Reply With QuoteSorry, but there really isn't any evidence for this.Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...-blame-brexit/
Bĝllocks, B. Here is the quote. It's about Commonwealth crowds cheering HMQ.
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness."
Again, B, stop making stuff up.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I hate them all. Basically, they should make me and my missus dictator cos everyone else is a cünt.
Sorry, but there really isn't any evidence for this.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...-blame-brexit/
You clearly missed the 'It is said...' part of the quote.
In other words, he is framing it in the way that the Queen (in this representation of her) is supposed to perceive and think of these people.
And the next paragraph goes on to do exactly what I described.
"They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
The language that is used is very deliberately designed to be anachronistic and deliberately harks back to the language and attitudes of the colonial era in order to mock both them and Blair for apparently revelling in them - 'big white chief', 'big white bird', etc.
It's clumsily done and probably ill-advised, but it doesn't make the writer a racist.
Context, nuance, intent - none of these things matter when all you want to do is have a go at someone, though, do they?
That makes you a bit of a cünt, too, I'm afraid. I'm sure your missus is very nice, though.
Last edited by Burney; 08-09-2018 at 03:29 PM.
Depends whether you believe the Speccie or my first uni. Ya pays yer money and takes ya choice.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/0...other-factors/
Now care to say the piccaninnie bit was out of context, B? I posted it. Please do explain how it wasn't racist.
See above.
You said it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of St Tone. It wasn't. It was clearly a comment about all those swarthy chaps the Queens gets on with at the commonwealth.
The second paragraph shows that it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of Blair. It was framed in deliberately provocative language first to mock the reductive sneering of right-on lefty anti-monarchists and then to turn it back on them in relation their chum Tone.
I don't give a fück about the 2nd paragraph. The sentence it was used in explicitly references the Commonwealth groupies and politicians that meet the queen. You brought up context. Let's speak about the sentence it was used in.
He may or may not be a racist, but he is prepared to use casually racist terms for humour.
Fair play, I do the same in the privacy of my home, but it is not something I would do in public because it's offensive, and certainly not if I was in a position of power and had a potential audience (via shares, reposts etc) of millions.
You're effectively admitting you are happy to ignore the context of what he's written, though. To take a paragraph in isolation without reference to the paragraph that follows it is absurd.
And writing a word in a published article is hardly 'casual'. It's done deliberately and with cognisance of the potential impact. If you consider the mere use of a word to be verboten regardless of context then we're all in trouble. And the fact that someone may find it offensive is not a good reason not to use it.
I'm just telling you that wasn't my reading.You're effectively admitting you are happy to ignore the context of what he's written, though. To take a paragraph in isolation without reference to the paragraph that follows it is absurd.
And writing a word in a published article is hardly 'casual'. It's done deliberately and with cognisance of the potential impact. If you consider the mere use of a word to be verboten regardless of context then we're all in trouble. And the fact that someone may find it offensive is not a good reason not to use it.
I read the article with an open mind. I may be a lefty but given my lifestyle I hate victimhood and identity politics and a fücking large chunk of my own party.*
I read the parts about Blair, his travels, the trains etc.
And the following sentence.
But I thought that sentence specifically referred to the poor types HMQ has to meet.
Just saying it could well be read like that. Perhaps you Torygraph readers think that's fine, but the Times would never publish something like that.
Have you considered that you are not approaching this with an open mind cos you want him to be exonerated cos it will annoy those you dislike?
Just sayin', B, if I was writing a post-grad history essay on AWIMB, you as a primary source would be analysed very strongly through the prism of your online persona. Fra more than many others. {Though poss less than my old mate Jorge.}
Try to see yourself as others see you, Monkey, then you will better help Tripitakka on his Vedic quest.
{btw, was Tripitakka a man or women. Monks are meant to be male but I really fancied him/her when I was about 8.}
*Indeed, when we one the student category of the OWM award in 2012, when presented it in the Guardian building on stage, Jon Snow said the thing that most impressed the jury was that we were the only people who made a film in the 3rd world where they were shown as humans not victims. It's our calling card.
Posting Permissions
