Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not pissing vinegar, and contrary to the lies previously told about me, I'm not BBW. I'm just voicing an alternative opinion. Your attacks and deflections only serve to showcase your ignorance on this highly sensitive subject other than what the liberal, anti-white media feed you.

It was a diagnosis 'Claudia' not an insult.


'Mental retardation is a generalized disorder appearing before adulthood, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors. Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environment.'


Please feel free to explain what part of that definition doesn't apply to your views 'Claudia'?


You fabricate without foundation wildly speculative scenarios to reposition the 'white woman' as the oppressed individual in this encounter, and conjure up one dimensional interpretations of international incidents to back up your prejudice.


I think "impaired cognitive functioning" just about covers that.


You imagine that an unforgivablly abusive offensive aggressive and racist verbal assault signals the right moment to air this grievance. "Deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors" just about covers that.


Your pretended hurt feelings are a thin veneer on your motivation 'Claudia', it's shameful.

Claudia Drezner Wrote:

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

> I'm simply trying to achieve some balance. I'm

> also appalled at the media's witchhunt of this

> woman. And although I share in her exarsperation,

> to a degree, she put her child at risk by saying

> what she said, where she said it. Because from

> where I'm sitting it looked as though the young

> man behind her was about to assault her.

>

> And yes, she was clearly drunk or high. I suspect

> the former.


Why do you say that it looked like the man behind her was about to assault her? How do you know he wasn't just going to confront her? I think it's wrong for you to judge him and assume he was going to do her any physical harm!


Her attitude was absolutely disgutsing and to speak like that infront of her own child was shocking. Just goes to show by his response that he is used to hearing that kind of language!


I am surprised she was allowed to rant for so long before being asked to shut up, there was children on the tram ffs! I think the tram driver should have stopped the tram and kicked her off. I don't think she was drunk or high just ignorant!


And Claudia I think you're wrong in saying that if it had been the otherway round that less of a fuss would have been made. It would't have been acceptable either and just as many people black and white would have been disgusted.

You're a cowardly, obnoxious liar who's uncomfortable with an opposing opinion


Where have I "fabricated without foundation wildly speculative scenarios to reposition the 'white woman' as the oppressed individual in this encounter", 'Huguenot'.


Do you condone the undeniably racist organisation I've linked previously?

I don't feel in the least discomforted by your opinion 'Claudia'. I'm disgusted by it.


You've invented scenarios where offensive white women on trams are on the verge of being attacked.


You've deliberately misquoted claims of anti-white immigration strategies to whip up racial prejudice.


You've now presented a reasonable and universally welcomed association designed to ensure equitable and even tratement for all with the pejorative term 'an undeniably racist organisation'.


Far from my own discomofort, I suspect your increasingly aggressive tone underlines an essentially weak and skulking personality who uses racism as a crutch for a fragile ego.

More lies. Seriously, unless you're doing this for your own ammusement, where have I invented scenarios where offensive white women are on the verge of being attacked on a tram?


And how does the National Black Police Association "ensure equitable and even tratement for all"? It doesn't. It's specifically designed to discriminate by furthering the interests of black policemen and women only. It's racist, and you're intolerably stupid for overlooking that.

'Claudia', here's where you 'invented scenarios where offensive white women are on the verge of being attacked on a tram':


"I'm simply trying to achieve some balance. I'm also appalled at the media's witchhunt of this woman. And although I share in her exarsperation, to a degree, she put her child at risk by saying what she said, where she said it. Because from where I'm sitting it looked as though the young man behind her was about to assault her."


Can you not remember what you said? Do you remember you wrote it down?

StraferJack & Huguenot would you lend equal support for a National White Police Association, if such an organisation existed?


Otta calling someone white trash is as racist and offensive as calling someone black trash, regardless of the term's origin.

Huguenot you're becoming desperate. Saying that it looked as though the man standing behind was going to assault her doesn't translate as he is going to assault her. If we're to go by your logic all observations are fabrications. They're not, as it stands.

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

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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