She’s the same colour as me. Am I not white?
She’s the same colour as me. Am I not white?
Asian is a color over here.
Unless we're talking about academics, then Asian = white.
Yep asians are white here as well.Originally Posted by Giggles
If you're the same colour as her, no.
Or rather, not if you share the same facial structure. Maybe we need to change the term to "people who don't look WASPy enough"?
I reckon Id offend a local Japanese or Korean person if I referred to them as a person of colour.
What colour are they I wonder, yellow?
Last edited by Queenslander; 03-11-2021 at 07:11 AM.
But presumably they'd also be offended if you did this:
Which Steve and Bruce wouldn't be (atleast not directly).
Whichever way you slice it, there's a difference in appearance and that difference has lead to racism, whether it's skin shade, eye shape, or whatever.
I guess Im just going off the Asian Australians in my suburb as the majority have strong Aussie accents and I reckon they'd not be impressed with me calling them a person of colour.
Im also a simple man.
Last edited by Queenslander; 03-11-2021 at 07:19 AM.
Facial structure is a colour?
That's why I said maybe we need to change the term.
Or stop investing so much in skin colour and give it the same relevance as eye colour, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
Fucking hell.
That's almost up there with the Jamaican dead son hotel room mannequin.
That is up there with Battle of Britain sausages
???
I’m not the one calling her coloured.
I didn't say you did.
Don't tell me you aren't familiar with this classic? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46475631
In what world could anyone think that was a good idea?
I don't care how good their intentions were, that's horrific.
Oh for fuck's sake I'd forgotten that one.
A chilling mind came up with that one.
He's made Macaulay Culkin look a right noob.
This seems like it should be the lead story everywhere. Fucking WOT mate?
Nah, this should be: https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-59042087
EDIT: But yeah, that's wild. Murder, corpse sexual assault, kiddie porn. Man really did it all.
Daft cunt.
It's a shame she made that, the bin bag full of hair would have made a handy like-for-like replacement for BoJo if anything happens to him.
It's a good example of why Boris is popular despite basically everything about him. People just like him. No reason, no logic. There doesn't have to be.
People just took his bumbling oaf act at face value rather than as a cover for an unpleasant moron.
Could have at least got her roots done.
If ever there was someone in the wrong job, it's her. Akin to Ronnie O'Sullivan deciding to wash cars for a living.
Nice of Lord Wolfson to out himself as a filthy pervert so nobody had to do it for him.
Do I have to click on the link to find out what 'family pornography' is?
It's just so easy to unintentionally capture a woman breastfeeding a baby in a picture a man was intending to use as sexual gratification.
There are no words. Why does the sexual gratification thing need to even be mentioned in his (bullshit in the first place) argument?
Who are all these people currently taking breastfeeding pictures in the first place? I knew of no such issue.
So, it's taking pictures of your wife to have a wank to later. Righto.
That would be Spousal pornography, no? Family Pornography by definition would have to include kids, siblings, parents, cousins, or atleast an Auntie or Uncle.
If he isn't outed as a nonce by the end of 2022, someone isn't doing their job properly.
That his example was “it would ruin my potential to take photographs of my wife to masturbate to” instead of “it would ruin my potential to take photos of my little boy Timmy building a sand castle” (or something to that effect) is really quite bizarre.
Check his hard drives.
They're also part of his sexual gratification portfolio but he can't admit to that publicly.
That’s the implication, yes.
Presumably the reason he was outlining that particular scenario is because the amendment specifically refers to photos taken of breastfeeding women without consent for the purposes of sexual gratification? I haven't read it so I don't know, but that's surely what he's getting at. That they would be breaking that specific law kind of by proxy/technicality?
I'm not suggesting for a moment it's not a fucking weird thing to be going on about, just trying to make sense of the logic.
Yeah, that’s probably it. Still, odds-on wrong’un.
M90 at Perth has had a busy few days. A lorry went through the barricades on a flyover on Friday dropping about 20 foot straight to the road below resulting in the driver being killed (no idea how it didn’t land on any cars, might have been too early in the morning). Now tonight a bus has randomly went on fire and exploded causing tailbacks for miles.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...er-police/amp/
Went on fire?
The IRA were involved apparently
"We heard someone important was on this bus. This megabus with the £1 fare to Leeds."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59216104
Fucking hell, the entire thing is insane, right down to the baby swap.
Serves the fucking weirdos right for thinking they can interfere with Allah's work.
That is legitimately fucking mental. It's up there with those parents that had their kids taken away when they were incorrectly found guilty of abuse, then when they were cleared the authorities just went "Yeah, soz like, but they're not your kids now. They've been adopted lol."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote