[Politics] Brexit

LlcoolJ said:

No darling. Unrelenting meaning your posts in general. All you ever do is make a tit of yourself. But you carry on. "Snowflake" oh dear.... Try your other kiddie insults "soyboy" and "cuck" for the full house of saddo term bingo.

The state of it. LOLZ.

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Dear lord, stop wetting the bed, its embarrassing........use the ignore button if it gets you this angry and triggered.

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

Who's angry? I'm just laughing at how pathetic you are sweetheart.

"Wetting the bed" "triggered". You only know how to converse in teenage internet dialect. Maybe try the real world for a bit. It might assist your attempts to converse with people online.

Night night. X

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

Funny that, cos most Gammons would go red in the face saying loudly that this piece was "Political correctness gone mad!"

Click to expand...

rigton70 said:

Do you eat gammon.

Click to expand...

WATFORD zero said:

Yes, that would be a start









And, with that, it's over and out from planet earth

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Going off on a bit of a tangent in here…….but anyway this author believes Gammon in the context you are using is a racial slur against whites and hate-speech. Feel free to contact her not me that she is wrong about people like you.



There is a new term of abuse in politics: a “gammon”. It refers to a middle-aged white man of a certain political persuasion. He is a Brexiteer. He is ugly. He is a conservative. He may wear hideous trousers. And, because he is a Brexiteer and so very ugly and a conservative who may wear hideous trousers, why not call him a gammon? Particularly if you are in politics to have fun, rather than to change minds.
The term is stupid – all name-calling is. Good politics is made of ideas and coalitions and compromises. It’s hard to do, of course, it requires patience and humility, not shouting and grandstanding and undiagnosed malignant narcissism. But calling someone a gammon is not only a stupid waste of a two-syllable word, and meal. It is also, to steal leftist language, hate speech. There seems to be an idea, most recently spoken by Owen Jones, that when the left says something – whatever it is – it is not, and never can be, hate speech. So, let me – as a Jew, shall we say? – explain why it is.
Gammon is pig. And who eats pig? Not Jews and not Muslims. Christians eat pork, white and black. But gammon refers to whites only – to white Christians, then. So now white Christians have their own personal term of abuse, courtesy of the new left. Thank you. For what exactly? For making political discourse cheaper and more disgusting every day? For alienating potential allies in the battle against austerity? For making racial and religious slurs a little more acceptable, while all the time claiming to loathe them, which is, if you have no self-awareness allow me to make you aware of it, hypocrisy? For making floating voters think that socialists are screaming, useless kids who will tear down a world and forget to build another one for name-calling on Twitter? For behaving just as you say your enemies do?
I’m sure the term didn’t begin as a racist slur. It was, as it so often is, a writer trying to be funny.
No one is sure who said it first – they are hardly fighting over it. Dickens used it, but he died before Twitter, and I am happy for him. The journalist Caitlin Moran compared David Cameron to ham and I can see her point. (She didn’t call him “ham”.) The comic Nish Kumarhas said “gammon”, as has the writer Ben Davis, who has since written an article apologising for it. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it is the discourse of the sewer. It’s like calling a Jew a k**e or mocking African Americans for eating fried chicken. It’s like calling poor white Americans trailer trash. So much of this sounds like American culture wars transported, horribly and no doubt eternally, to England. It reeks of class snobbery too; no wonder it is popular with the socialist bourgeoisie who, like Citizen Kane, talk about the people as if they own them.
Much of this racism is oblivious, of course, but most racism is oblivious. It isn’t all shooting people in the face. To do that, you must first dehumanise them. And I can’t really think of a better modern example of dehumanisation than comparing your fellow voter to a pig because you don’t like his politics. For saying this, I will be called a Tory and worse. I’m not. I’m Labour. Compute that, comrades.
Tanya Gold
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-gammon-mean

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Going off on a bit of a tangent in here…….but anyway this author believes Gammon in the context you are using is a racial slur against whites and hate-speech. Feel free to contact her not me that she is wrong about people like you.



There is a new term of abuse in politics: a “gammon”. It refers to a middle-aged white man of a certain political persuasion. He is a Brexiteer. He is ugly. He is a conservative. He may wear hideous trousers. And, because he is a Brexiteer and so very ugly and a conservative who may wear hideous trousers, why not call him a gammon? Particularly if you are in politics to have fun, rather than to change minds.
The term is stupid – all name-calling is. Good politics is made of ideas and coalitions and compromises. It’s hard to do, of course, it requires patience and humility, not shouting and grandstanding and undiagnosed malignant narcissism. But calling someone a gammon is not only a stupid waste of a two-syllable word, and meal. It is also, to steal leftist language, hate speech. There seems to be an idea, most recently spoken by Owen Jones, that when the left says something – whatever it is – it is not, and never can be, hate speech. So, let me – as a Jew, shall we say? – explain why it is.
Gammon is pig. And who eats pig? Not Jews and not Muslims. Christians eat pork, white and black. But gammon refers to whites only – to white Christians, then. So now white Christians have their own personal term of abuse, courtesy of the new left. Thank you. For what exactly? For making political discourse cheaper and more disgusting every day? For alienating potential allies in the battle against austerity? For making racial and religious slurs a little more acceptable, while all the time claiming to loathe them, which is, if you have no self-awareness allow me to make you aware of it, hypocrisy? For making floating voters think that socialists are screaming, useless kids who will tear down a world and forget to build another one for name-calling on Twitter? For behaving just as you say your enemies do?
I’m sure the term didn’t begin as a racist slur. It was, as it so often is, a writer trying to be funny.
No one is sure who said it first – they are hardly fighting over it. Dickens used it, but he died before Twitter, and I am happy for him. The journalist Caitlin Moran compared David Cameron to ham and I can see her point. (She didn’t call him “ham”.) The comic Nish Kumarhas said “gammon”, as has the writer Ben Davis, who has since written an article apologising for it. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it is the discourse of the sewer. It’s like calling a Jew a k**e or mocking African Americans for eating fried chicken. It’s like calling poor white Americans trailer trash. So much of this sounds like American culture wars transported, horribly and no doubt eternally, to England. It reeks of class snobbery too; no wonder it is popular with the socialist bourgeoisie who, like Citizen Kane, talk about the people as if they own them.
Much of this racism is oblivious, of course, but most racism is oblivious. It isn’t all shooting people in the face. To do that, you must first dehumanise them. And I can’t really think of a better modern example of dehumanisation than comparing your fellow voter to a pig because you don’t like his politics. For saying this, I will be called a Tory and worse. I’m not. I’m Labour. Compute that, comrades.
Tanya Gold
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-gammon-mean

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

Aside from the corrupt money and cover up stopping investigations of Aaron Banks. It will all come out in the wash eventually.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Hopefully this thread will get merged with the main Brexit thread. Or maybe the mods can remove the posting rights of those who are banned from the main thread?

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

It is not. We can rescinded or extended the date.

Click to expand...

Westdene Seagull said:

Not without an act of Parliament we can't.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

[MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION]
[MENTION=3566]hans kraay fan club[/MENTION]
[MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION]

Can this thread now be merged with the main Brexit thread please?

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Not necessarily true. In fact clarity on this very matter is being sought as I type.

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

Very sensible I’m sure, of course it would be nice if the Mods could explain why those who are banned from the main thread have been banned? Not a peep in over a year, despite recently being unbanned and then banned again in 48 hours.

If my situation could only be explained it could be used as a practical study in how one must conduct oneself on the Brexit thread, an insight that if shared may help us all engage in a gentler kind of political debate......as it were?

Click to expand...

El Presidente said:

Don’t abuse others, and don’t piss off the mods by accusing them of being paedophile supporters would be a good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

knocky1 said:

I'm dreading the remake The Return of the Son of Brexit..................

Click to expand...

Westdene Seagull said:

Interesting ..... who is seeking the clarity and who is providing said clarity ?

I ask as at the moment the 29th March is set in stone via an act of Parliament and an act of Parliament can't be overturned without another act of Parliament. The government can't use Henry 8th powers to change it ..... Gina Miller ensured that ironically. The only get out would be if the original act had some mechanism in it to allow a change - i.e. if x happens then then y will be implemented and I haven't seen any media commentary of that being the case ( I'll admit to not having read the act myself although I doubt any posters on this thread have either ).

So to stop us leaving on the 29th one of the following has to happen :

1. A new referendum - let's stop this idiotic dressing it up as a 'Peoples Vote', it's a second referendum if it happens - and remain win. The referendum will need an act of parliament ( and personally I'm not sure there is a majority in favour in the house for it ) and then another act of Parliament will be required to enact the result. Not going to happen before the 29th March.

2. A50 is recinded for a short time or completely. This will change the date of leaving or mean we don't leave and so another act of Parliament will be required. Are there a majority of MPs in favour of doing this ...... remember regardless of their party they will each have to defend their decision to effectively ignore the first referendum result on the doorstep at the next GE and having done so without reconsulting the public. Could make for some very heated exchanges !!!!

3. A50 is extended. Once again, will need an act of Parliament unless there is a mechanism for it in the original act. Biggest problem being the EU - all 27 members would have to agree AND the EU have said it would only happen in the event of something significant happening such as a GE.

I do find it strange that remainers were all up in arms when it looked like the government were going to force through Brexit without Parliament approval but now they want to change/delay/halt Brexit without Parliament's say.

Click to expand...