The Friday Troll - Nick Griffin on Twitter
Comments
-
-
DonDaddyD wrote:As for the B&B owners I do feel sorry for them. Can't help but think they cited the wrong religion. Had they said they were Muslim do you reckon they'd have got away with it?0
-
TailWindHome wrote:bails87 wrote:Did you see what Griffin said on Twitter yesterday, something along the lines of "Have you seen the ads for the Police Comissioner elections? Isn't it shocking to see them discriminating and not using black actors to play the criminals."
What he actually says is "by refusing to use black actors to play criminals"
No idea if there is any fact to what he is saying - but it's a completely different meaning to your paraphrasing (IMO)
1. People always complain about there not being an entirely representative cast in a play/film/ad/series but they're not doing it when the bad guys are all white.
2.Black people are criminals and the tv casting people should show that.
3. The casting people refuse to cast black people as criminals because that would be deemed racist
I felt like he was trying to make the joke about 1 whilst nudging towards 2. But 1 isn't true anyway. And how many ads are there? I've only seen one, with one criminal in it, and the criminal was white (I think, I don't naturally think "WHITE" or "BLACK" when I see someone") but then what are the odds of an actor being white? As far as I remember the victim was also white.
EDIT: Or maybe 3, but again, that's nonsense and all part of the 'oppressed majority' narrative that feeds these groups.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:He's not just a troll. He's also genuinely quite stupid.
I know a few people who actually spend a lot of time studying British Facism now and then and each one are surprised by how stupid he actually is when you look at the inner workings of the BNP.
BNP is now really rather tiny.
Probably.0 -
bails87 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:bails87 wrote:Did you see what Griffin said on Twitter yesterday, something along the lines of "Have you seen the ads for the Police Comissioner elections? Isn't it shocking to see them discriminating and not using black actors to play the criminals."
What he actually says is "by refusing to use black actors to play criminals"
No idea if there is any fact to what he is saying - but it's a completely different meaning to your paraphrasing (IMO)
1. People always complain about there not being an entirely representative cast in a play/film/ad/series but they're not doing it when the bad guys are all white.
2.Black people are criminals and the tv casting people should show that.
3. The casting people refuse to cast black people as criminals because that would be deemed racist
I felt like he was trying to make the joke about 1 whilst nudging towards 2. But 1 isn't true anyway. And how many ads are there? I've only seen one, with one criminal in it, and the criminal was white (I think, I don't naturally think "WHITE" or "BLACK" when I see someone") but then what are the odds of an actor being white? As far as I remember the victim was also white.
EDIT: Or maybe 3, but again, that's nonsense and all part of the 'oppressed majority' narrative that feeds these groups.
Is DDD writing your posts?
I took it as 3.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
CiB wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Conservatives = The Government are a bunch of closet racists.
Quick to play the racist card again though. The Get Out Of Jail card for the barmy.
Mind you, its as much to do with the inner bully as anything else though. Hence equally disproportionate criticism on benefit scroungers (vs. tax avoiders or, erm, Starbucks) or the disabled. Hell, why not? They are quiet and they don't make party donations, after all.
I cannot express how much I dislike the Tories. Its perfectly possible to be mostorously selfish, but not to be a *unt about it.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:bails87 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:bails87 wrote:Did you see what Griffin said on Twitter yesterday, something along the lines of "Have you seen the ads for the Police Comissioner elections? Isn't it shocking to see them discriminating and not using black actors to play the criminals."
What he actually says is "by refusing to use black actors to play criminals"
No idea if there is any fact to what he is saying - but it's a completely different meaning to your paraphrasing (IMO)
1. People always complain about there not being an entirely representative cast in a play/film/ad/series but they're not doing it when the bad guys are all white.
2.Black people are criminals and the tv casting people should show that.
3. The casting people refuse to cast black people as criminals because that would be deemed racist
I felt like he was trying to make the joke about 1 whilst nudging towards 2. But 1 isn't true anyway. And how many ads are there? I've only seen one, with one criminal in it, and the criminal was white (I think, I don't naturally think "WHITE" or "BLACK" when I see someone") but then what are the odds of an actor being white? As far as I remember the victim was also white.
EDIT: Or maybe 3, but again, that's nonsense and all part of the 'oppressed majority' narrative that feeds these groups.
Is DDD writing your posts?
I took it as 3.0