organised crime isn't noted for it's willingness to pay taxes. And what you're suggesting is that the people who've paid out all of their money to get here, and who are willing to work for a pittance, should just be sent straight back to China? You don't...you don't think that their willingness to work is something that we desperately need in this country? And that if they were given economic migrant status and a minimum wage job, they wouldn't show a gratitude and love for this country that is missing from 90% of population who were actually born here?
>
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years.
> It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you
> realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so
> encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't
> it work now?
>
> Incidentally, have you anything to say about the
> "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are
> safe"
> points I've commented on?
So...nothing to say about this at all then? Cool; nice to know you can't actually defend some of the key points of this policy. Doesn't really bode well, does it?
> Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in
> and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum
> or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be
> deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
>
> As It said, asylum claims will not countenanced if submitted later,
> or away from the point of entry.
I see...and how are you going to enforce this? I ask because there have been numerous instances of immigrants arriving, settling in, and THEN applying for asylum or citizenship, and them going on to become good members of society. Simply saying "We don't want immigrants to arrive illegally" doesn't actually mean that all immigrants will go "Oh really? Well, we'd best not go to the UK then". They still arrive. Saying you want to get rid of them even if they're already settled in...well, you can look forward to christ knows how many media articles portraying UKIP as heartless, bigoted bullies.
Not that it matters because, you see, UKIP aren't going to get within sniffing distance of government.
> Oppertunistic yes, egomaniacal yes, mammon cretainly not, bigoted
> how?
Well, the article where he stated Arabs are worthless was one clue...
Oh, and do you know what Mammon refers to?
Mr Lover Man wrote:
> Nobody is disputing that, but you can't go from one extreme to
> another. From a position where blacks couldn't celebrate but now they
> can, but now whites can't for fear of society calling them racist.
I think that's because white culture has had all of recorded history to celebrate.
>
> Also who says I'm white!!
Does it matter?
> Nobody is disputing that, but you can't go from one extreme to
> another. From a position where blacks couldn't celebrate but now they
> can, but now whites can't for fear of society calling them racist.
I think that's because white culture has had all of recorded history to celebrate.
>
> Also who says I'm white!!
Does it matter?
Light wrote:
> Does it matter?
Precisely my point! In which case why continue to segregate race anymore by having such events as the MOBO's when they are clearly continuing highlight race instead of just getting along and celebrating everybody as one race.
I'd also like to remind you of Halle Berrys speach a few years ago when she won an oscar and was claiming its a about time a black woman won an oscar etc etc. Now i don't believe someone has gone in an audition - "nope - shes balck, don't put her in the film". It's more of a case of if you can't act, you're not going to get an acting role regardless of skin colour, so don't make out its because the movie industry is trying to opress you becuase of the colour of your skin...or your sex!!
> Does it matter?
Precisely my point! In which case why continue to segregate race anymore by having such events as the MOBO's when they are clearly continuing highlight race instead of just getting along and celebrating everybody as one race.
I'd also like to remind you of Halle Berrys speach a few years ago when she won an oscar and was claiming its a about time a black woman won an oscar etc etc. Now i don't believe someone has gone in an audition - "nope - shes balck, don't put her in the film". It's more of a case of if you can't act, you're not going to get an acting role regardless of skin colour, so don't make out its because the movie industry is trying to opress you becuase of the colour of your skin...or your sex!!
Mr Lover Man wrote:
> Stuff
Hmmm...to a large extent I'd agree with you. However, I would say that bearing in mind the centuries of oppression suffered by various minorities in the western world, it's unreasonable not to expect an explosion of various events celebrating ones ethnicity. As time goes on, maybe it will become more devicive. But I'd hope that the response to that would be to ensure that society becomes more inclusive and more colour blind, rather than just complaining about different ethnic groups for various different reasons.
> Stuff
Hmmm...to a large extent I'd agree with you. However, I would say that bearing in mind the centuries of oppression suffered by various minorities in the western world, it's unreasonable not to expect an explosion of various events celebrating ones ethnicity. As time goes on, maybe it will become more devicive. But I'd hope that the response to that would be to ensure that society becomes more inclusive and more colour blind, rather than just complaining about different ethnic groups for various different reasons.
From my personal point of view to have equality means not having seperate awards like MOBO or Ms Black America. Yes, I can see how such events were founded but I can't say I agree with them.
Actually, I dunno.
Actually, I dunno.
It could be to do with time, as Light pointed out (why's he been warned, may I ask?) - seeing as this is celebration of minority, rather than a fully integrated group. It is perhaps a bit contradictory to the aims of cultural integration, but it might eventually fade away. If people didn't keep on acting like idiot.
Yeah, I understand. I just don't think it was fair that somebody was shouting racist/Daily Mail reader at them for espressing their view.
You can label someone to be a racist only after hearing their views (not in context of this argument, in general)!
Page: