PC brigade trying to trash British legends

[Brillopad]

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/959976/Piers-Morgan-Afua-Hirsch-Winston-Churchill-tv-GMB-clash

With Morgan on this. No-one is perfect, including her, but Churchill did a great service to this country. Petty PC gripes about a man no longer here to defend himself from those wanting to make a big deal about them can bu**er off. She is just trying to undermine traditional British history and its legends to fit her own PC agenda. Transparent as glass!

[Nicky91]

Churchill was a great PM (during some tough times in WW2)

[Mystic Mock]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

[Nicky91]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

i didn't know this, i only have respect for him cause of his achievements during WWII

[arista]

Yes writer Afua Hirsch
has been on about the Bad sides of Churchill
for a long time.
the problem is way back then was nothing like today.

[Mystic Mock]

i didn't know this, i only have respect for him cause of his achievements during WWII

Tbf he had his views of his time, he wasn't the only one to have his racist views and he certainly won't be the last.

I actually agree with Afua that the good and the bad points of Winston Churchill are more interesting to talk about than trying to make him a holy figure that can't be debated about on his negative sides.

[Brillopad]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

Times were different then and this woman is using it to try to undermine traditional ‘white’ Britain for PC gain. It’s weak and it’s cheap - rather like her. :rolleyes:

[Nicky91]

Tbf he had his views of his time, he wasn't the only one to have his racist views and he certainly won't be the last.

I actually agree with Afua that the good and the bad points of Winston Churchill are more interesting to talk about than trying to make him a holy figure that can't be debated about on his negative sides.

of course, negative things are usually most interesting to talk about, criticizing people, alive or dead


Geert Wilders also has his racist views, towards any non-dutch person living in my country (even though his own wife is Hungarian :joker: :joker: )

[jaxie]

I think it's difficult to judge historical figures by the standards of today because living in those times were different, beliefs and upbringing was different. If you are raised to see the world a certain way then that is what you will do. People were men and women of their times. What we can do is compare Churchill most favourably when you look at Hitler.

[kirklancaster]

Times were different then and this woman is using it to try to undermine traditional ‘white’ Britain for PC gain. It’s weak and it’s cheap - rather like her. :rolleyes:

Just another MONEY GRUBBING fake seizing an opportunity to promote her book.

[user104658]

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe :shrug:.

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

[Nicky91]

Just another MONEY GRUBBING fake seizing an opportunity to promote her book.

YcXMhwF4EtQ

[bots]

measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

Correct. Times change, the world moves on. What people seem to forget is that without Churchill, people wouldn't be able hold and express the views they do so freely today.

[Kazanne]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

I don't know Mock,was he? even so I think it was more likely to be racist back in the day , back then Britain was a very proud nation and weren't we predominantly English ,I don't know much about it all so am probably wrong but from what I have seen and heard times have changed a lot regarding peoples views from the Churchill days.

[Twosugars]

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe :shrug:.

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

TS read my mind and expressed it better than I could so
This^^

[Oliver_W]

Discrediting his achievements because he had dodgy views is just stupid. I think nearly everyone acknowledges he held those views, but it's pointless to trash his legacy because of them. Why was that woman even given airtime?

[smudgie]

He was a white supremacist but not a hostile one; basically he believed that white people were literally intellectually superior genetically and should therefore be in charge... but he wasn't hateful of other races. It's a complicated one, like people say, very much a product of his time and this is what he was educated to believe :shrug:.

People will say it doesn't matter what "the times" were but it sort of does... it's a totally different situation today where everyone KNOWS that there are no significant biological differences between races other than skin colour and other physical features, and to believe that one is "superior" one has to be actively ignoring the abundant available evidence and choosing to be a supremacist.

There was a thread about this recently though I think.

My stance hasn't really changed; measuring historical figures by modern ethical standards is daft and pointless.

Couldn’t put it better.
Agree with everything in this post.

[Tom4784]

He probably was a racist, it was more acceptable back then. I don't think ignoring that aspect and saying it's 'besmirching' Churchill's legacy is a very healthy attitude to take. Most historical 'heroes' are far from perfect and it's important to remember that.

It's quite a PC attitude to try to protect historical figures from criticism for fear of causing offense. No one is above criticism.

[Nicky91]

He probably was a racist, it was more acceptable back then. I don't think ignoring that aspect and saying it's 'besmirching' Churchill's legacy is a very healthy attitude to take. Most historical 'heroes' are far from perfect and it's important to remember that.

