These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists [Archive]

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 07:13

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62664537

:sherlock:

Seems to me former Chancellors were given too much authority to bring in brainless schemes like eat out to catch Covid - his increasing efforts to pander to the gammon which get to choose our Prime Ministers these days is pathetic

TWGL1

25-08-22, 07:23

Seems to me former Chancellors were given too much authority to bring in brainless schemes like eat out to catch Covid - his increasing efforts to pander to the gammon which get to choose our Prime Ministers these days is pathetic

A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .

Read the whole article for balance , people with children , who have their own business etc

Decisions were being made by unelected people based on wild predictions and algorithms.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 08:35

Seems to me former Chancellors were given too much authority to bring in brainless schemes like eat out to catch Covid - his increasing efforts to pander to the gammon which get to choose our Prime Ministers these days is pathetic

Wow. Racist slurs, scientific inaccuracy and a lack of concern for peoples jobs all in one post. A hat-trick Bob. You must be Dorcus's idol

Rjk

25-08-22, 08:49

Wow. Racist slurs, scientific inaccuracy and a lack of concern for peoples jobs all in one post. A hat-trick Bob. You must be Dorcus's idol

racist?

JamesWales

25-08-22, 08:52

racist?

Gammon is a slur against skin colour.

The tweets in which people throw it out won't age well..

lardy

25-08-22, 09:21

Gammon is a slur against skin colour.

The tweets in which people throw it out won't age well..

It might be a skin condition or lifestyle choice that causes it, but no - having a red face is not a race ffs :hehe:

JamesWales

25-08-22, 09:32

It might be a skin condition or lifestyle choice that causes it, but no - having a red face is not a race ffs :hehe:

It's an insult aimed solely at one race based on a skin colour characteristic.

What other foods do you use to describe people's skin colour?

A Quiet Monkfish

25-08-22, 09:34

racist?

It's definitely 100% racist, and intended to be. Sad how a so-called doyen of this board could stoop so low.

lardy

25-08-22, 09:44

It's an insult aimed solely at one race based on a skin colour characteristic.

What other foods do you use to describe people's skin colour?

Milky?

Olive?

Praline?

Rjk

25-08-22, 10:09

It's definitely 100% racist, and intended to be. Sad how a so-called doyen of this board could stoop so low.

Gammon is not a race.

One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 10:14

Gammon is not a race.

One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.

Chocolate isn't a race. Do you think it's okay to use that as a venomous term against black people?

It's plainly a racist term. It's using someones characteristic (skin colour) to insult them. You shouldn't do that.

lardy

25-08-22, 10:24

Chocolate isn't a race. Do you think it's okay to use that as a venomous term against black people?

It's plainly a racist term. It's using someones characteristic (skin colour) to insult them. You shouldn't do that.

Do you think it would be racist to comment on someone's eczema or a skin allergy?

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 10:25

Gammon is not a race.

One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.

Yes, I didn't see the thread heading in this direction when I typed that message a few hours ago - never been called a racist before in my life and I'm not bothered in the slightest that someone has chosen to do it now because it's too ludicrous for words aa are the other elements of his "hat trick". His desire to rush to the Conservative Party's defence despite his much proclaimed (always by himself of course) even handedness is remarkable.

Is telling someone they have scarlet fever racist I wonder?

JamesWales

25-08-22, 10:27

Yes, I didn't see the thread heading in this direction when I typed that message a few hours ago - never been called a racist before in my life and I'm not bothered in the slightest that someone has chosen to do it now because it's too ludicrous for words aa are the other elements of his "hat trick". His desire to rush to the Conservative Party's defence despite his much proclaimed (always by himself of course) even handedness is remarkable.

Is telling someone they have scarlet fever racist I wonder?

Bob, you are insulting people based on the colour of their skin. It's not on.

I know you struggle with people with different opinions, but that's a new low.

And I don't rush to their defence - I said the PM should resign, I just wasn't hysterical about it.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 10:29

Do you think it would be racist to comment on someone's eczema or a skin allergy?

No, but I think it would be racist to call a black person a chocolate biscuit, or a white person a gammon when used as an insult. Or is it okay to call people names based on the colour of animals now?

I mean, ideally Bob and the others could engage without insulting at all, but I understand that might be a bit much to ask.

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 10:34

A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .

Read the whole article for balance , people with children , who have their own business etc

Decisions were being made by unelected people based on wild predictions and algorithms.

Seems to me that your missing my point which was twofold - first a politician who imposed a policy which caused Covid infections to rise

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/30-10-20-eat_out_to_help_out_scheme_drove_new_covid_19_infe ctions_up_by_between_8_and_17_new_research_finds/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/30/treasury-rejects-theory-eat-out-to-help-out-caused-rise-in-covid

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-vouchers-idUKKBN27F1IR

and, second, a Conservative party leadership candidate yet again pitching their public utterances solely at the tiny proportion of the population who choose who becomes our new Prime Minister these days - I made and make no comment about the claims Sunak makes except to note that he kept quiet about them while he was in the Cabinet.

jon1959

25-08-22, 10:35

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 10:38

Bob, you are insulting people based on the colour of their skin. It's not on.

I know you struggle with people with different opinions, but that's a new low. :hehe:

And I don't rush to their defence - I said the PM should resign, I just wasn't hysterical about it.

I bit once, I won't bother again.

lardy

25-08-22, 10:42

No, but I think it would be racist to call a black person a chocolate biscuit, or a white person a gammon when used as an insult. Or is it okay to call people names based on the colour of animals now?

I mean, ideally Bob and the others could engage without insulting at all, but I understand that might be a bit much to ask.

A black person is born black. A 'gammon' is not born red.

You can make a perfectly good point about how belittling someone's physical appearance that they cannot help just undermines an argument. That's reasonable, but calling it racist is silly.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 10:47

A black person is born black. A 'gammon' is not born red.

You can make a perfectly good point about how belittling someone's physical appearance that they cannot help just undermines an argument. That's reasonable, but calling it racist is silly.

Lardy,

Gammon. Pig. Pink Skin.

Like I said, it's better if more of you could engage without insults at all, but if you must, then at least don't resort to racist terms, or even dubiously racist ones.

You are trying to defend it like people would often say 'oh it's only a shortened version of pakistani'. I appreciate it might not be intended as such, but it's an insult based on skin colour and it's as simple as that. Best to steer well clear.

Get it?

JamesWales

25-08-22, 10:51

It is not an expression I ever use but I don’t see it as racist at all. It is a label to describe a certain type of almost cartoonish behaviour amongst mainly white, male, older, Tory-voting, Home Counties reactionaries.

It comes from cartoon portrayals of someone spluttering into their beer at the golf club over the latest woke ‘outrage’ and reddening as their ire rises. Those cartoons often appeared in the Mail or Telegraph in the past.

The caricature has its cultural roots but is about a mindset and behaviours - and gets applied to anyone who matches them. To call it racist, or sexist, or ageist is, ironically, another example of manufactured outrage. Something like what the word was used to describe in the first place? Too close to home, James?

I'm not outraged. It is Bob who considered Sunaks perfectly reasonable opinion and illustrated it with words such and phrases such as "brainless", "eat out to catch covid", "pathetic" and "gammon".

I merely said that Gammon is considered a racist term, it's an insult based on skin colour and best not used.

Thats reasonable in my opinion. And I'll repeat, all of this is better if you can refrain from insults entirely, but racist ones are certainly best left alone.

lardy

25-08-22, 11:04

Lardy,

Gammon. Pig. Pink Skin.

Like I said, it's better if more of you could engage without insults at all, but if you must, then at least don't resort to racist terms, or even dubiously racist ones.

You are trying to defend it like people would often say 'oh it's only a shortened version of pakistani'. I appreciate it might not be intended as such, but it's an insult based on skin colour and it's as simple as that. Best to steer well clear.

Get it?

I haven't defended it at all. I haven't used it. I've even given a reason why it's not good to use physical appearance as a stick to hit someone with.

I'm going to ignore your Pakistani comment as that is just way beyond where our discussion is. I'll put it down to getting a bit carried away - unless you really are accusing me of what it seems?

As another question, if my brother gets jaundice and I take the piss, am I being racist?

JamesWales

25-08-22, 11:13

I haven't defended it at all. I haven't used it. I've even given a reason why it's not good to use physical appearance as a stick to hit someone with.

I'm going to ignore your Pakistani comment as that is just way beyond where our discussion is. I'll put it down to getting a bit carried away - unless you really are accusing me of what it seems?

As another question, if my brother gets jaundice and I take the piss, am I being racist?

I'm sorry for being unclear, yes perhaps you aren't defending it, and I merely point out the 'its only a shortened version of pakistani', because it's another example of something that people tried to justify, but is now considered a racist slur.

