Premier League 20/21

[GiveItToTheShooters]

No it isn't. The term is offensive to black people. The irony is that you use this offensive term while trying to portray yourself as some sort of racial progressive

I'm not talking about poppies. McClean has suffered racial abuse in the past, because he is Irish, but the double standard brigade that you are part of sees no issue, only because he isn't black.
Ill address poppies since you brought it up, you claim that it isnt racist to boo someone for not wearing a poppy, but it is racist to boo someone not taking the knee.
Now THAT is what's utterly ludicrous. Make your mind up
You pitchfork-wielding fake hysteria crowd don't get to adjudicate, and you only do it anyway to suit your own narrative.

You're talking complete ráiméis

Again, the term "people of colour" is a widely used and accepted term

It is used throughout public discourse including by people of racial and ethnic minorities

In your previous post you displayed that you didn't understand the difference between the term "people of colour" and the term "coloured", which is no longer considered an acceptable term, except in relation to the South African "coloured" people, who self-identify as such

This is spectacular ignorance of such basic terminology

Your continual invocation of McClean is ludicrous

You're using him purely as a prop to try and deflect away from a deeply racist narrative that refuses point blank to engage with what real victims of racism are saying

Stunning ignorance

No it isn't. Both are frowned upon.

Your continual disregarding of McClean is what is ludicrous.  Again the work of the double standard and fake outrage brigade. Calling a black man a black man is racist but call a white man anything you want and sure its grand.
That's the real ignorance, and the result of the woke pitchfork wielding hysterics that society is now at the behest of. It's like a radical new religion.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Also Give It To Shooters, you are explicitly calling all those who boo James McClean racist, while simultaneously claiming that it is wrong to say that those who booed the taking of the knee (which is a gesture in support of racial equality) are doing so because of racist motivations

That is an unsquareable circle

And again it's very ironic, considering you were talking about "double standards"

I'd say it's more a case of you getting things upside down, inside out

Not all abuse he gets is racist, some of it is, some is sectarian.
You don't know their reasoning, it could be regarding the BLM movement and the empty gestures and the ignoring of other issues. But to blindly label it as racism would be wide of the mark
Hope that clarifies for you.

The reasoning is self-evident

It is not an empty gesture, otherwise it would not meet such opposition

You still don't get it

McClean is not being abused because of the colour of his skin or his ethnicity or his religion

He is being abused because he took a stand which offends little Englanders, and because he is not shy about voicing political opinions which offend little Englanders

And you haven't dealt with your own double standards

You're all over the place and it is getting pitiful

Self evident in other words ill label anything i dont agree with as racism.
Again, im not talking about poppies. I'm talking about the racial aspect. The fact you can't address that in equal measure to the fake outrage surrounding the issue the other night speaks volumes. Again, only when it suits you and the double standard brigade.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

[sid waddell]

Sure by your own narrative McClean is a "snowflake"

That's certainly not me saying it - it's you!

In reality McClean has no relevance to this conversation

The only reason to reference him is to deflect from racism

The irony is McClean is being used as a prop to advance a nakedly racist, white supremacist narrative

You couldn't make this shit up

Racists are loud, they are persistent and they are impervious to reason, they're like anti-vaxxers

That's why discussions with them always end us as shitshows

Deeply, deeply depressing

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Sure by your own narrative McClean is a "snowflake"

That's certainly not me saying it - it's you!

In reality McClean has no relevance to this conversation

The only reason to reference him is to deflect from racism

The irony is McClean is being used as a prop to advance a nakedly racist, white supremacist narrative

You couldn't make this shit up

Deeply, deeply depressing

Racists are loud, they are persistent and they are impervious to reason, they're like anti-vaxxers

That's why discussions with them always end us as shitshows

Ill spell it out for you again..
I didn't say McClean was a snowflake.
He did have relevance. I pointed out the difference, or lack of, public outcry when comparing his racial abuse and the non-issue of a black man being called a black man, therefore highlighting the double standards and fake outrage.
It wasn't to deflect from racism either, as there was no actual racism.
What is depressing that this is the kind of culture you and your like are forcing on the rest of society, and subject them to public victimisation if they dont conform to the way the snowflake generation do things.

[sid waddell]

Also Give It To Shooters, you are explicitly calling all those who boo James McClean racist, while simultaneously claiming that it is wrong to say that those who booed the taking of the knee (which is a gesture in support of racial equality) are doing so because of racist motivations

That is an unsquareable circle

And again it's very ironic, considering you were talking about "double standards"

I'd say it's more a case of you getting things upside down, inside out

Not all abuse he gets is racist, some of it is, some is sectarian.
You don't know their reasoning, it could be regarding the BLM movement and the empty gestures and the ignoring of other issues. But to blindly label it as racism would be wide of the mark
Hope that clarifies for you.

The reasoning is self-evident

It is not an empty gesture, otherwise it would not meet such opposition

You still don't get it

McClean is not being abused because of the colour of his skin or his ethnicity or his religion

He is being abused because he took a stand which offends little Englanders, and because he is not shy about voicing political opinions which offend little Englanders

And you haven't dealt with your own double standards

You're all over the place and it is getting pitiful

Self evident in other words ill label anything i dont agree with as racism.
Again, im not talking about poppies. I'm talking about the racial aspect. The fact you can't address that in equal measure to the fake outrage surrounding the issue the other night speaks volumes. Again, only when it suits you and the double standard brigade.

I correctly call racism as such

You desperately search for things that are not actually racist and brand them racist - you are the very straw man you brand others as

And this is what has been happening for the last three pages, ad nauseum

The problem is that the internet allows eejits to have a lack of shame and construct a fantasy world within which they cocoon themselves

As a demonstration of how Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro and the anti-vaxx, Covid-denying movements have happened, your contributions here have been an object lesson

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Also Give It To Shooters, you are explicitly calling all those who boo James McClean racist, while simultaneously claiming that it is wrong to say that those who booed the taking of the knee (which is a gesture in support of racial equality) are doing so because of racist motivations

That is an unsquareable circle

And again it's very ironic, considering you were talking about "double standards"

I'd say it's more a case of you getting things upside down, inside out

Not all abuse he gets is racist, some of it is, some is sectarian.
You don't know their reasoning, it could be regarding the BLM movement and the empty gestures and the ignoring of other issues. But to blindly label it as racism would be wide of the mark
Hope that clarifies for you.

The reasoning is self-evident

It is not an empty gesture, otherwise it would not meet such opposition

You still don't get it

McClean is not being abused because of the colour of his skin or his ethnicity or his religion

He is being abused because he took a stand which offends little Englanders, and because he is not shy about voicing political opinions which offend little Englanders

And you haven't dealt with your own double standards

You're all over the place and it is getting pitiful

Self evident in other words ill label anything i dont agree with as racism.
Again, im not talking about poppies. I'm talking about the racial aspect. The fact you can't address that in equal measure to the fake outrage surrounding the issue the other night speaks volumes. Again, only when it suits you and the double standard brigade.

I correctly call racism as such

You desperately search for things that are not actually racist and brand them racist - you are the very straw man you brand others as

And this is what has been happening for the last three pages, ad nauseum

The problem is that the internet allows eejits to have a lack of shame and construct a fantasy world within which they cocoon themselves

As a demonstration of how Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro and the anti-vaxx, Covid-denying movements have happened, your contributions here have been an object lesson

And i correctly call it double standards and fake outrage.
And you are the very snowflake as you have showed again over the last 3 pages.
And yet again, with nothing credible to contribute, you bring up Trump and all the rest when someone doesnt conform to the woke pitchfork wielding hysterics
Like clockwork sid 

[J70]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

1. Yes you did. You said you dont tell anyone what they can and cant be offended by, then said that white people have no cause to be offended. Thats a contradiction.
2. And im pointing out the false outrage when someone is called black, that it automatically is racism just because the person is black, but nothing when its the other way round. And the fact that the snowflake generation are trying to re-write our vocabulary to dictate to us what we can and cant say.
3.You said im rejecting racism. I bolded it. So youre saying that what the linesman said was racist and im rejecting it.
4. Yea plenty. Read through your posts.

Ok thank god for that.