It's quite a PC attitude to try to protect historical figures from criticism for fear of causing offense. No one is above criticism.

true, but a hero like Churchill has done great unforgettable things in WWII

[Tom4784]

He was a human like anyone else, I don't think the darker aspects of his character should be wiped away for the sake of his achievements because they were a part of who he was. Most figures like Churchill operated in shades of grey and I think it's rewriting history to ignore the parts that might 'besmirch' his legacy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"i think that a fundamental British value is integrity and intellectual curiosity"


what is a British value, who decides on them and who decides what they are?

What is integrity?

What is intellectual curiosity, define intellectual?


"i cant understand why the British nation in 2018 are comfortable with a Propagandist version 0f history"

who is comfortable?

what is a Propagandist version 0f history?

---------------

This awful woman is literally making up here own facts and data to hang her massive shoulder chip on

just vile

:bored:

[Twosugars]

Don't see a problem telling things as they were, after all, hiding them would be worse and those reading original sources would discover them anyway,
but need to put a disclaimer that his was a prevalent attitude at the time.
No point in trying to whitewash things though.
He overindulged in alcohol, used drugs, suffered from depression etc, that doesn't dimish him, just makes him human.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

[Nicky91]

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar37810_1186.gif

[Twosugars]

http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar37810_1186.gif

Nicky is dragging LT :hehe:

[Northern Monkey]

I knew who it was going to be before i even clicked.
She was calling out for our historical statues to be torn down the other month.
I’ve seen her on a couple of things.She basically takes the anti British view on any topic.
(And she said she’s got a book coming out so she’s trying to get attention).

[Brillopad]

I knew who it was going to be before i even clicked.
She was calling out for our historical statues to be torn down the other month.
I’ve seen her on a couple of things.She basically takes the anti British view on any topic.
(And she said she’s got a book coming out so she’s trying to get attention).

Silly c*w - who does she think she is. She has no right to try to destroy our history or it’s legends whatever SHE thinks of them. A loud mouth control freak using PC to to get her own way and endorse that massive chip on her shoulder. History is history and cannot be changed by tearing down statues - it does not dictate the future, and neither does she. Neither does she dictate the rights and wrongs of the past.

The day she can prove to the world she is PERFECT is the day anyone should even consider taking her seriously on this - and on many other issues I suspect.

[Oliver_W]

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

This, pretty much.

[Redway]

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.

[Underscore]

Why was that woman even given airtime?

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

[Alf]

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.It's true that, Nelson Mandela was a massive one.

[Oliver_W]

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

[Underscore]

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

[Alf]

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PCShe shouldn't be censored, but she should be ridiculed and insulted. That's free speech.

[Oliver_W]

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

Churchill existed, and did good and bad things, mostly good. He deserves his place in history, despite the bad. Does she want History lessons to include "and let's not forget, Churchill was a naaaaasty racist!!1" or something? It's pointless because there's nothing worth changing. Like I said upthread, most people acknowledge Churchill had views of his time.

[Brillopad]

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

SHe would be getting a taste of her own medicine then wouldn’t she! Karma - isn’t’ it great!

[Tom4784]

SHe would be getting a taste of her own medicine then wouldn’t she! Karma - isn’t’ it great!

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

[Underscore]

Churchill existed, and did good and bad things, mostly good. He deserves his place in history, despite the bad. Does she want History lessons to include "and let's not forget, Churchill was a naaaaasty racist!!1" or something? It's pointless because there's nothing worth changing. Like I said upthread, most people acknowledge Churchill had views of his time.

I never got taught in school the criticisms of Churchill - quite the opposite.

Students should be taught a balanced view of Churchill. He had his good points and he had his bad points. End of story.

[Underscore]

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

:hehe:

[Brillopad]

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

Yeah it’s bad - isn’t that the point! Those on the left can’t just dish it out and then whine when it gets directed back at them. People are being censored and labelled by the PC brigade endlessly so if she now feels censored herself - I for one won’t be crying about it.

[Tom4784]

People are more than their achievements, we shouldn't aim to silence someone because they are speaking hard truths about someone that history considers a hero. Pretty much every 'Hero' in history is deeply flawed and operated in a shade of grey, to ignore that for the sake of their legacies is revisionist history at it's best.

Churchil did a lot for the country, he was also a bastard and, like many people at the time, he had views that would be considered racist today. I don't see the issue with talking about the more problematic aspects of his life for it's a part of who he was.

[Brillopad]

I never got taught in school the criticisms of Churchill - quite the opposite.

Students should be taught a balanced view of Churchill. He had his good points and he had his bad points. End of story.

Everything has its good and bad points - including PC. I would imagine just about every person in history and everyone living today has their good points and bad points.

So should only certain historical figures that largely did good be singled out for such treatment by some PC troublemaker with an agenda! Definitely not!

[AnnieK]

To be honest, it would be good to see the "bad" side of Churchill and many others of his time to show the "good" that came of WWII and being able to become more progressive as a nation and embrace other ethnicities. Times were different then no doubt about it and we should now be able to celebrate how much further we have come to become more tolerant of others by showing the attitudes of the times back then.

[Nicky91]

i also have my good and bad points, everyone has their good and bad points as Brillo pointed out

i tend to look at the good points more, cause i don't like criticism or talking negatively about other people, i find that rude


Churchill's good points rise above his bad points, i don't want him to go from hero to villain, and then all his actions during WWII to be just forgotten

[Brillopad]

People are more than their achievements, we shouldn't aim to silence someone because they are speaking hard truths about someone that history considers a hero. Pretty much every 'Hero' in history is deeply flawed and operated in a shade of grey, to ignore that for the sake of their legacies is revisionist history at it's best.

Churchil did a lot for the country, he was also a bastard and, like many people at the time, he had views that would be considered racist today. I don't see the issue with talking about the more problematic aspects of his life for it's a part of who he was.

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

[Nicky91]

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

any attention is good for the book sales, positive or negative attention ;)

[Oliver_W]

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

While plenty of people do believe the "racism=power+privilege, only white people can be racist" rubbish, I don't think she was arguing that. Saying "a man from the last century is racist" isn't the same as saying "all white people are racist".

[Withano]

He wasn't a good man. People are allowed that opinion.

Christ. You'd be the first to cry freedom of speech, yet you're here saying people aren't allowed an opinion on a president haha.

[bots]

He was a privileged politician. How many of them have we had through history without fault. Indeed, how many politicians have we had without fault full stop :laugh:

He won the war, he was the right man for the task at that time. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Beso]

At the time he spoke the truth.

[Oliver_W]

He wasn't a good man. People are allowed that opinion.

Christ. You'd be the first to cry freedom of speech, yet you're here saying people aren't allowed an opinion on a president haha.
Not President Churchill!

At the time he spoke the truth.
No he didn't. Just because those views were practically a consensus, it doesn't mean they were the truth.

[Brillopad]

He wasn't a good man. People are allowed that opinion.

Christ. You'd be the first to cry freedom of speech, yet you're here saying people aren't allowed an opinion on a president haha.

He wasn’t a bad one either! :rolleyes:

[Withano]

He wasn’t a bad one either! :rolleyes:

Some might say that.. they are entitled to say that.. Just didn’t realise you were so against freedom of speech brillo.

[Brillopad]

Some might say that.. they are entitled to say that.. Just didn’t realise you were so against freedom of speech brillo.

Well it is likely neither of us would be able to enjoy free speech without him and his efforts. Never wise to bite the hand that feeds you so to speak.

[Withano]

Well it is likely neither of us would be able to enjoy free speech without him and his efforts. Never wise to bite the hand that feeds you so to speak.

....you’re trying to limit free speech though?... shes either not allowed to say bad stuff about this historical figure because free speech doesnt matter... or she is allowed to say what she likes because free speech does matter, and your thread is silly?

[kirklancaster]

Not President Churchill!


No he didn't. Just because those views were practically a consensus, it doesn't mean they were the truth.

:laugh2:

[Brillopad]

....you’re trying to limit free speech though?... shes either not allowed to say bad stuff about this historical figure because free speech doesnt matter... or she is allowed to say what she likes because free speech does matter, and your thread is silly?

She can say what she likes - what she can’t do is re-write history by pulling down status and trying to enforce her views on others.

[Withano]

She can say what she likes - what she can’t do is re-write history by pulling down status and trying to enforce her views on others.

Firstly, this is a complete 180 from the points you brought up in your OP
Secondly, why, are you not trying to enforce your views on tibb readers? Whats the difference apart from the size of your platform?

I think you need to think about why youre angry. The answer is, she thinks differently to you... thats okay brillo, we dont all have to think the same..

[Marsh.]

More fool her and any others for thinking heroes or historical figures need to be 100% perfect anyway.

They're remembered for the good they did/the things they achieved. To suggest his character flaws should somehow take those away from him is quite pathetic.

Maybe focus on modern day racism and those that are... you know, still alive and, in some cases, still ruling countries.

[Alf]

....you’re trying to limit free speech though?... shes either not allowed to say bad stuff about this historical figure because free speech doesnt matter... or she is allowed to say what she likes because free speech does matter, and your thread is silly?Which one of those two statements do you believe in?

[Withano]

Which one of those two statements do you believe in?

...the second, obviously. She can say what she likes idc. Makes no real difference to me, or anybody else.

[montblanc]

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

[bots]

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

if someone wants to make a point, it's never a smart move to target someone who is universally respected for what he achieved.

[Brillopad]

...the second, obviously. She can say what she likes idc. Makes no real difference to me, or anybody else.

Some people, especially those of the 2nd world war generation and those that understand his achievements for all of us, are likely to be offended by her words, so it matters to them. So she has no more right to openly offend people then others have to openly offend her.

[montblanc]

if someone wants to make a point, it's never a smart move to target someone who is universally respected for what he achieved.

can you explain this please?

[Alf]

...the second, obviously. She can say what she likes idc. Makes no real difference to me, or anybody else.Does it make a difference to people who worship Churchill like a God or a British person who feels insulted by their war-time leader being insulted?

What I'm saying is, why is Tommy Robinson so wrong for criticising Islam? Isn't this lady just doing the same as Tommy, stirring up hate?

[Oliver_W]

can you explain this please?

Isn't it kind of obvious? Another way to put it would be even if she had a good point, it would be better made if she didn't aim it at someone with as much respect as Churchill.
Criticizing Churchill will make some just automatically dismiss whatever's being said. If she wanted to be listened to, she should have spoke about some more neutrally regarded.

[Withano]

Does it make a difference to people who worship Churchill like a God or a British person who feels insulted by their war-time leader being insulted?

What I'm saying is, why is Tommy Robinson so wrong for criticising Islam? Isn't this lady just doing the same as Tommy, stirring up hate?

Depends if you think Churchill and religion is the exact same thing I suppose.

[Brillopad]

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

He is not anything as he is no longer here. But he left his mark and played a considerable part in giving us all the freedoms we have today. At the time he and most people believed their views to be right.

On the same note none of us have any reason to respect her.

[Oliver_W]

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

He was also homophobic, but I respect him and his achievements.

[Kazanne]

Does it make a difference to people who worship Churchill like a God or a British person who feels insulted by their war-time leader being insulted?

What I'm saying is, why is Tommy Robinson so wrong for criticising Islam? Isn't this lady just doing the same as Tommy, stirring up hate?

Good point Alf,it's kinda like Mandela some hail him as a hero,others say he was a terrorist,all of us have a dark side, This woman just has a huge chip on her shoulder.

[montblanc]

He was also homophobic, but I respect him and his achievements.

understandable but you can't expect her to

[montblanc]

He is not anything as he is no longer here. But he left his mark and played a considerable part in giving us all the freedoms we have today. At the time he and most people believed their views to be right.

On the same note none of us have any reason to respect her.

*he WAS a racist, then

[bots]

*he WAS a racist, then

he wasn't when measured against the time he lived in.

If a law is introduced in the year 2000 and someone lived in the 1800's they are not subject to the law introduced in 2000 and can't be measured against it. If that law was in place during his lifetime he may have been a completely different person.

[Brillopad]

*he WAS a racist, then

Where did I say that - he was not.

[montblanc]

he wasn't when measured against the time he lived in.

If a law is introduced in the year 2000 and someone lived in the 1800's they are not subject to the law introduced in 2000 and can't be measured against it. If that law was in place during his lifetime he may have been a completely different person.

racism and law are two separate things so i don't think that's the best comparison?

it doesn't matter what time it was, he was still a racist

[montblanc]

Where did I say that - he was not.

"he is not anything as he is no longer here"

?

[Brillopad]

Good point Alf,it's kinda like Mandela some hail him as a hero,others say he was a terrorist,all of us have a dark side, This woman just has a huge chip on her shoulder.

She does. I think as she is well educated and a high achiever she thinks how dare anyone look down on her. It is very much about her.

[bots]

racism and law are two separate things so i don't think that's the best comparison?

it doesn't matter what time it was, he was still a racist

that's not true, as racism wasn't a defined thing, and one cant say someone is doing right or wrong unless there is a law in place to back it up.

[montblanc]

that's not true, as racism wasn't a defined thing, and one cant say someone is doing right or wrong unless there is a law in place to back it up.

scientific racism was invented in the 1600s

racism was VERY much alive during churchill's time

[Alf]

Depends if you think Churchill and religion is the exact same thing I suppose.Well I think everyone and everything should be open to criticism. How about you?

[montblanc]

and contrary to popular belief, not EVERYONE during that time was racist

many people knew racism was a problem

[Brillopad]

"he is not anything as he is no longer here"

?

His views weren’t considered racist then and were the norm. In 50 years time attempting to police peoples’ thoughts by the PC brigade may be considered a hate crime.

