Fabricio the Guido

Hilarious......... http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children?messages=100&pg=4

What's all this obsession with yoots?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/pumping-iron-and-possibly-other-things#2to37m0

Yes but she's not describing him to the Police is she? She is retelling an account on the forum and everyone pops up with their own tale of woe involving "black drivers" rather than "bad drivers". His race is incidental to the core of the story she wishes to recount yet takes centre stage in the reader's imagination because of the way race is mediated through society. "Angry Driver" "Black"........

What has mentioning his race or colour contributed to her account? Think seriously about that. Is he going to be identified as a result of this post. It irks me to see race being mentioned in this irrelevant manner. But it does feed into stereotypes about race. We should a deep data analysis of the number of times race is specifically mentioned on the forum, and then divide them into positive or negative mentions. I hardly ever see anyone described as white or European, I wonder why that is the case. White privilege.

We had better round up all the black people driving black cars before this escalates.

found this very interesting : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04b1v8q

Thanks everyone .....

Any ideas?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Nice one uncleBen, unsupported assertions and then when asked to provide some simple facts, you turn on the charm and aks her for evidence. Can we safely assume you were talking out of your nether regions ?

Ha Lady D, the technology is already in the marketplace. It is the take up by women which is low. Even on the more 'niche' dating sites, you will always find a preponderance of men and female participation is quite low. Ahem, am no expert but there was a really great blog called 28 Dates Later which really went through all the niche dating sites and reported similar findings. I don't see how much more control women could possibly want. At the moment, you get a nudge or a wink or a message and the woman has the ultimate choice whether to engage or not engage. Given the slut shaming society we live in, I can only imagine what would happen if a woman was unfortunately assaulted following the use of such an app. I think, also, it is the general views of society about women, which has led to the low take up rates. Also, the more mainstream dating sites seem perfectly capable of providing for the more casual dater under the guise of meeting Mr Right. The search for true love provides 'a cloak of respectability' for the casual tryst. The app with the geographic proximity gizmos are really in your face. Imagine pinging every time you walk past a potential match. Very distracting ! You see that feeling of feeling swamped would probably be welcomed by a gay man or a straight man for that matter. Therein lies the key difference, it seems biology or hard wiring has a lot more to say about the nature of desire, than technological algorithms. http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/04/28-dates-later-willard-foxton-part-fourteen-other-date-blogger

1. It's the wimmim, inn't? Apparently, women are more reticent when it comes to casual encounters. Despite decades of feminism and the Spice Girls, women seem unable to tell men, what they really, really want. Or, to revise that, maybe they are saying casual sex is not really want they want. The sexual liberation promised by the 60's generation never truly arrived. The zipless ruck, apparently only allowed more men to exploit women and did not mean true liberation. What do women want? The end result has been a switch back to more conservative values. I particularly liked that sexist novel - Atomised by Michele Houellebecq, which captured this dystopian sexual milieu. Men apparently have the option of negotiating the zipless ruck and are much better at creating strategies to having their needs met. 2. Sex positive culture - hooking up is a minority interest or minority pursuit. 3. Men do it better? 4. Do women need as much casual sex as men do? 5. Do women really want sex or babies? I cannot think of any more generalisations or stereotypes to shoe horn into the conversation. It is too early in the morning. But I'll come back latter if I have any more random thoughts.

Indiepanda ---- what a tantalising sign off. Pray share. Totally confess to a prurient interest in the lives of others. if I am not online here, I would probably be watching Jeremy Kyle.

Love is a revolutionary act. It attacks the ego and in its highest form, is transcendental. Jah is speaking his own truth but missing out on a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. We are social animals. The closer the bonds, the more challenged we are in resisting the ego.

Wish more people would appreciate the beauty of 'Jazz Hands'.

Does the hostility to the video go beyond the demerits of their musicianship and intrude upon white privilege? I wonder, sometimes.

I had a fantastic time, glad to meet you all and hopefully see you at the next bash.

Old lag and frequent lurker but always happy to meet new folks, so I'll think I'll be joining you all, tonight.

How you can make a film about slavery in the South and not use TNW? I re watched 'Roots" the other day and I was amazed by how kitsch it all looked. I am not sure that movie ages particularly well, and I fear like Kill Bill, Django might end up looking a bit silly. The accents certainly are. I compare it to a Tennessee Williams' play, where the southern drawl seems mercurial, switching from a whimsical playfulness to something brandished menacingly, like a knife. But I think the interesting thing is that Django, also seems derivative ( not really much of an accusation when dealing with Tarantino) of this film . Interestingly, the Mondo series faced a lot of controversy and were accused of being racists. The twist is that, Tarantino has done something very similar and some liberals are defending this work. http://youtu.be/ByhFz5e5Tno http://youtu.be/ByhFz5e5Tno here is Big Daddy in a Tennesee play.

I thought this might involve a stripper pole ...

What would be the purpose of a simple factual statement ? What if someone decided to do something on the basis of a simple factual statement? What do I report to the police if i happen to see the man on the 176 bus in the morning ? The community becomes aware of what exactly, that this man exists and has been seen peering into windows? Then, what happens? You could also libel by , insinuation or innuendo, implication. Ie: this man is a posing as a sodomite or a paediatrician. "truthful factual statement' to you could imply many things to other people.

So what exactly is the aim or purpose of posting the picture if they have done nothing wrong in the first place ? What description would you attach to the image ?

Ok. Lesson 101. This individual may have intended to commit a crime. We do not know because we are not mind readers and there is no actual proof of his intention. If he committed a trespass, that is an offence and that could be reported to the police who will investigate and prosecute. What if there is an innocent explanation for entering someone's garden? What happens when you post a picture and someone else decides to take the law into their own hands the next time they see this person -because in their opinion, these 'criminals' get away with crimes because the police are too weak to prosecute? Why don't we just by pass the whole criminal justice system and issue on the spot penalties for doggy looking people or people who act doggy in our opinion? I would like to issue a penalty notice to anyone who looks doggy in my opinion, community sentencing you might call it. We could all draw up lists of people we don't like the look of, including suspected paediatricians and even pedophiles, chavs, blacks, travellers, swarthy looking eastern europeans, gingers, northerners. The list is endless. Sure, they might not have committed any offence, but it is a strong generalisation that based on anecdotal evidence, these types of people are likely to commit certain crimes, sooner or later. You are right, I have taken the scenarios to it's logical extreme until the argument appears absurd. Technically, if you post a picture and called someone a potential their and they have not done anything, that's libellous. The Daily Mail did that to the Stephen Lawrence accused. They didn't sue. BBC tried that schtick recently, and are still paying the price. Leaving aside the underlying class issue and questions of evidence, nice when laws protect everyone. I feel safer in my snuggly liberal bed because I expect to stand up for others and I would hope they would do the same for me if my rights are at stake. So there is a sense of community here, but it's a community that tries to do the descent thing rather than take action to assuage some sense of knowing better than other people, because of self righteous indignation. Liberal feathers, not even slightly ruffled. Always glad to try and explain why the principle of universalisation is a reasonable/ proper basis for human action. Means and ends and all that jazz.

Rights are no good unless everyone has them and we protect them for everyone. To publish the picture of a 'potential' criminal, who actually has not committed any offence or has not even been charged with anything, on the spurious basis that it might protect others sounds like the plot for Minority Report, which as you may recall was actually a science fiction movie. Your community rights argument sounds like a leaflet for the Pitchfork Brigade. Put it down. We pay taxes so that a police force will detect and prevent and collect evidence to prosecute crime. You are not a genius for circumventing established civilised community standards but a numpty.