Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 4
- Thread starter Barry_Badrinath
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Leftist says "Andrew Bolt is a racist, as he says people who are too white for his liking are not indigenous (denying their indigenous identity"
Leftist says "Indigenous people who don't agree with leftist values (or simply don't like them) are white on the inside and thus coconuts (a derogative term deny indigenous people their indigenous identity)"
Leftist = no better than bolt
Leftist says "Indigenous people who don't agree with leftist values (or simply don't like them) are white on the inside and thus coconuts (a derogative term deny indigenous people their indigenous identity)"
Leftist = no better than bolt
White lefties have absolutely no idea what to do when they encounter a dark skinned person who holds conservative views. It’s a deep-ridden belief they have that black people aren’t capable of thinking for themselves and need to be told what their best interests are.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Many people call out racism, especially if the person passing a racist mark explains they are using the term towards people they hate.
Would you overlook racism, especially if case law had already proven a term was a racist and hurtful remark?
How did you feel about Bolt's case and findings against him?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
just a quick search function on bigfooty has these posts on the topic
Search results for query: coconut
www.bigfooty.com
Search results for query: coconut
www.bigfooty.com
the original post came with a racist meme and confirmation the term was made in hate. Fortunately many members called out the term but sadly some justified the hatred. Some even dismissed it, even when the case law was presented.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Bristol 'coconut' row councillor's conviction is upheld
A Bristol city councillor who called an Asian colleague a "coconut" has her conviction upheld.
www.bbc.com
chief be good-faith will you
we are speaking about two different things , rules in sport v politics and culture
I could just as easily javelin a pejorative of bigot towards you
you don't want your AFL players taking PEDs and cheating do you ?
Pretty simple to be a good-faith arbiter , no one seems to disqualify people to participate in sport , but elite prosport W prizes partitioned is a matter requiring some regulations
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
As a general rule many of the left would be pro supporters of 18c of the racial discrimination act, making it "unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity".
The debate about 18D was primarily focused on the low threshold of "offend".
Yet when put in practice the left, as evidenced in this example here on bigfooty, found all kinds of reasons to accept the race hate speech such as "hating the people they were casting the hatred towards" and "it's OK, he's indigenous". This is hypocrisy.
In short the trait of the far left (as with the far right), as reality doesn't support their belief system they pick and choose when reality applies to them. Otherwise they see their logic and compass collapse.
This "collapse" is why they lie or ignore situations when presented to them (even when in a position of authority).
I love this thread, it's like a shitty clone of ChatGPT was trained exclusively on fox news and given a bigfooty account.
It's kind of english, and it's got all the important key words, but I can't understand the sentences, let alone the train of thought.
It's kind of english, and it's got all the important key words, but I can't understand the sentences, let alone the train of thought.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #65
Which was not at all a low threshold.
"No tolerance for intolerance" type stuff?
Not judging someone for a brief outburst about racism and other issues they face on a daily basis?
Cognitive dissonance? Everyone has it. Even sensible centrists.
The real question is where does it lead each person? Where do they land? On the side of understanding and inclusion or on the side of hatred for the powerless?
Doing the "both sides" thing doesn't really prove your own point. Picking up on, say, attendees at rallies clipped for headline TV news (or grifter YouTube) isn't all that useful.
Any examples?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I'll take it to a PM to comply with bigfooty rules
- Apr 18, 2005
- 31,540
- 27,492
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Just catching up on this. This is what I’ve discovered. Hanson says ‘Piss off back to Pakistan’ to a member of parliament. Hanson is found guilty of racism. Hanson has a $900,000 legal bill. Andrew Bolt urges support for her legal bill and also for her. Bolt is employed by Sky News.
What have I missed?
What have I missed?
- Apr 18, 2005
- 31,540
- 27,492
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
And remember, just remember….. its FREE SPEECH!
Allow me to explain. Abortion as an individual act affects one potential life at a time. Immunisation is about collective wellbeing in general, and with the COVID mandates in particular it was about lessening the effects of the coronavirus so that
a) the health system didn't become overrun and the public health emergency snowball into something even more dire and unpredictable
and
b) the workforce, or as much 'essential staff' as possible, continued to run. Without taxpayers at work government income dies.
Small, individual loss of potential-life versus possible societal collapse. To me the differences are bleeding obvious!
"A small individual loss of potential life". Minimising language indeed. Millions of lives have been lost directly from abortion. 100% kill rate.
But truly, what has been affected? Are you religious? Are you coming at this from that particular angle, that all life is sacred no matter where it starts?
A life has been "affected" as you put it (ended, destroyed). Pretty obvious.
Potential life. As this is a footy site I'll put it in footy terms. The potential life has not 'run through the banner' yet. The potential life is not out on the field. The potential life, having not lived, has no life to lose.
This is different to a miscarried or stillborn child. That potential was assigned value beforehand by the prospective parents. That potential life was being planned for and maybe even had a name ready to go.
Aborted potential? I ask if you are religious because that puts a different 'spin' on the argument because then you're talking about souls. Souls spent and souls saved.
As a non-believer I don't hold to these concerns but if you are religious why not have the courage of your convictions and inform the debate? Nobody will mock you for having faith, only agreeing or disagreeing as appropriate.
I don't even pretend that I could properly empathise with the women in this position, so I don't bang on about pro-life or pro-abortion.....unlike just about everything else, I know when to shut up...
I will only ever ask one question though, because the answer is there - when is the exact point a "fertile transaction" becomes a human being? When do they officially "run through the banner"...?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