[Kazanne]

that's not true, as racism wasn't a defined thing, and one cant say someone is doing right or wrong unless there is a law in place to back it up.

That's right if some of the people here were to go back in time say early 30s 40s they would be shocked at how the world was then . Things change hopefully for the better,but not always.

[Brillopad]

scientific racism was invented in the 1600s

racism was VERY much alive during churchill's time

You want to control peoples’ thoughts do you?

[montblanc]

You want to control peoples’ thoughts do you?

huh? i was simply responding to bitontheslides' comment that racism wasn't a defined thing during churchill's time

i'm confused as to how i'm trying to control peoples' thoughts

[Oliver_W]

that's not true, as racism wasn't a defined thing, and one cant say someone is doing right or wrong unless there is a law in place to back it up.

It doesn't matter if it was a defined thing at the time, we can apply current labels to past people.

[Brillopad]

It doesn't matter if it was a defined thing at the time, we can apply current labels to past people.

People can try - but it would have no legitimacy. It would just make some people feel better. I actually find that quite sad.

[Brillopad]

huh? i was simply responding to bitontheslides' comment that racism wasn't a defined thing during churchill's time

i'm confused as to how i'm trying to control peoples' thoughts

It wasn’t considered a crime then and was a common belief. You can’t apply the rules of today to people of the past. It is just vindictive and controlling rubbish with the thought police doing their worst.

[montblanc]

It wasn’t considered a crime then and was a common belief. You can’t apply the rules of today to people of the past. It is just vindictive and controlling rubbish with the thought police doing their worst.

racism isn't even considered a crime today

and saying that racism wasn't a thing during churchill's time is incorrect

[montblanc]

yes, racism was more of a common belief back then than it is now but Mit wasn't a non-entity like some are you are trying to make out

race and racism were created decades before churchill's time and many non-black people during that time were not racists

[Crimson Dynamo]

nawt people trying to defend this to be contrary

:joker:

[montblanc]

nawt people trying to say that racism wasn't a thing during the WWII

:joker:

[Brillopad]

racism isn't even considered a crime today

and saying that racism wasn't a thing during churchill's time is incorrect

I believe it is considered a hate crime.

Depends what you mean by a thing - it was not in the way it is now because the majority of people thought that way. Also over-controlling PC is considered a thing by many today so do you accept it as wrong?

[montblanc]

I believe it is considered a hate crime.

Depends what you mean by a thing - it was not in the way it is now because the majority of people thought that way. Also over-controlling PC is considered a thing by many today so do you accept it as wrong?

racism ITSELF isn't considered a crime

and it doesn't depend on anything. racism was alive during WWII and many people acknowledged that. like i stated before, racism has been a 'thing' since the 1600s

[montblanc]

and don't imply that 'over-controlling PC' is the same as racism

[Brillopad]

and don't imply that 'over-controlling PC' is the same as racism

It is as it is trying to force your opinions onto others. It is over-bearing and dictorial and has no place in modern society. And as to what is considered racism is often down to someone’s perception rather than cold hard facts.

[RileyH]

what is this

[montblanc]

It is as it is trying to force your opinions onto others. It is over-bearing and dictorial and has no place in modern society. And as to what is considered racism is often down to someone’s perception rather than cold hard facts.

racism isn't about forcing your opinions on someone though :skull: it's HATRED

and i don't understand how it is down to someone's perception

[Brillopad]

racism isn't about forcing your opinions on someone though :skull: it's HATRED

and i don't understand how it is down to someone's perception

There are many occasions where people throw that allegation around incorrectly because they perceive an innocent comment as ‘racist’.

Just because someone makes such an allegation does not necessarily make it true. To think every single allegation made is based on cold hard facts is either naive or completely biased and agenda-based.

[montblanc]

There are many occasions where people throw that allegation around incorrectly because they perceive an innocent comment as ‘racist’.

Just because someone makes such an allegation does not necessarily make it true. To think every single allegation made is based on cold hard facts is either naive or completely biased and agenda-based.

surely you can't class the actual definition of racism as subjective because of 'false allegations'

[Brillopad]

surely you can't class the actual definition of racism as subjective because of 'false allegations'

I think it is over-played.

[montblanc]

I think it is over-played.

racism is 'over-played' :skull:

welp

[Brillopad]

racism is 'over-played' :skull:

welp

As I said - innocent comments get twisted to suit agendas. Some people do have a tendency to throw the word around quite loosely which at the end of the day undermines its meaning.

[montblanc]

As I said - innocent comments get twisted to suit agendas.

i'm not twisting anything you pretty much just said that racism is overplayed :skull:

unless i'm missing something?