[J70]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

1. Yes you did. You said you dont tell anyone what they can and cant be offended by, then said that white people have no cause to be offended. Thats a contradiction.
2. And im pointing out the false outrage when someone is called black, that it automatically is racism just because the person is black, but nothing when its the other way round. And the fact that the snowflake generation are trying to re-write our vocabulary to dictate to us what we can and cant say.
3.You said im rejecting racism. I bolded it. So youre saying that what the linesman said was racist and im rejecting it.
4. Yea plenty. Read through your posts.

Ok thank god for that.

All right, one last, probably futile, time...

1. I specifically referred to RACISM. As in there no grounds for a white person, based on history, to consider they're being singled out in such a situation for reasons of racism.
2. Because there is no basis for it the other way around. There is no history of white people being oppressed. Why would a white person be sensitive to racial discrimination when its not something they have to deal with?
3. Makes no sense whatsoever. You're either stupid, or on the wind-up. Presumably the latter.
4. Uh-huh.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

1. Yes you did. You said you dont tell anyone what they can and cant be offended by, then said that white people have no cause to be offended. Thats a contradiction.
2. And im pointing out the false outrage when someone is called black, that it automatically is racism just because the person is black, but nothing when its the other way round. And the fact that the snowflake generation are trying to re-write our vocabulary to dictate to us what we can and cant say.
3.You said im rejecting racism. I bolded it. So youre saying that what the linesman said was racist and im rejecting it.
4. Yea plenty. Read through your posts.

Ok thank god for that.

All right, one last, probably futile, time...

1. I specifically referred to RACISM. As in there no grounds for a white person, based on history, to consider they're being singled out in such a situation for reasons of racism.
2. Because there is no basis for it the other way around. There is no history of white people being oppressed. Why would a white person be sensitive to racial discrimination when its not something they have to deal with?
3. Makes no sense whatsoever. You're either stupid, or on the wind-up. Presumably the latter.
4. Uh-huh.

You're back, that was quick.
1. I know. You don't get to decide what is racism for one side and not racism for the other. It's either racist for both sides, or it isn't. In this case, it wasn't racist. You wouldn't have your pitchforks out if a white man was called a white man in a group of black men. So this situation should be the same. But the views of society have been hijacked by the double standards brigade.
2.Yes there is. It's not one rule for one and no rule for the other. A white person would have to deal with it in a country of indigenous black people.
3. Makes perfect sense. You said im rejecting racism. Which means youre affirming that what the linesman said was racist, when i point out its not racism (because its not, he called a black man, a black man). Its nothing but the double standard brigade losing the run of themselves and being false outraged again.
4. We got there in the end.

[J70]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

1. Yes you did. You said you dont tell anyone what they can and cant be offended by, then said that white people have no cause to be offended. Thats a contradiction.
2. And im pointing out the false outrage when someone is called black, that it automatically is racism just because the person is black, but nothing when its the other way round. And the fact that the snowflake generation are trying to re-write our vocabulary to dictate to us what we can and cant say.
3.You said im rejecting racism. I bolded it. So youre saying that what the linesman said was racist and im rejecting it.
4. Yea plenty. Read through your posts.

Ok thank god for that.

All right, one last, probably futile, time...

1. I specifically referred to RACISM. As in there no grounds for a white person, based on history, to consider they're being singled out in such a situation for reasons of racism.
2. Because there is no basis for it the other way around. There is no history of white people being oppressed. Why would a white person be sensitive to racial discrimination when its not something they have to deal with?
3. Makes no sense whatsoever. You're either stupid, or on the wind-up. Presumably the latter.
4. Uh-huh.

You're back, that was quick.
1. I know. You don't get to decide what is racism for one side and not racism for the other. It's either racist for both sides, or it isn't. In this case, it wasn't racist. You wouldn't have your pitchforks out if a white man was called a white man in a group of black men. So this situation should be the same. But the views of society have been hijacked by the double standards brigade.
2.Yes there is. It's not one rule for one and no rule for the other. A white person would have to deal with it in a country of indigenous black people.
3. Makes perfect sense. You said im rejecting racism. Which means youre affirming that what the linesman said was racist, when i point out its not racism (because its not, he called a black man, a black man). Its nothing but the double standard brigade losing the run of themselves and being false outraged again.
4. We got there in the end.

