Laurence Fox launches political party

[Rascal]

Good question.

If this was to be a 'safe space' in respect of turning kids away or not helping those who were abused at the hands of other faiths or their parents, that would be a pretty shitty way to operate a victim support service and I'm not sure they should be given charitable status. If the wording was, 'a safe space for victims of child abuse, with a particular focus on those abused by the CofE' then I think it's a great initiative.

I don't know if you're drawing a comparison here or just testing the water to see what safe spaces I find acceptable but if it's the former, I'd make the obvious point that black people aren't automatically victims by virtue of their skin colour therefore unless they've actually been racially abused or wrongly treated then the need for a segregated space isn't the same as it would be for a victim of child abuse.

It is a safe space exclusively for people of a particular faith. Therefore must be wrong if your argument for inclusivity is to be even handed.

It isn't wrong though because it is a good initiative that will help many people, not all, but many, which is my argument. If this particular safe space was for just the abused, it is excluding the abusers. But would you really want a safe space where both could meet, as that would no longer be a safe space.

You are almost making the case that some people because of the colour of there skin should not have safe spaces because it does not include those who might have abused them because of the colour of their skin, some might not because as you say having different coloured skin does not automatically make you a victim, but it can be a factor.

This debate has no right or wrong answer in my opinion, I believe safe spaces are necessary in certain situations, you don't believe those situations exist in the way I see them. So we are in fact debating beliefs.

 

[feedthegoat27]

The problem is, if everyone 'just took things for what it is' and went along like sheep with whatever demands were claimed to be in the interests of any particular minority, society would be far more divided and far more unjust than ever before.

I actually think we've had that opinion earlier in the thread and it was just as stupid then as it is now. Being against whatever ridiculous demand has come from BLM or their ilk doesn't make you a gammon or a **** or whatever else, it just means you've probably engaged your brain to think that actually, abolishing the police or segregation along racial lines or abolishing capitalism might not actually be a good idea and if you think it is, you're probably a bit of a twat yourself.

Their ilk? Nice.

It's an online portal.
Introduced by a supermarket.

Talk about getting your knickers in a twist over something so minor.

Right wingers; such snowflakes.

 

[Rascal]

The problem is, if everyone 'just took things for what it is' and went along like sheep with whatever demands were claimed to be in the interests of any particular minority, society would be far more divided and far more unjust than ever before.

I actually think we've had that opinion earlier in the thread and it was just as stupid then as it is now. Being against whatever ridiculous demand has come from BLM or their ilk doesn't make you a gammon or a **** or whatever else, it just means you've probably engaged your brain to think that actually, abolishing the police or segregation along racial lines or abolishing capitalism might not actually be a good idea and if you think it is, you're probably a bit of a twat yourself.

I would abolish Capitalism tomorrow and BLM were not calling for the Police to be abolished, they were asking for them to be defunded. Thats another thread though.

And yes i probably am a bit of twat, but i will take that as a compliment.

 

[Fame Monster]

Their ilk? Nice.

It's an online portal.
Introduced by a supermarket.

Talk about getting your knickers in a twist over something so minor.

Right wingers; such snowflakes.

The only reason it became an 'online portal' is because people 'got their knickers in a twist' about the original idea.

Otherwise we'd be seeing the kind of segregation in the picture above because of people like you, nodding along to any old regressive shite.

 

[feedthegoat27]

The only reason it became an 'online portal' is because people 'got their knickers in a twist' about the original idea.

Otherwise we'd be seeing the kind of segregation in the picture above because of people like you, nodding along to any old regressive shite.

Wasn't it always an online portal?
I thought Sainsbury's just worded it a bit clumsily/ambiguously but it was always online?
Happy to be pointed to any material that says otherwise.
Not Daily Mail links though, thanks.

Even if it is a physical space, why would this be a bad thing?

Perhaps a member of staff receives a torrent of racist abuse from a little Englander, and I'm sure we've all seen plenty of videos of exactly that, is it such a bad thing that said member of staff can retreat somewhere?

Fame Monster, why are some white people incredibly fragile? Help me out.

 

[Rascal]

Fame Monster, why are some white people incredibly fragile? Help me out.

Generally the white people who are incredibly fragile are those with an incredible amount of power and they are fearful of having their positions ursuped and their power disseminated to others. I said generally because these powerful people are the ones who are supplying the financial backing for Fox and they might not all be white, what they are though is not working class. They do this because Fox is a puppet for them and they like to stay in the shadows because admitting they feel threatened is a sign of weakness and to a person with an incredible amount of power weakness is something they cannot be seen to have. Trump is a classic example of this, Johnson also has this mantra.

