Lefty/liberals.

[rainbow]

"mouler (or couler) un bronze" is a euphemism for dropping a shit

...so what exactly do French Olympians do with their bronze medals?

[Svartalf]

dip them in shit and rub them all over their person, I guess

[DaveDodo007]

I'm pinko, not white.

I knew it. What with you waving the red flag and the portrait of Stalin in your home.

[Brian Peacock]

We just call him Uncle Joe, but we always turn his picture to the wall when The Vicar of Dibbly is on TV.

[JimC]

[Forty Two]

[laklak]

I'm a sort of tannish pink, mostly all over. I haven't anal bleached in a while, so I imagine there's a brown eye lurking about.

[DaveDodo007]

I'm a sort of tannish pink, mostly all over. I haven't anal bleached in a while, so I imagine there's a brown eye lurking about.

Your colour doesn't matter, they want to control you from the cradle to the grave, you just need to give up your freedom and liberty. They don't like freedom and liberty because that makes you a fascist or something. Just do as you are told and you will be alright.

[pErvinalia]

Concerning the "liberals" part of this thread... A couple of alleged liberals (one actually calls himself a libertarian) in our parliament are playing the victim like the namby pamby wankstains they are, by taking a journalist to court who called one of them "an angry old white man" (among other worse stuff). They are hoping to test the our racial discrimination laws. Forty Two would love this case.

[Brian Peacock]

But that's what Exi called us, and he was always right, and it couldn't be an insult because it was just some powerless words arranged in a certain order.

[Forty Two]

Concerning the "liberals" part of this thread... A couple of alleged liberals (one actually calls himself a libertarian) in our parliament are playing the victim like the namby pamby wankstains they are, by taking a journalist to court who called one of them "an angry old white man" (among other worse stuff). They are hoping to test the our racial discrimination laws. Forty Two would love this case.

It's interesting that you consider "playing the victim" to be properly described as "namby pamby wankstains." Nobody plays the victim better than a regressive left douchebag.

But, the issue in Oz is a rather concerning one. Here is the relevant provision of your "Discrimination Act," to wit Section 18(c) -- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... /s18c.html

The key point here is that the "acts" prohibited by the law include words. So, typing words on a forum open to the public, a political soap-box in the town square, a podium at a debate open to the public - these are "not private" places.

The MP you refer to says he was called an "angry white male" - which, I agree, is a rather silly thing to complain about -- just like calling someone an angry black male, or an angry yellow female -- whatever - silly, dumb things to claim offense to. However, the law prohibits such public statements if they are reasonably likely to offend someone, or to intimidate them, or humiliate them, or insult them. Any of those things. What's reasonably likely to "offend" someone? Quite a broad range of things, actually. I've seen incidents where numbers of people claimed offense to a statue of a guy in his underwear, nude artwork from the Renaissance, jokes about women in the kitchen or men watching football -- or that Christianity is a fairy tale, and only a nutcase would believe in Creationism.....

So, while all of these "namby pamby wankstains" are really complaining about stuff that should not be afforded the time of day, and their complaints should definitely fall on deaf ears, if the law is going to take the "offense" of a black person or Muslim person seriously, then it must also take the offense of dickbag MP's who are offended by being insulted because of his race or gender too.

Unless, of course, one tows the idiotic, irrational, progressive view that the right to have one's "offense" remedied under the law in some way depends on one's membership in a certain color, religion, or ethnicity group, and that some members of certain groups are protected by the law, but some members of other groups are not.

[pErvinalia]

Society-wide, discrimination definitely flows one way. The laws are aimed at that. It certainly does lead to these seemingly hypocritical applications of the law (assuming the court throws out Lejyeholm's case).

[Forty Two]

The attack on free speech is also raging in Londonistan -- The law criminalises “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and can result in a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

Really? using the interwebz to "cause annoyance." LOL, or, perhaps "inconvenience" (to whom?), or "needless anxiety." Causing necessary anxiety is fine, apparently.

Is there anyone who posts regularly online that does not violate the terms of this law? Or, will it be that certain views will be deemed annoying, and other views will be deemed "not annoying." Probably it will be annoying to say "angry black female," but not annoying at all to say "angry white male..."

[pErvinalia]

Some people have already been convicted under this law in the UK (and some similar laws in Australia).

[Forty Two]

Society-wide, discrimination definitely flows one way.

That's an interesting allegation, but one that you would need to prove or substantiate. It's your position. It's not an undisputed fact, established as true. I believe discrimination flows both ways. On an individual level, a black person discriminates based on race if he or she treats people of other races differently because of their race. So, when black people boycott or rob a Korean grocery store, because they believe the Koreans are in a black neighborhood and the store should be run by black people (and this has happened from time-to-time), they are being racist and discriminatory.

Also, society-wide discrimination is not what Section 18c is directed at, by its terms. it is directed at individual acts or statements made that are considered offensive or insulting, or intimidating. It creates a crime based on what an individual says or does. So, even if society-wide discrimination only flows one way, the terms of the law do not only apply to society wide discrimination.

That, of course, also assumes we share the same definition of "society-wide discrimination," which I took to mean the usual progressive line about "systemic discrimination" as distinct from individual instances of discrimination. Systemic being that individuals are puttering around their day-to-day lives of living and working within the "system" and even where they have no intent or desire to discriminate, even where they themselves try not to discriminate, the overall "system" is discriminatory against certain groups.

it's that "systemic" or "society wide" discrimination that the progressive weirdos are talking about when they refer to "all white people are racist, all men are misogynistic, all cis people are transphobic," etc. -- people towing that line will even say that being a racist or homophobe or sexist or transphobe isn't really an insult and doesn't mean you're a bad person, because it's not the individual responsible -- it's the system.

The laws are aimed at that.

LOL. So you say. Again, that needs to be established. The text of the law criminalizes individual behavior of a person, not a group of people.

It certainly does lead to these seemingly hypocritical applications of the law (assuming the court throws out Lejyeholm's case).

The court is in a difficult situation there. If it honors the offense of Lejyeholm, then it's a free for all out there - everyone will claim offense to everything as a weapon against their opponents. And why not? Why should some groups get their feelings protected, but not other groups? Where is the "equality" in that? That's by definition unequal treatment under the law.

However, if they throw out the case, then the message will be that white men can go fuck themselves, and their feelings about what what offends them don't matter at all. That's the "I drink male tears" wing of the progressive douchebag movement winning the day. They will see that as a win, and a finger in the face of all the male wankstains and their "fee fees," right? But, what it actually does is cement a superiority of a race and gender. Men's fee fees don't matter, because you have to say a lot worse shit to a man to "reasonably" upset or offend them -- ie. men are tough and can take it; women can't - women need protection from the same kind of thing that a man is told he must take. And, black people - their "rage" at a racist comment is understandable -- the blacks, they can't take it. Whites, though. Well, whites have greater fortitude and can take it. Fuck their fee-fees. It just breeds an attitude of "fuck my fee fees, you say? No, how about fuck YOU."