I don't think your jaundice example works. The term Gammon is a slur aimed at white people. A specific sub section some may argue, but it's still a slur based on skin colour and considered racist by many. I certainly consider it a racist slur.

lardy

25-08-22, 11:28

JamesWales

25-08-22, 11:43

It doesn't work because jaundice is a temporary condition which changes the skin colour and is not about race. Same as gammon.

Unless you know different, there's been no legal cases for racial discrimination related to being called gammon. There's no legal definition of it as a race or ethnic group. There is no box for it on a diversity form and we all know, deep deep down, there never will be.

Now this whole conversation is so stupid that it's on the verge of making my day worse, so I am out.

It's using an animal or food in a disparaging way to mock skin colour and is aimed only at one race.

It may be newer than calling someone a monkey or chocolate biscuit, it may (or may not) be said with less bile behind it, but the principle is the same.

It's a slur based on skin colour and is best well avoided.

Even at best, if it isn't a slur on skin colour (which is is) then it's mocking someone's physical appearance.

None of it seems reasonable to use in discussion of whether lockdowns were two intense or not, as there are perfectly reasonable opinions on both side of that debate, even if Bob can't see it.

Rjk

25-08-22, 11:52

It's using an animal or food in a disparaging way to mock skin colour and is aimed only at one race.

It may be newer than calling someone a monkey or chocolate biscuit, it may (or may not) be said with less bile behind it, but the principle is the same.

It's a slur based on skin colour and is best well avoided.

Even at best, if it isn't a slur on skin colour (which is is) then it's mocking someone's physical appearance.

None of it seems reasonable to use in discussion of whether lockdowns were two intense or not, as there are perfectly reasonable opinions on both side of that debate, even if Bob can't see it.

A white man calling another white man a gammon is completely incomparable with someone calling a black man a monkey.

If you call someone ginge is that also racial abuse in your books, as only white people typically have ginger hair?

JamesWales

25-08-22, 11:58

A white man calling another white man a gammon is completely incomparable with someone calling a black man a monkey.

If you call someone ginge is that also racial abuse in your books, as only white people typically have ginger hair?

There may or may not be different scales within racial slurs, but it is not acceptable to insult a group of people (wholly of one race) people based on a characteristic of the colour of their skin.

It's as simple as that. Am surprised people are so keen to try and keep justifying which is at very best a fairly grim insult based on someones appearance, at worst a racial slur.

It's not a good word to use, not a particularly good look to try and defend it IMO

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 13:23

Having had a bit of time to think this through, I’d say that I would be upset to be called a gammon. However, my upset would be entirely down to the term’s political connotations. As for the so called racial implications, that wouldn’t bother me at all - as an overweight sixty odd year old who has drank too much beer and ate too much of the wrong types of food in my life, I reckon I’m fair game for someone taking the piss over the colour of my skin at certain times. The point as I see it is that I’ve contributed to making myself look the way I sometimes do and so I don’t get how that can be a basis for claims of racism.

Also, Rjk’s point about ginger hair is a very good one in this context. For about the first twenty five years or so of my life, I had bright ginger hair. I used to get the odd comment about it, but it was like water off a duck’s back because I was quite proud of it and was disappointed when it started to turn to a mousey brown colour. As a result, most of those who wanted to make something of it didn’t bother taking it any further because they saw there wasn’t a lot to be gained from it.

In saying that, I know there are lots of people with red hair whose lives are made a misery by what’s said about an aspect of their appearance and it is clearly a form of discrimination, but I don’t believe that any of them would think for a second that they were the victims of racial discrimination.

Taunton Blue Genie

25-08-22, 13:37

There may or may not be different scales within racial slurs, but it is not acceptable to insult a group of people (wholly of one race) people based on a characteristic of the colour of their skin.

It's as simple as that. Am surprised people are so keen to try and keep justifying which is at very best a fairly grim insult based on someones appearance, at worst a racial slur.

It's not a good word to use, not a particularly good look to try and defend it IMO

James, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, old fruit.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 13:59

James, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, old fruit.

Not at all, just ahead of the curve on this one.

Old fruit is fine btw, it's not a reference to skin colour. But mocking a skin colour by tying it to a pig or a lump of meat is different. :thumbup:

As mentioned, Bob could have been far more open minded about what Rishi Sunak said in the first place, there was no need for any insults, but ones referencing skin colour certainly aren't okay.

It's not hard, there's plenty of other ways to make a point than to point out someones skin colour and tie it to some kind of animal or grotesque looking piece of food.

