Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah I guess UB has made his bed to a certain extent, as he clearly has a rather 'confrontational' forum persona.


Clearly the joke CAN be (presumably) misinterpreted, as about 50% of the posters here have demonstrated. But I'm still struggling to see why, out of the many meanings you could infer, so many people automatically jump to the worst case scenario.

On the vague subject of Indian restaurant staff, I was mildly surprised to learn that Dita at Tandoori Nights has transferred to the Fulham branch


She was outside LL last week and I mentioned I hadn't seen her for a while (mostly because I haven't been there for a long time) when she said. Feels like end of an era...

'I do not need to pigeon hole people to form an opinion'


Oh really UncleBen? Most of your attacks on various people on this forum do exactly just that!!!! You are the worst person for it! Not only that, you clearly have been around way longer than the registered start date of you current alias. That in itself says something.


SJ is spot on in his reasoning imo.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> On the vague subject of Indian restaurant staff, I

> was mildly surprised to learn that Dita at

> Tandoori Nights has transferred to the Fulham

> branch

>

> She was outside LL last week and I mentioned I

> hadn't seen her for a while (mostly because I

> haven't been there for a long time) when she said.

> Feels like end of an era...


She's been "promoted", in the words of the owner.

I was asked why I was offended and I explained why. If you don't agree with me fair enough.


I judged his post on past posts and I would bet anyone ?50 he is a 'working class' white male in his 50-60's.


I evaluated in the context of the contents of his posts and from this conclude he is probably in that demographic. The unpleasant views he espouses fit with a certain section of that demographic.


If I'm wrong, shoot me.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> How that other thread going, fl0wer..? The one

> where we all try to live together in peace and

> harmony?

>

> QED


No *Bob*, that was not what it was about. The topic I posted, if you would do me the favour of reading it, was about reducing unnecessary aggression by each person identifying honestly their own need.


In the context of the forum it often looks as though the only requirement for some people is to bait others and create maximum spotlight on their 'naughtiness' = tactic of severely neglected children. Also it's a truism, but bullied children soon grow to be bullies themselves, this is as old as Time & zoologists observe it in troupes of primates & call it 'bicycling', because the subordinated creature then goes off and scrabbles over something else, weaker & smaller than itself.


Given how humans are in such a mess, facilities of online communication offer 1,000 ways for aggression to get worse or better.

But 3 things a computer won't ever do on its own,

1) substitute for real friends,

2) do the work of self-awareness or

3) make societies break the default position of bullying happening whilst kindly people are absent.

Most people come on here as a diversion from everyday life*, not to make themselves a better person. Threads with extended repeat viewings are almost always the ones with childish scrapping and confrontation. Like this one.


It's the same reason why people watch Eastenders.





*or find a plumber

I don't think it's a breakdown in communication. It's about whether a statement which has several possible connotations - one of which is offensive - is OK.


Some people think it's not OK to leave yourself open to interpretation in that way. Others don't see a problem. I'm fine with either of those opinions. But a couple of people are effectively saying "I think you meant that, therefore you're racist"... which just doesn't make sense.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Most people come on here as a diversion from

> everyday life*, not to make themselves a better

> person.



Exactly. Although some fund their online persona a great reassurance and something to cling to.

Well is it OK then, to use the EDF and a question about a tandoori restaurant, for unleashing the 'online troublemaker' or 'jungle bully' persona?


What's the motivation for constant return to it here?


Why not keep it for a less multicultural forum, eg private writings, or own blog / facebook?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • the same complaint was made about usa news stations 4 years ago.  its an old story. Its quite shocking how intelligent people are so easily manipulated. I
    • With slightly less respect Headnun I have  watched the 1 hour video - he said what he said and he did what he did. And his faux-wink wink “no violence people” fools no one but fools. Are you a fool?    the bbc told the truth - and it’s a straight up lie to say otherwise. Did they edit and cut to the chase to make a point? Absolutely  and correctly  he was not edited to say things he didn’t say  I cannot believe you watched the entire video and are trying to say the bbc edit somehow misrepresented what he said and Back in the real world - did the nutters who showed up at the white house materialise because of a bbc edit ffs - have some self respect and recognise what’s going on 
    • Friends and family in the 'States always say how wonderful it is to be in Britain and see our news coverage.  It's all partisan out there. The BBC manages to simultaneously p off the left and the right so must be doing something right.
    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...