Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I wonder what Wymesold fox finds a good excuse for rape

 

:whistle:

Am trying to say it's sounds like a very poor response from him to get away from this accusation type.

 

He's denied many things, via strange quotes - and this is certainly one of them, whatever the subject matter he's been faced with.

Edited by Wymeswold fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48747994

 

"Florida is one of 35 states that do not prohibit those convicted of minor domestic violence crimes or anyone subject to restraining orders from buying or using guns, Ms Eskamani said."

 

........the hell?

Good ol amuuurrrricahh. Guns are ourrr right gosh darnit cuz jimbob said so back in the day. For such an advanced society they are stuck in the past at times.  Talk about fearing al qaeda, maybe chris rock was right when he said he is more scared of al cracka lol

 

See vid below. Im on my phone and dont know how to hide the link as it is pg-18.

https://youtu.be/UhjfxZHOT_o

 

Honestly, I dont even care if they have guns as its their country and rules but common sense would tell you to have some laws around who should and shouldnt have them etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Funny anything jokes are funny.

 

The point of comedy is to make light

 

Unless you're a product of the current left which has lost its way and no longer believes in having a senss of humour

 

Fair enough, that's your take.

 

I defer to the late, great Terry Pratchett on this one: "If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it is not satire, it is bullying."

 

This has been mentioned elsewhere but the best humour always punches up and never down IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Rape jokes are funny?

 

Well, I guess humour is all subjective...

Depends who it's directed at I suppose. Left wing women it's obviously disgraceful, right wing women it's hilarious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Depends who it's directed at I suppose. Left wing women it's obviously disgraceful, right wing women it's hilarious. 

Not really - though I can only speak for myself on that one.

 

Have a read of the Korea-related article I put in the news thread for exactly how it isn't funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not really - though I can only speak for myself on that one.

 

Have a read of the Korea-related article I put in the news thread for exactly how it isn't funny.

 I just dont get how you think political bias isnt the chief motivation behind your side going all in on this stuff. Its hardly the most credible claim

 

Besides, MLK, still an inspirational figure, apparently party to some monstrous sexual stuff

 

And btw, seen Chappelle's latest stand up specials? He makes comedy out of rape which i doubt you would find offensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Depends who it's directed at I suppose. Left wing women it's obviously disgraceful, right wing women it's hilarious. 

Well the most recent example of outrage at a joke was the right getting their knickers in a twist about Jo Brand, so I don't think you can take to your high horse on this. Or is the rule that rape jokes are funny, but acid jokes aren't? 

 

As an advocate of free speech I am generally in favour of jokes about anything, but you can't also expect to not be challenged if the joke is in bad taste or if you are the POTUS making light of a potentially serious issue. In all honesty though I've always found things like rape jokes and the like lazy. I used to find people like Clarkson and Frankie Boyle funny until I got to about 16/17 and outgrew them, when saying something controversial is essentially the only string to their bow. It's the Adrian Durham of humour.  

Edited by David Guiza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Well the most recent example of outrage at a joke was the right getting their knickers in a twist about Jo Brand, so I don't think you can take to your high horse on this. Or is the rule that rape jokes are funny, but acid jokes aren't? 

And how differently was Jo Brand treated by the BBC after making that joke? 

 

Had it been Geoff Norcott making a joke about throwing battery acid on Jess Philips what do you think the reaction and response would have been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 I just dont get how you think political bias isnt the chief motivation behind your side going all in on this stuff. Its hardly the most credible claim

 

Besides, MLK, still an inspirational figure, apparently party to some monstrous sexual stuff

 

And btw, seen Chappelle's latest stand up specials? He makes comedy out of rape which i doubt you would find offensive

I think that political bias does have a lot to do with it, yeah - but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions to answer and making light of it isn't going to make it go away, and just makes one appear callous.

 

I haven't seen Chappelle's latest routine, and given what I now know about the content I'm not sure that I'd want to - quite frankly, I'm more comfortable with black comedy about death than I am about rape or other kinds of violence of that type against women (and blokes too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

And how differently was Jo Brand treated by the BBC after making that joke? 

 

Had it been Geoff Norcott making a joke about throwing battery acid on Jess Philips what do you think the reaction and response would have been?

Danny Baker, who praised Corbyn and is anti-Brexit so far as I am aware, was ousted by the BBC for his remarks/posts and the BBC continue to hire Boycott despite his numerous comments in the past so I don't think there's any sort of agenda there.  

 

I suspect you're right, but I imagine Brand's long standing history and success as a comedian (even though I don't find particularly funny myself) in comparison to Norcott (a man who recently wrote an article explaining why he is funny :ph34r:) would probably have something to do with it, rightly or wrongly. For the same reason that some no-mark 25 year old would have been shown the door by the BBC if he said that he needed to black up to get a knighthood. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that political bias does have a lot to do with it, yeah - but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions to answer and making light of it isn't going to make it go away, and just makes one appear callous.

 

I haven't seen Chappelle's latest routine, and given what I now know about the content I'm not sure that I'd want to - quite frankly, I'm more comfortable with black comedy about death than I am about rape or other kinds of violence of that type against women (and blokes too).

If Trump is innocent of this charge he has every right to be callous about it

 

That second paragraph is just nonsense to me. I dont mean to be rude here, it just makes no sense at all, other than i guess to pander to the current feminist charged zeitgeist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that political bias does have a lot to do with it, yeah - but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions to answer and making light of it isn't going to make it go away, and just makes one appear callous.

 

I haven't seen Chappelle's latest routine, and given what I now know about the content I'm not sure that I'd want to - quite frankly, I'm more comfortable with black comedy about death than I am about rape or other kinds of violence of that type against women (and blokes too).

Last question as im labouring the point now. But i have to know!

 

The Mighty Boosh had a bit in their live tour where a guy in a rabbit suit would jump out, chase Noel Fielding around the theatre and "rape him"

 

Is that a morally repugnant bit in your eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

64909731_1620237378106979_1601720143652585472_n.png

 

 

tenor.gif

 

Inform him that the racists at the time were mainly the Democrats and Dixiecrats?

The concept of reparations is a bucket with a hole - it leaves so many questions open and doesn't do anything to solve the issue of actual racism, all it does it redistribute wealth and/or income among designated people that are hand-picked - for a particular period of time, and then there's no more.

 

Or how else are you supposed to determine who gets a cheque with some free money and whom gets taxed?

How much money would/should be spent per person?

Who decides who gets more or less money?

What average amount is right per capita?

How do you want to determine who was racist at the time and who was oppressed? How do you verify all of this?

What good does that money do in the end, apart from being a drop in the ocean?

Who does the research on ancestry? Can you imagine what kind of manpower that'd require?

At what point back in time does it all start, what is the starting point to determine year XXXX as the basis of it all?

 

There's just tons of shades of gray.

What remains is Technocrat Democrats pandering to minorities and a certain voting clientele, making them even more dependent on government money, whilst pleasing themselves in the process.

 

Just by logical conclusion, African Americans should then also chase after additional money and sue Arab countries and califates who sold their ancestors as slaves to the British/Americans...

Oh, and of course, reparations don't end here - they might as well demand more money from the British government...

Speaking of which, why don't the Indians do the same and go after their former colonizers?

The Chinese sue the Japanese for the occupation during WWII?

 

See how far back you can go?

How about I demand reparations from the Russians what they did to part of my ancestors at the end of WWII?

 

This is all backwards-oriented, whilst a more forward-looking strategy is much more pressing.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

If Trump is innocent of this charge he has every right to be callous about it

 

That second paragraph is just nonsense to me. I dont mean to be rude here, it just makes no sense at all, other than i guess to pander to the current feminist charged zeitgeist?

Fair enough, allow me to clarify: rape and other violence of that type has been used as a way of exerting power by the strong over the weak from pretty much time immemorial. And the thing about it is, unlike murdering someone, you can do it to the same person again, and again, and again, if you have the opportunity. Each time reminding that person that you're stronger, tougher, better than them.

 

Of course in the eyes of the law murder is worse (and I'd agree, death is by definition the worst case scenario for any human IMO) but there is something about it that makes it stand out from other violent crimes of its type IMO and seeing as it is always about power, joking about it in most contexts is most of the time making fun of someone worse off than oneself and therefore simply punching down.

 

Speaking of which...

 

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Last question as im labouring the point now. But i have to know!

 

The Mighty Boosh had a bit in their live tour where a guy in a rabbit suit would jump out, chase Noel Fielding around the theatre and "rape him"

 

Is that a morally repugnant bit in your eyes?

Stupid, probably.

 

Morally repugnant, nah - again, clearly not punching down.

 

15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Inform him that the racists at the time were the Democrats and Dixiecrats?

The concept of reparations is a dead-end - it leaves so many questions open and doesn't do anything to solve the issue of actual racism, all it does it redistribute wealth and/or income among designated people that are hand-picked - for a particular period of time, and then there's no more.

 

Or how else are you supposed to determine who gets a cheque with some free money and whom gets taxed?

How much money would/should be spent per person?

Who decides who gets more or less money?

What average amount is right per capita?

How do you want to determine who was racist at the time and who was oppressed? How do you verify all of this?

What good does that money do in the end, apart from being a drop in the ocean?

Who does the research on ancestry? Can you imagine what kind of manpower that'd require?

At what point back in time does it all start, what is the starting point to determine year XXXX as the basis of it all?

 

There's just tons of shades of gray.

What remains is Technocrat Democrats pandering to minorities and a certain voting clientele, making them even more dependent on government money, whilst pleasing themselves in the process.

 

Just by logical conclusion, African Americans should then also chase after additional money and sue Arab countries and califates who sold their ancestors as slaves to the British/Americans...

Oh, and of course, reparations don't end here - they might as well demand more money from the British government, as well...

 

Speaking of which, why don't the Indians do the same and go after their former colonizers?

The Chinese sue the Japanese for the occupation during WWII?

 

See how far you can go?

How about I sue the Russians what they did to part of my ancestors at the end of WWII?

 

This is all backwards-oriented, whilst a more forward-looking strategy is much more pressing.

Sigh.

 

I bloody knew I should have put "the second paragraph from Mr O'Reilly is what's important here, the discussion about reparations themselves aside" at the start of my post.

 

Consider it there now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Inform him that the racists at the time were mainly the Democrats and Dixiecrats?

The concept of reparations is a bucket with a hole - it leaves so many questions open and doesn't do anything to solve the issue of actual racism, all it does it redistribute wealth and/or income among designated people that are hand-picked - for a particular period of time, and then there's no more.

 

Or how else are you supposed to determine who gets a cheque with some free money and whom gets taxed?

How much money would/should be spent per person?

Who decides who gets more or less money?

What average amount is right per capita?

How do you want to determine who was racist at the time and who was oppressed? How do you verify all of this?

What good does that money do in the end, apart from being a drop in the ocean?

Who does the research on ancestry? Can you imagine what kind of manpower that'd require?

At what point back in time does it all start, what is the starting point to determine year XXXX as the basis of it all?

 

There's just tons of shades of gray.

What remains is Technocrat Democrats pandering to minorities and a certain voting clientele, making them even more dependent on government money, whilst pleasing themselves in the process.

 

Just by logical conclusion, African Americans should then also chase after additional money and sue Arab countries and califates who sold their ancestors as slaves to the British/Americans...

Oh, and of course, reparations don't end here - they might as well demand more money from the British government...

Speaking of which, why don't the Indians do the same and go after their former colonizers?

The Chinese sue the Japanese for the occupation during WWII?

 

See how far back you can go?

How about I demand reparations from the Russians what they did to part of my ancestors at the end of WWII?

 

This is all backwards-oriented, whilst a more forward-looking strategy is much more pressing.

I'm already taking revenge by shagging colonial women

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Sigh.

 

I bloody knew I should have put "the second paragraph from Mr O'Reilly is what's important here, the discussion about reparations themselves aside" at the start of my post.

 

Consider it there now.

You just quote a tweet without going into further detail what parts you'd like to debate. That is superficial.

 

No word on free Blacks in the US as early as the early 17th century? Mixed-races relations and marriages especially among working class citizens in the US?

Children from marriages between white women and black men were free by birth. Slaves could be set free following good services, moreso after the American Revolution than before, to be fair. Still, there's so much nuance there.

 

We are always looking at history from a distance, judging it by today's standards. We may consider procedures back then as "racist" or can consider them as such - now.

It's also important to look at the historical context and the way of living back then, the caste-like system with classes, all of it was product of the times.

People in power back then didn't label themselves "racist" and they weren't labeled that way, women and/or children in general didn't look at their situation calling it "suppressive", they did their fair share to contribute to society and household income, whatever it took; men were born into a position of (more or less) power mostly, some managed to work their way up, most didn't. They adhered to a certain status quo.

The term "racism" itself is relatively new, it only exists since the late 19th century/early 20th century.

Living conditions up until the 20th century were poor for many people - Blacks, Europeans, Asians, Natives, were all exploited in some way or another, and the good life reserved to some. Poor life expectancy, poor education, poor healthcare, poor hygiene, war, famine, droughts, you name it... It affected pretty much everybody.  I am glad we have evolved from that.

A vast majority of the population had to suffer, regardless of their roots or heritage, so to pick out "racism" alone or to use it as a buzzword is a bit far-fetched and doesn't do history that much justice. "Elitism" comes much more closer to the real issue.

 

In summary, it's easy to label the conditions back then as "racist" from a modern perspective, when it's all relative. "Racist"? Maybe in parts, it's debatable. "Exploitative"? More like it. But then again, the discussion surrounding people's place in society back then re-emerges...

The hypocrisy is that the US system favoured exploitation by white men who were mostly Democrats or Dixiecrats, and it appears that with today's Democrats' push for reparations, the irony therein seems to be lost on them.

 

And yes, I'd like you to tell us how you'd approach the reparations issue, which is based on or connected to the theory that the USA were founded by racists.

The vast majority of African slaves (95% and more) went down to the Caribbean and South America, btw.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...