1. I don't have "pitchforks" out for anyone. And historical context matters, whether you like it or not.
2. Which country is this where the black majority oppressed the white minority? Is it somewhere that would be represented in western society, from where a white person might originate and feel put upon due to his experience of racist policies and attitudes?
3. Its like talking to a wall. I said "You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said." The only reference to the linesman in that sentence is "prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said." You can oppose racism and not know about McClean, or think McClean is wrong, or just not know enough about Irish history to have an opinion either way. That's one part. Second part, stuff about McClean and reacting prematurely to the linesman incident. At no point in this "exchange" have I said the linesman was racist. On several occasions I said the whole thing looks to me like a misunderstanding.
4. Not really. If you had examples, you'd post them.

[sid waddell]

Well at least we know now that GiveItToTheShooters is to the issue of racism what Seaney and Angelo are to Covid and anti-vaxx and Seamus is to conspiracies by giant alien lizards

[GiveItToTheShooters]

1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.

The "whole population" "with their pitchforks out for the 4th official"?

The whole population of where? The whole population of some Twitter thread?

I didn't tell anyone what they can or cannot be offended by. I said that white people do not have cause to be offended for being singled out as white based on the history of racism like black people would. Lots of people feel they are victims for bullshit reasons. Look at the Republican base in the US. Doesn't mean it is justified or that there is a real double standard at play.

2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.

Pitchforks again.

The BBC's concerns about sensitivity are based on real historical facts. There WAS racist commentary and stereotyping of black players. As with any issue like this, the solutions are not always neat and cut and dried. Cultural evolution can be clumsy or over-cautious; there's no manual to refer to. Most people are happy to let it play out. Others wine about political correctness or, in the example of a former member here, not being allowed to use the "n" word when some black people use it themselves.

3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.

We're going around in circles. The vast majority of people probably aren't even aware of McClean, his protest and the abuse he gets. Wider society just doesn't seem to care that much. Neither, according to him, do his Irish teammates. Most people in the south have, rightly or wrongly, moved on from the Troubles; so have most of the English. We're mostly all friends now. McClean is protesting something that mostly happened 30-50 years ago (in a clumsy, self-sabotaging manner, at times), whereas racism against black people is still a "here and now" problem. One person and his relatively parochial cause against a worldwide issue.

4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.

Again, on the words themselves, so what?

On the supposed pile-on for those who do use those words, any chance of examples of this victimization?

1. You claim again that you dont get to decide what people get offended by, then proceed to say white people have no reason to be offended. Make your mind up. That is double standards.
2. I'm talking about the phrases they have banned. This is the work of snowflakes getting fake outraged.
3. That's irrelevant. Doesn't make the abuse he gets ok. Calling a black man a black man is deemed racist but mcclean being called an Irish (insert whatever slur you want) is not deemed racist or discriminatory. And therein lies the fake outrage.
4. Yes, the snowflake generation publicly victimising and attacking people who dont use this new "progressive" vocabulary. Therefore doing more harm to the issue than good.

1. I said no reason based on the history of racism. You even bolded it FFS.
2. You're the only one here getting outraged. Most people are happy to go along with it.
3. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said.
4. No examples then?

1. I bolded it because you contradicted yourself, in the very next sentence.
2. I'm not outraged, im pointing out that this is the path we're now going down thanks to snowflakes, that even calling a black man black is racist. But not the other way round. Thus creating a culture of double standards.
3.What's so hard to understand? What the linesman said wasnt racist. You're now trying to deny the double standards, while affirming what the linesman said was racist. This is the culture we're now finding ourselves in.
4. Aye plenty. Look through your own posts. Any debates that snowflakes would get their knickers in a twist over, you have done so, and youre doing again now.

1. I looked, and no, I did not.
2. Yet every day black people are called black without incident. I've already said I reckon this was a misunderstanding on the part of the player/coach. There's always idiots on Twitter or wherever no matter what the issue. Most of us seem to carry on regardless.
3. Where did I say the linesman was racist? Is there something in the next sentence "prematurely losing your shit over what the linesman said" that is incomprehensible to you? And still it has nothing to do with McClean.
4. So no examples.

