Tommy Robinson

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The treatment of Luddite on here is just bloody stupid.

If you haven't watched poor Tommy's wee film, that he did all on his own, you've got no right to judge.

Edited August 9 by welshbairn

[DeeTillEhDeh]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think anyone has ever  claimed it's an accurate or well written text.

It is historically significant though.  That's the wider point being made about accessing texts composed by those whose ideas we might reject.

I've no idea why that point seems to be causing some posters such difficulty.

It's a complete red herring that's why.

Here is the post that shows his true agenda.
 

 

 

Point 4 states "He uncovered something sinister and important about the way this story was covered but because he is an insincere, thuggish grifter most people are not going to know that".

It’s all about legitimising that video, to make it seem that Robinson has something new to say, that he's been stitched up.

It's a typical strategy by concern trolls - look sincere and agree wth certain points then throw in a point that is nonsense.

He hasn't added to his point but just repeated the point. 

This is not like VT - who I may disagree with - but who does try to construct an argument (even if some don't like the way he does it).

 

[velo army]

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The treatment of Luddite on here is just bloody stupid.

I don't think it is, actually. It's fine if he's simply come on and said "I watched it because I wanted to try and understand him" and left it at that, but he's insulted folk for not having watched it, which is obnoxious and is why he's getting a hard time. 

It's intellectually bogus that listening to Robinson would give some sort of insight into anything other than what mendacious grifting looks like. The poster mentioned Atlas Shrugged. I've heard a lot of criticism of Ayn Rand, but nobody would claim that she wasn't genuine. I think it's fair to read right wing or conservative opinion (I used to read Andrew McKie in the Herald for this) but demanding essentially that folk watch a propaganda film in order to somehow broaden their understanding of the current issue is wild. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, velo army said:

 demanding essentially that folk watch a propaganda film in order to somehow broaden their understanding of the current issue is wild. 

Was he demanding that people do that?

[coprolite]

11 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think anyone has ever  claimed it's an accurate or well written text.

It is historically significant though.  That's the wider point being made about accessing texts composed by those whose ideas we might reject.

I've no idea why that point seems to be causing some posters such difficulty.

That point is an obvious one i don't have a problem with in principle.

That wasn't the point being made. We were being told to watch some nutsack's vanity project because it had some good points in it. 

Not just the fact that this guy had watched it- that everyone should watch it. 

f**k that, several times over. 

[Cheese]

2 hours ago, Luddite said:

So nobody on here is familiar with the concept of viewing or reading material you disagree with or authored by someone you disagree with, particularly socially relevant material? 

Mein Kampf, Mao's Little Red Book, Atlas Shrugged, The Communist Manifesto, The Unabomber's Manifesto, Mussolini's The Corporate State?, The Bible, The Quran? 

A lot of pearl clutching and some willful misinterpretation of what I said. 

I think most will be familiar with the concept fwiw.

As for the the bit in bold, what you did say was that Robinson is an arsehole, and watching the documentary will confirm that, however you're 'intellectually lazy' if you don't watch it.

You're not really selling it to me tbh. 

[velo army]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Was he demanding that people do that?

He wasn't explicitly demanding it, but when you start insulting people and shaming them for not doing it then you're putting implicit pressure on people to conform to your way of thinking, which is a tad ironic.

[MazzyStar]

33 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The treatment of Luddite on here is just bloody stupid.

Well maybe he shouldn’t make posts that are just bloody stupid. 

[tongue_tied_danny]

43 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The treatment of Luddite on here is just bloody stupid.

There's a lot to be said about letting people speak and then respectfully disagreeing with them.

If I'd never heard of Tommeh before, and somebody presented me with his film. I'd likely watch it and then make my mind up.

However, I first heard of him around 15 or so years ago. He had his chance then to earn my respect. But he didn't. He spouted absolute shite... and continued to do so. If Robinson wants us to believe him, he really shouldn't have spent the last decade or so slavering pish.

Anybody who suggests that I watch his film in order to understand where he's coming from can f**k right off. 

 

Edited August 9 by tongue_tied_danny

[Boo Khaki]

3 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Another example was that Norwegian extremist who murdered dozens and dozens of young people, was captured alive and wanted  the opportunity to explain to the nation why he did it.

Not surprisingly his request was denied.

Breivik's "manifesto" is predictably bonkers, yet he campaigned for, and was delighted to be adjudged as perfectly sane and suitable for general prison population. Make of that what you will, but I find the assertion that a perfectly normal, sane bloke can go on a rampage and murder 69 people and injure a load more to be a bit puzzling. 

I suppose history is full of examples of people and groups taking to violence to push for what they perceived to be perfectly legitimate goals, and once those aims were met, history rewrites itself and they are rehabilitated as freedom fighters or heroes rather than terrorists or murderers, but the weird thing about Breivik is I can't ever see a time where his politics and outlook are thought of as normal, but the Norwegian Judiciary system decided "nope, he's perfectly sane". 

[Luddite]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

You should just stop watching it. It sounds rubbish.

It wasn't well made. Robinson is not a good speaker. Some spelling errors in the captions too, wasn't well edited.  However I was less concerned with the aesthetics than hearing what the school staff had to say 

41 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If you haven't watched poor Tommy's wee film, that he did all on his own, you've got no right to judge.

You can judge him, certainly, he's all over the media,  but how can you judge the testimony of people in a film you haven't seen? 

41 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

Here is the post that shows his true agenda.
 

 

"Agenda"? Fine, if that helps you sleep at night

40 minutes ago, velo army said:

 he's insulted folk for not having watched it, which is obnoxious and is why he's getting a hard time. 

  but demanding essentially that folk watch a propaganda film in order to somehow broaden their understanding of the current issue is wild. 

The most insulting thing I have said is it is "intellectually lazy", which I stand by.  I was a bit condescending to a poster I confused with someone who got personal with me, and then apologized.

The thin skin on here has been quite surprising though, I've seen the sort of language and insults  bandied around in this site, then suddenly everyone becomes a retiring wallflower

 

I haven't demanded anyone watch anything, I've stated that I don't understand the mindset of not seeing the value in reading or watchinh material you may disagree with or made by someone you disagree with.

40 minutes ago, velo army said:

I don't think it is, actually. It's fine if he's simply come on and said "I watched it because I wanted to try and understand him" and left it at that, but he's insulted folk for not having watched it, which is obnoxious and is why he's getting a hard time. 

It's intellectually bogus that listening to Robinson would give some sort of insight into anything other than what mendacious grifting looks like. The poster mentioned Atlas Shrugged. I've heard a lot of criticism of Ayn Rand, but nobody would claim that she wasn't genuine. I ......but demanding essentially that folk watch a propaganda film in order to somehow broaden their understanding of the current issue is wild. 

See my point above about "insulting"

 

I've stated multiple multiple times, the film won't change your mind on Tommy Robinson. Other ordinary people in the film, not aligned with Robinson, have, In my opinion, interesting things to say about the school incident.

As far as being genuine, I've stated multiple multiple times that Robinson is not genuine but the school staff and parents featured are genuine.

I haven't demanded anyone watch it, see my response above.l

 

35 minutes ago, coprolite said:

 

. We were being told to watch some nutsack's vanity project because it had some good points in it. 

Not just the fact that this guy had watched it- that everyone should watch it. 

f**k that, several times over. 

I never demanded anyone watch it. I asked if anyone watched it and then explained that despite my dislike of Tommy Robinson personally there were some interesting things to learn from other people who gained no benefit from talking bout an incident.

 

33 minutes ago, Cheese said:

 

As for the the bit in bold, what you did say was that Robinson is an arsehole, and watching the documentary will confirm that, however you're 'intellectually lazy' if you don't watch it.

You're not really selling it to me tbh. 

Because although Robinson may have his own self-serving reasons for producing the film that doesn't negate the testimony of people not aligned with him, who have nothing to gain by talking to him and who have been paid to sign NDAs.

30 minutes ago, velo army said:

He wasn't explicitly demanding it, but when you start insulting people and shaming them for not doing it then you're putting implicit pressure on people to conform to your way of thinking, which is a tad ironic.

I insulted one person in response to my mistaken view they had insulted me, I then apologized.

The most inflammatory language I used is "intellectually lazy" on a forum where insults and curse words are bandied about regularly. Hence my "Pearl clutching" remark.

Edited August 9 by Luddite

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, tongue_tied_danny said:

There's a lot to be said about letting people speak and then respectfully disagreeing with them.

If I'd never heard of Tommeh before, and somebody presented me with his film. I'd likely watch it and then make my mind up.

However, I first heard of him around 15 or so years ago. He had his chance then to earn my respect. But he didn't. He spouted absolute shite... and continued to do so. If Robinson wants us to believe him, he really shouldn't have spent the last decade or so slavering pish.

Anybody who suggests that I watch his film in order to understand where he's coming from can f**k right off. 

 

I've no plans to watch it myself, but the point Luddite's making is legitimate enough.

I was more concerned with the way his response to someone who'd introduced Gary Glitter to the discussion, got pounced on and distorted.

The pile ons can get a bit gleeful.

[Cosmic Joe]

I might be interested to find out what makes a racist cretin tick, but certainly not on the terms of the racist cretin.

[welshbairn]

I feel honour bound to invite Yaxley Leñnon on a wee caravan holiday when he gets back from Cyprus, get to know the real Tommy. Anything else would be intellectually lazy.

[Luddite]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Joe said:

I might be interested to find out what makes a racist cretin tick, but certainly not on the terms of the racist cretin.

That's a fair point. I was hesitant to watch the film more because I don't enjoy listening to Robinson's rants, but I wanted to hear what the school staff had to say and other than these covert recordings there is no other way to do that 

[Luddite]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I feel honour bound to invite Yaxley Leñnon on a wee caravan holiday when he gets back from Cyprus, get to know the real Tommy. Anything else would be intellectually lazy.

Repeated willful misinterpretation

Edited August 9 by Luddite

[DeeTillEhDeh]

22 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I've no plans to watch it myself, but the point Luddite's making is legitimate enough.

I was more concerned with the way his response to someone who'd introduced Gary Glitter to the discussion, got pounced on and distorted.

The pile ons can get a bit gleeful.

His point isn't about researching - it's about legitimising the view that Robinson is the victim of a conspiracy.

The research argument is a complete red herring.

It's the "I think he's a c**t but he's been wronged argument" - disingenuous shit of the first degree.

Edited August 9 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Luddite]

4 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

His point isn't about researching - it's about legitimising the view that Robinson is the victim of a conspiracy.

The research argument is a complete red herring.

This guy with the agenda stuff. I genuinely feel sympathy for someone this wrapped up in omniscient thought policing.

Edited August 9 by Luddite

[DeeTillEhDeh]

[coprolite]

When I get home tonight I have to explain to my teenage daughter why her Mum won’t let her into town this weekend, on a nice sunny day in the middle of her holidays. It’s because some moronic dregs might take exception to her skin colour.

You’ll excuse me if I’m not particularly interested in the imagined grievances of a bunch of utter c***s.