Dorcus

25-08-22, 14:08

Seems to me former Chancellors were given too much authority to bring in brainless schemes like eat out to catch Covid - his increasing efforts to pander to the gammon which get to choose our Prime Ministers these days is pathetic

Bob, after having to suffer all the puerile garbage that followed your post I have to agree with your sentiments on the original issue

A classic case of an all but defeated candidate desperately playing to the gallery in an attempt to (dare I say) bring home the bacon. Note I didn't use the G****n word!

JamesWales

25-08-22, 14:37

Bob, after having to suffer all the puerile garbage that followed your post I have to agree with your sentiments on the original issue

A classic case of an all but defeated candidate desperately playing to the gallery in an attempt to (dare I say) bring home the bacon. Note I didn't use the G****n word!

Or perhaps he has looked at the economic, educational, social and health mess left in it's wake and considered that locking down an entire country wasn't the best thing to do?

I appreciate you may not see both sides of the argument, but they exist, and the case that lockdowns caused more damage than they prevented is considerable.

Doucas

25-08-22, 15:32

Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.

JamesWales

25-08-22, 15:48

Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.

It doesn't surprise me to see you defend it as you love dishing out abuse to anyone with a different opinion, but it is Doucas. It absolutely passes the test for it, even if the user didn't intend it as such, in much the way that other terms are not always intended as such.

Gammon is only applied to one skin colour. Skin colour is a protected characteristic, using an abusive term to refer to it is racism. It's as simple as that.

TWGL1

25-08-22, 15:54

Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.

It’s not racist , but there was no need to use it in the post in my opinion.

The chancellor was offering his viewpoint on his own governments overreach ,and their reliance on non elected people having too much influence, which people like myself were posting two years ago and called conspiracy types, right wingers , etc

Typical really that we argue amongst ourselves and the government get away with it unscathed.

Somehow , I can’t see a public enquiry anytime soon.

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 16:19

It doesn't surprise me to see you defend it as you love dishing out abuse to anyone with a different opinion, but it is Doucas. It absolutely passes the test for it, even if the user didn't intend it as such, in much the way that other terms are not always intended as such.

Gammon is only applied to one skin colour. Skin colour is a protected characteristic, using an abusive term to refer to it is racism. It's as simple as that.

The arbiter has spoken, probably best to “move on” to find something else for him to rule on now.

Wales-Bales

25-08-22, 16:32

A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .

Read the whole article for balance , people with children , who have their own business etc

Decisions were being made by unelected people based on wild predictions and algorithms.
It was a largescale IQ test, to gauge the gullibility of entire nations before they drop the big one. Follow the money, it can all be traced back to the same sources.

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 16:37

A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .

Read the whole article for balance , people with children , who have their own business etc

Decisions were being made by unelected people based on wild predictions and algorithms.

200,000 people have died in this country, what were the “wild predictions” saying? I can remember an American projection nearly two and a half years ago being laughed at when it claimed 66,000 would die in the UK - lots of people with very selective memories around these days.

TWGL1

25-08-22, 16:45

[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5336390]200,000 people have died in this country, what were the “wild predictions” saying? I can remember an American projection nearly two and a half years ago being laughed at when it claimed 66,000 would die in the UK - lots of people with very selective memories around these days.[/QUOTE

200,000 the VAST majority of which had underlying health issues and were over 70. Most people at end of life care would be positive due to compromised immune systems.

Some health boards were testing people for positive results after death.

Clearly with millions unvaccinated in the UK at this present moment how is it they have survived?

Wales-Bales

25-08-22, 16:49

200,000 the VAST majority of which had underlying health issues and were over 70. Most people at end of life care would be positive due to compromised immune systems.

Some health boards were testing people for positive results after death.

Clearly with millions unvaccinated in the UK at this present moment how is it they have survived?
Not to mention nobody died from the flu for over two years.

Regarding the unvaccinated, that's the elephant in the room isn't it.

TWGL1

25-08-22, 16:52

Absolutely. Billions spent over the years on flu jabs and the scientists missed that all we had to do all this time was stand a few feet apart and breathe into a hankie. Well mercy me.

Wales-Bales

25-08-22, 17:32

Absolutely. Billions spent over the years on flu jabs and the scientists missed that all we had to do all this time was stand a few feet apart and breathe into a hankie. Well mercy me.It doesn't make any sense, unless the plan all along was to create the conditions for a great reset.

the other bob wilson

25-08-22, 17:41

Not to mention nobody died from the flu for over two years.

Regarding the unvaccinated, that's the elephant in the room isn't it.

