GB News

[Deleted]

GB News is about to launch! It goes live on British television via Freeview channel 236 in just 5 minutes.

For international viewers, you can tune in on YouTube here:

https://youtube.com/c/GBNewsOnline

 

[AccessBlaster]

Is this the program Piers Morgan is going to appear on?

 

[conception_native_0123]

Learn to disagree with respect

is that a lesson I should learn I suppose? I wonder if doc man is reading this.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Andrew Neil does a good woke watch with Andrew Doyle.

I particularly like the bit about the police saying that "being offensive is an offence" stood in front of massive billboards and then backtracking after realising how effing stupid they are!

Christ, what would happen if the police came and had a look around this site, if being offensive was an offence.

"over 120,000 recorded incidences of non-crime". If it's a non-crime why is it being recorded?

I remember a story out of the UK a while back where a judge had a gag order on the defendant's ethnicity. A journalist (I guess) went into the street and revealed the defendant's race, the journalist was jailed for a few months.

 

[Isaac]

"over 120,000 recorded incidences of non-crime". If it's a non-crime why is it being recorded?

I remember a story out of the UK a while back where a judge had a gag order on the defendant's ethnicity. A journalist (I guess) went into the street and revealed the defendant's race, the journalist was jailed for a few months.

Also heard about a street preacher who was arrested recently in the U.K. due to apparently what is a crime in the U.K., thinking or speaking "homophobically". America is not quite there yet, but headed in that direction.

 

[conception_native_0123]

thinking or speaking "homophobically".

how could THAT qualify as THAT? I don't get it.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Ever see Minority Report? It's like that but different

 

[conception_native_0123]

i'm afraid you'll have to post a youtube vid explaining why I'm not getting it. =(

 

[Isaac]

how could THAT qualify as THAT? I don't get it.

To begin with, the very word homophobic is an attempt to cast those disapproving of such a lifestyle in a particular (and inaccurate) light.
Phobic means being terrified of something, an irrational fear. Such as spiders, fear of heights, planes, clowns, the dark, etc.

Note that it is very common for bullies to attach "you're scared" label to anyone who won't go along with them, on anything.
(Imagine 2 schoolboys in the playground, the bully says "do this" or "use this" or "come here" and the other boy declines, believing it not to be in his best judgment for whatever reason - what does the bully say? "You're a scared-y-cat", of course!)

So despite the fact that most people with a Biblically-based viewpoint on the subject don't harbor any type of irrational fear nor terror of gay people, and yet, the other side has been fairly successful in making the term "[whatever]-phobic" widely used. Which is deceptive & inaccurate - somewhat telling, I think, since when you're really in the Right on something, you don't have to resort to deceptive portrayals of anyone else.

Now that we have that taken care of.

Why? Because this street preacher was preaching topics from the Bible, which included the Bible's viewpoint on that subject. I'm sure you know what I mean...
Honestly, I don't condone the preacher's judgment in doing that, I wouldn't think it does any good to stand on a street corner preaching the most controversial and rejected teachings of the Bible to random public members.
But, being put in jail is an interesting result - but not surprising for the UK or Europe, which are a bit "ahead" of us on this subject...

 

[conception_native_0123]

but not surprising for the UK or Europe, which are a bit "ahead" of us on this subject...

no argument here. the UK is VERY ahead of us on this subject, and many others. disappoints me greatly. I wonder what Jon would say to my words here. =(

 

[Jon]

I wouldn't say ahead or behind, just a different philosophy. I'm thinking that some limited curbs on free speech help to a degree. The US is quite unique in that people can say (nearly) anything. Yet you have a country destroying itself from within. On the other hand, I think the UK has gone too far towards suppression of speech and it is a slippery slope. I've watched it move along that continuum and accelerate in the last few years. Not a good thing in my view.

To add, I think everybody has a different interpretation on what "free speech" actually means.

 

[Isaac]

The US is quite unique in that people can say (nearly) anything. Yet you have a country destroying itself from within.

I think there are people who would say that is actually an ingredient to our success. The very-recent (last 5 years) extreme move toward wokeness, political correctness, and taboo obvious facts which are critically important yet aren't allowed to be stated out loud--are actually twin philosophies with restricting speech, the opposite of free speech.

Our theory is that when all voices are heard (even the 'mean' or 'unkind' ones--since, sometimes, those are actually the correct ones, but even if they aren't in some case) that is the best formula for Truth to win out. The truth seems to always float to the top when everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, no matter how strange some of them sound. Maybe 'always' is going a bit far.....Usually it works out pretty well, in the end.

From what I have seen, I have to say I tend to agree with that. It can be a little brutal at times, but it's important to hear all opinions.
For example, I am appalled at much of what I hear from the woke left wing ideologues. But never once has my impulse been to forcibly shut them up from being able to speak their drivel. On the contrary, I think the more people hear how ridiculous it is, AND simultaneously if we can get tech platforms (google, facebook, twitter, amazon) to STOP censoring conservative ideas and speech - the combination of those two things would give people a contrast where they simply could not deny in their inner self, the obvious truths.
But the formula doesn't work when there is a lot of free speech (including the crazy stuff) from one side, and very limited free speech from the other side - Free is supposed to mean 'everyone', then it works as intended.

As for ahead or behind, that's just personally the way I see the trend going. To me it is clear, Biblical Christianity is being stamped out little by little. First certain social issues were 'rebel' in nature. Then they were common. Then they were mainstream. Then they got SO mainstream that Christianity was considered borderline offensive. And so it goes - My father believes that, barring major course-correction in US politics, within 50 years Christians in the US will be actively persecuted, maybe including physically, and will mostly be underground. Looking at the trends over the past 50 years, that seems like a very logical guess. So, some countries are 'ahead' in the sense that, that is where the US is heading too - forward march toward a place where subjects such as that may only be viewed from one perspective, and anything else is considered 'hate' and prosecuted as such.

(Lest you think I am focused on only one issue, consider something we all assume will never be considered "bad" - the nuclear family. Yet we know organizations like BLM have said the nuclear family concept is racist. How do you know if 20 years from now, it will be considered "hateful" or evil in some way, to promote the family unit? Sound crazy? Of course it does. So have most of the other changes in the past generation, at first. If marriage could be totally redefined in about a 15 year period, what's to stop it from being redefined again? Nothing. Who knows what the next iteration will be like).

And by the way, I fault American Christians as much as anyone else for letting this happen. Most popular churches these days try to appeal to everyone, teach about only 1-2 themes from the Bible-the ones they don't think anyone will feel challenged by, and basically have relegated the gospel to a feel-good version of Christianity which leaves out 90% of it in order to tickle the ears of the 'seeker' crowd it seeks to please.

 

[Jon]

Yet we know organizations like BLM have said the nuclear family concept is racist.

This is just another example of those who want to insert race into everything. Is their argument that because absentee black fathers is a thing, the nuclear family runs against that and so runs against black culture?

And while I am thinking about it, this critical race theory stuff is full of flaws. They say if you are white, you are racist, by default. But what if that white person lived most of their life in Nigeria, with hardly any other white people there? They are the minority race. Presumably, by their logic, the minority race cannot be racist. They decide to come on holiday to the US for a week. Are they then instantly racist? This is a bit inconvenient, is it not, because what you are then saying is that the act of going to the US on holiday is a racist act, if you are a white person living in Africa. The non-racist becomes a racist by temporarily moving their location.

So, if critical race theory says to be white means you are inherently racist, are they only referring to those born in the US? What about if you were black, living in Nigeria for most of your life, hated whites, lynched whites, and moved to the US. Are you then suddenly not racist because the minority culture cannot be racist? It all falls apart, with no logic to any of it.

Interested to hear some comments on what I said there.

 

[AccessBlaster]

So, if critical race theory says to be white means you are inherently racist, are they only referring to those born in the US?

I don't see CRT as being contained by borders, it's a movement like BLM that is fueled by the interwebs.

 

[Jon]

I don't see CRT as being contained by borders, it's a movement like BLM that is fueled by the interwebs.

So the white person born and living in Nigeria is considered a racist too, while living in Nigeria?

 

[AccessBlaster]

So the white person born and living in Nigeria is considered a racist too, while living in Nigeria?

Potentially yes, unless you know the back story of that WHITE person. White Supremacy isn't just a USA phenomenon, it's just the focus right now.

White South Africa is still bubbling just below the surface and will probably explode again in the near future.

 

[Isaac]

White South Africa is still bubbling just below the surface and will probably explode again in the near future

Now I've heard a lot of things about this situation, but never really studied it - just heard a bit here and there which leads me to ask you:

If white South Africans have resentment building up in them right now, why do you think that is?

 

[Jon]

Potentially yes, unless you know the back story of that WHITE person

That is looking at the individual, which is the only rational way of doing it. But critical race theory, correct me if I am wrong, is saying you are racist because you are white. So, the back story is irrelevant. Or did I get that wrong?

 

[AccessBlaster]

That is looking at the individual, which is the only rational way of doing it. But critical race theory, correct me if I am wrong, is saying you are racist because you are white. So, the back story is irrelevant. Or did I get that wrong?

Your 100% right, no one will wait for the back story. Some will assume you are of European dissent visually therefore racist.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Now I've heard a lot of things about this situation, but never really studied it - just heard a bit here and there which leads me to ask you:

If white South Africans have resentment building up in them right now, why do you think that is?

Answer:
Let's just stick to the script "The USA has always been the problem" that way everybody stays calm.