 

[Blue Hefner]

It is a safe space exclusively for people of a particular faith. Therefore must be wrong if your argument for inclusivity is to be even handed.

It isn't wrong though because it is a good initiative that will help many people, not all, but many, which is my argument. If this particular safe space was for just the abused, it is excluding the abusers. But would you really want a safe space where both could meet, as that would no longer be a safe space.

You are almost making the case that some people because of the colour of there skin should not have safe spaces because it does not include those who might have abused them because of the colour of their skin, some might not because as you say having different coloured skin does not automatically make you a victim, but it can be a factor.

This debate has no right or wrong answer in my opinion, I believe safe spaces are necessary in certain situations, you don't believe those situations exist in the way I see them. So we are in fact debating beliefs.

Then the internet in 2020 simply isn't for you, I'm afraid.......

In all seriousness, have you read much around Malcolm X? I am reading his autobiography(very heavy) but when I started it I thought his suggestion that 'intergration' being a waste of time for black people in America was absurd and unhelpful. However(I'm not saying he's right, i'm saying he may have a point) when you look at BLM, Soccer Saturday, Micah Richards and Alex Scott among other I think there is something in it

Why would you want to be a a succesful black person in a country or an activist when 'it's only because they are black' get's brought up all the time?

The posiiton 5-10 years ago was the Muslims, Poles etc. need to intergrate. Ok, but not too much we don't want them on the telly or opening thier own shops or 'replacing' us. I find it interesting(yet entriley see-through) that these fake argumements and obvious contradictions haven't run out of steam(I do know why, its becuase they havne't ran out of money) and the working class white man hasn't noticed they are being taken for fools - I appreciate that I may be wrong and my opinon may post may come across condecneding but why don't we all have just slow down and have a think

Look at the long list of people they have pinned the blame on why this country is apparnetly so bad. It is always the most vulnerable the billionaires want us to take our anger out on. Why is that I wonder???

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Generally the white people who are incredibly fragile are those with an incredible amount of power and they are fearful of having their positions ursuped and their power disseminated to others. I said generally because these powerful people are the ones who are supplying the financial backing for Fox and they might not all be white, what they are though is not working class. They do this because Fox is a puppet for them and they like to stay in the shadows because admitting they feel threatened is a sign of weakness and to a person with an incredible amount of power weakness is something they cannot be seen to have. Trump is a classic example of this, Johnson also has this mantra.

it's power and money preying on vulnerable people's weaknesses, biases and pressure points. Not really any different to the left wing groups who recruit young, impressionable, vulnerable minds and seek to collectivise them and remove their individuality, freedom and expression.

Then again, I've come to see nationalisation and large public sector as somewhat of a political tool to stop the working class turning on itself and segregating and being exploited by political extremes. Unfortunately, any such collective finds itself at the whims of a narrow and unseemly power base, but the splintering of society and the ideological paths taken by different working class communities is a reflection of that to me.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Then the internet in 2020 simply isn't for you, I'm afraid.......

In all seriousness, have you read much around Malcolm X? I am reading his autobiography(very heavy) but when I started it I thought his suggestion that 'intergration' being a waste of time for black people in America was absurd and unhelpful. However(I'm not saying he's right, i'm saying he may have a point) when you look at BLM, Soccer Saturday, Micah Richards and Alex Scott among other I think there is something in it

Why would you want to be a a succesful black person in a country or an activist when 'it's only because they are black' get's brought up all the time?

The posiiton 5-10 years ago was the Muslims, Poles etc. need to intergrate. Ok, but not too much we don't want them on the telly or opening thier own shops or 'replacing' us. I find it interesting(yet entriley see-through) that these fake argumements and obvious contradictions haven't run out of steam(I don know why, its becuase they havne't ran out of money) and the working class white man hasn't noticed they are being taken for fools - I appreciate that I may be wrong and my opinon may post may come across condecneding but why don't we all have just slow down and have a think

Look at the long list of people they have pinned the blame on why this country is apparnetly so bad. It is always the most vulnerable the billionaires want us to take our anger out on. Why is that I wonder???

A point I've heard fairly frequently is that "it's necessary because people need to see they are represented, have role models and people who look and talk like them in positions of power".

They then, for some reason, are up in arms when people come up with the comments you've posted.

 

[Ric]

Wait until he finds out Alex Scott has the Children In Need gig......

I think if you did a Venn diagram of those who resent Alex Scott being on TV, say “all lives matter”, and think Laurence Fox has a point then it’d be a useful guide for people you’d never want to have a pint with.