I'm done.

1. Yes you did. You said you dont tell anyone what they can and cant be offended by, then said that white people have no cause to be offended. Thats a contradiction.
2. And im pointing out the false outrage when someone is called black, that it automatically is racism just because the person is black, but nothing when its the other way round. And the fact that the snowflake generation are trying to re-write our vocabulary to dictate to us what we can and cant say.
3.You said im rejecting racism. I bolded it. So youre saying that what the linesman said was racist and im rejecting it.
4. Yea plenty. Read through your posts.

Ok thank god for that.

All right, one last, probably futile, time...

1. I specifically referred to RACISM. As in there no grounds for a white person, based on history, to consider they're being singled out in such a situation for reasons of racism.
2. Because there is no basis for it the other way around. There is no history of white people being oppressed. Why would a white person be sensitive to racial discrimination when its not something they have to deal with?
3. Makes no sense whatsoever. You're either stupid, or on the wind-up. Presumably the latter.
4. Uh-huh.

You're back, that was quick.
1. I know. You don't get to decide what is racism for one side and not racism for the other. It's either racist for both sides, or it isn't. In this case, it wasn't racist. You wouldn't have your pitchforks out if a white man was called a white man in a group of black men. So this situation should be the same. But the views of society have been hijacked by the double standards brigade.
2.Yes there is. It's not one rule for one and no rule for the other. A white person would have to deal with it in a country of indigenous black people.
3. Makes perfect sense. You said im rejecting racism. Which means youre affirming that what the linesman said was racist, when i point out its not racism (because its not, he called a black man, a black man). Its nothing but the double standard brigade losing the run of themselves and being false outraged again.
4. We got there in the end.

1. I don't have "pitchforks" out for anyone. And historical context matters, whether you like it or not.
2. Which country is this where the black majority oppressed the white minority? Is it somewhere that would be represented in western society, from where a white person might originate and feel put upon due to his experience of racist policies and attitudes?
3. Its like talking to a wall. I said "You can give zero fucks about James McClean, probably because you don't even know about him, while still rejecting racism or even prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said." The only reference to the linesman in that sentence is "prematurely losing your shit over what that linesman said." You can oppose racism and not know about McClean, or think McClean is wrong, or just not know enough about Irish history to have an opinion either way. That's one part. Second part, stuff about McClean and reacting prematurely to the linesman incident. At no point in this "exchange" have I said the linesman was racist. On several occasions I said the whole thing looks to me like a misunderstanding.
4. Not really. If you had examples, you'd post them.

1. And you dont get to decide what is racist for one side and not racist for another, then proceed to contradict yourself and tell people racism against white people isnt a thing, whether you like it or not.
2. Zimbabwe for example, or most countries in Africa where white people would be subjected to racism.  And no ones mentioning oppression, but general racism.  Its not representative of western society because it not western, its black Africa.
3. Youve said a load of waffle there to say absolutely nothing in the end. Probably don't know about him No sure ive only been highlighting the racism he faces all day. Ill spell it out for you again. You said im rejecting racism, by you saying that means you feel it was racism, but ive pointed out that it wasnt and showed why the double standard brigade that you are part of seems to think it is.
4. Plenty. Issues particularly relating to the language the snowflake generation are forcing upon us. I've actually called you out on it before, because you seem to get all triggered when someone dare go against issues or use terminology that the snowflake generation would get their pitchforks out at.
On a more wider note, god help anyone that gives a opinion that the snowflake generation havent approved and made the societal norm on the likes of sexism and lgbt rights etc. You have been THAT snowflake on the board regarding such issues like this.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Well at least we know now that GiveItToTheShooters is to the issue of racism what Seaney and Angelo are to Covid and anti-vaxx and Seamus is to conspiracies by giant alien lizards

Sure we all know what you're like at this stage. Anybody has an opinion that doesnt conform to the pitchfork wielding liberal elite crowd that you form part of and you start yapping about trump and right wingers etc