Over 35,000 people died of flu between March 2020 and April 2022 - hardly nobody.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/howcoronaviruscovid19compareswithfluasacauseofdeat h/2022-05-23

Wales-Bales

25-08-22, 17:47

TWGL1

25-08-22, 18:44

Over 35,000 people died of flu between March 2020 and April 2022 - hardly nobody.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/howcoronaviruscovid19compareswithfluasacauseofdeat h/2022-05-23

Still about half on a usual year and not recorded within 28 days of a positive test as there wasn’t one available for flu…………….

If there was a test for flu, I’d argue the statistics would affect Covid directly

Rjk

25-08-22, 21:52

the other bob wilson

26-08-22, 04:12

Still about half on a usual year and not recorded within 28 days of a positive test as there wasn’t one available for flu…………….

If there was a test for flu, I’d argue the statistics would affect Covid directly

That was posted in reply to a statement that “nobody died from flu for over two years” - they clearly did, no matter how much you try to manipulate the figures.

I see nothing in these two links to justify your claim that the figures for the two years we’re talking about were about half the usual number in these two links, one of which is from more than fifteen years ago mind.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/influenzadeathsin20182019and2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676118/

TWGL1

26-08-22, 05:59

That was posted in reply to a statement that “nobody died from flu for over two years” - they clearly did, no matter how much you try to manipulate the figures.

I see nothing in these two links to justify your claim that the figures for the two years we’re talking about were about half the usual number in these two links, one of which is from more than fifteen years ago mind.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/influenzadeathsin20182019and2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676118/

The flu statistics were deliberately down-played by me to measure the responses. I suspected you would increase its severity yet not once have you asked why the same restrictions were not ever considered for Flu when it’s been established that the IFR rate is pretty similar.

It would probably much higher if you had a diagnostic procedure and testing regime similar to Covid, ( with a huge false positive rate) but as you know, we never have.

the other bob wilson

26-08-22, 06:10

The flu statistics were deliberately down-played by me to measure the responses. I suspected you would increase its severity yet not once have you asked why the same restrictions were not ever considered for Flu when it’s been established that the IFR rate is pretty similar.

It would probably much higher if you had a diagnostic procedure and testing regime similar to Covid, ( with a huge false positive rate) but as you know, we never have.

Funny how I've been the one posting actual figures and all you do is tell my why they don't count for anything. I'm a simple soul and my only intention is to prove Wales Bales' statement was wrong and that your follow up claim was wrong as well. What you and he have said in this exchange is incorrect, so why should anyone believe the pair of you when it comes to anything else you claim about Covid?

TWGL1

26-08-22, 06:19

I appreciate that the Flu statistics are higher that quoted, however , and it’s not for me to influence your opinion, and again you are ignoring the hard facts that are also on the ONS website.

Wales-Bales

26-08-22, 08:19

The flu vanished during covid. What will it's return look like?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/22/science/flu-season-coronavirus-pandemic.html

Rjk

26-08-22, 08:47

The flu vanished during covid. What will it's return look like?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/22/science/flu-season-coronavirus-pandemic.html

probably bad

A Quiet Monkfish

26-08-22, 09:13

Rjk

26-08-22, 09:19

Hardly anyone who has reasonable health will die from 'flu. The same as COVID.

and? there are lots of people with health complications, millions, shouldn't we be helping those?
Or is Lord of the flies basically the vision for the future of Britain now?

Doucas

26-08-22, 11:58

It doesn't surprise me to see you defend it as you love dishing out abuse to anyone with a different opinion, but it is Doucas. It absolutely passes the test for it, even if the user didn't intend it as such, in much the way that other terms are not always intended as such.

Gammon is only applied to one skin colour. Skin colour is a protected characteristic, using an abusive term to refer to it is racism. It's as simple as that.

Gammon is applied to alcoholic right wing brexiters who froth at the mouth at the thought of anything other policy than borderline facism being implemented. I'm so sowwy your feelings have been hurt on this one Jimmy.

JamesWales

26-08-22, 12:36

Gammon is applied to alcoholic right wing brexiters who froth at the mouth at the thought of anything other policy than borderline facism being implemented. I'm so sowwy your feelings have been hurt on this one Jimmy.

Incredibly, this is not the daftest thing I have read from you today, and it's only 1.30 in the afternoon.

Wales-Bales

26-08-22, 17:17

Gammon is applied to alcoholic right wing brexiters who froth at the mouth at the thought of anything other policy than borderline facism being implemented. I'm so sowwy your feelings have been hurt on this one Jimmy.Wow, just wow! Congratulations, you've just won 1st prize in stereotype insults bingo! You are a certainly a candidate for the mass-debater of the year award :hehe: