Rudyard Kipling's 'If' poem scrubbed off wall by students who claim he was a 'racist'

He is regarded as one of England’s greatest writers, whose poems were praised as the nation’s favourites and whose books were lauded as classics of children's literature. But it appears that Rudyard Kipling has fallen out of favour with today’s generation of students, after it emerged that his “If” poem has been scrubbed off a building by university students who claim he was a “racist”.

Student leaders at Manchester University declared that Kipling “stands for the opposite of liberation, empowerment, and human rights”.

The poem, which had been painted on the wall of the students’ union building by an artist, was removed by students on Tuesday, in a bid to “reclaim” history on behalf of those who have been “oppressed” by “the likes of Kipling”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/07/18/rudyard-kiplings-poem-scrubbed-wall-students-claim-hewas-racist/

Idiotic snowflakes !

typical of lefties....
next we will havebook burnings

thing is they are cowards, they would rather erase and deny our admittedly racist imperialist and colonialist past than face it and accept it, and in doing so are willing to destroy our cultural heritage.

NO different to those Muslims who destroyed the museum in iraq or those Muslims who are intent on destroying historic remains in other countries...Its no wonder the lefties are so accomodating of "those others" when they share such Philistine attitudes....the university authorities should prosecute those responsible and "send them down"

"Students at the University of Manchester have painted over a mural of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, arguing that the writer “dehumanised people of colour”.
The poem If, written around 1895, had been painted on the wall of the university’s newly refurbished students’ union. But students painted over the verses, replacing them with the 1978 poem Still I Rise by the American poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou."

"Kipling, born in Mumbai in 1865, was the first English-language writer to be awarded the Nobel prize in literature, in 1907, and he remains its youngest recipient to date."

"The poem If is one of Kipling’s most well-known works. Two lines from the poem (“If you can meet with triumph and disaster / and treat those two impostors just the same”) are written on the wall of the players’ entrance to Wimbledon’s Centre Court."


https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/19/manchester-university-students-paint-over-rudyard-kipling-mural

I cant see how defacing a poem that embraces all people, and posting up one that divides, can be beneficial to anyone?

Me neither. Kipling was a great writer and because a few snowflakes were offended, they painted over it.

They should be excluded for defacing his work.

Syl there's already one about this, maybe Ed can merge them.

I love that poem. So rotten that a few snowflakes were offended.

They should be excluded for defacing the poem.

Just saw the other thread thanks Mags.
Can someone please close this or add it onto the original thread please. x

I read about this, it's madness. I like Maya Angelou, but I don't see anything racist about Kipling's poem, in fact both more or less say the same thing but Kipling's is better written. The very stance these idiots take are exactly the theme of the poems. Don't they get that?

HoratioTarr wrote:I read about this, it's madness.   I like Maya Angelou, but I don't see anything racist about Kipling's poem, in fact both more or less say the same thing but Kipling's is better written.   The very stance these idiots take are exactly the theme of the poems.   Don't they get that?

They are both inspirational poems no doubt, and they do both say more or less the same thing, but Kipling's poem applies to all, I dont think Angelou's does.

Their (the students) point is though 'IF' is not a racist poem, he is racist, and thats why they defaced it.
If every work of art, masterpiece, play or poem was judged on the person who wrote it not taking into consideration the times in which they lived.....what would be left?

Eddie, can you tag this on the other thread Didge posted....I didn't realise I was making a duplicate thread.

Okay. I’ll go do it.

eddie wrote:Okay. I’ll go do it.

Thank you Kindly.
I wouldn't want to upset the Didge any more than I did yesterday.

Re the OP. Isn’t it a littl worrying that that they fret and worry so much?

They don’t like free speech I suppose.

I hope they get arrested for graffiti.

They wont, seems the student body have bowed down to them and even apologised.

I just wonder if the roles were reversed and white students defaced a classic poem by a black man for the same reasons they would be pandered to in the same way.

I actually think it's rather racist of the students who have done this.

Syl wrote:They wont, seems the student body have bowed down to them and even apologised.

I just wonder if the roles were reversed and white students defaced a classic poem by a black man for the same reasons they would be pandered to in the same way.

I actually think it's rather racist of the students who have done this.

I don’t know if it’s racist as such, but it does show a lack of intelligence, a major chip and mob mentality.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:They wont, seems the student body have bowed down to them and even apologised.

I just wonder if the roles were reversed and white students defaced a classic poem by a black man for the same reasons they would be pandered to in the same way.

I actually think it's rather racist of the students who have done this.

I don’t know if it’s racist as such, but it does show a lack of intelligence, a major chip and mob mentality.

The general secretary of MSU said.....“God knows black and brown voices have been written out of history enough, and it’s time we try to reverse that, at the very least in our union,” said Miss Abid, 24.

So in fact she has defaced a poem by a white man to replace it by one from a black woman....why judge on colour, and why not just leave both poems up?

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay. I’ll go do it.

Thank you Kindly.
I wouldn't want to upset the Didge any more than I did yesterday.

Why would this upset me, that you thought of the same thread? It means we thought this was either wrong or right ourselves. It garnered our interest

Looks like you are looking to stir and you moan at me. Frankly, I think your girlie group are nothing more than hateful, in how you constantly cast other people in the media, but that is my view I guess

You know I am seriously considering posting a link to the other thread to the Mother you slated. Simple, so she can have a chance to decide whether to respond to the poor and quite frankly vindictive views made against her. Simple where you and others, based on your perceived superior morality. That a person based simple on looks and going public, to where she and her son was wronged. Is some how  to you and others a bad mother, touting for buisness and an attention seeker.

I imagine, you would take an entirely different approach  if she came on here and expressed her views.

I guess its far easier to slag people off, when they cannot respond

So if you want to drag this onto other threads with Sly comments, am happy to continue with you.

What is all that about?
She asked me to merge a thread.

eddie wrote:What is all that about?  
She asked me to merge a thread.

Then why did she make a comment about me?

As again, I have no issue with duplicate threads or them being merged, but yet, she had to try and continue a conflict that happened yesterday, with a Sly dig.

So I responded to that.

Now that I have dealt with that silliness, my views on this issue

We are continuing down a very slippery slope.

I agree 100% with Lord Foul on this and how pathetic some of these students are being over anything they do not like

They have every right to dislike the author based on his views, but what exactly was wrong with this poem, for then have them deface this?

Its not then even a rational way to look at individual works by the author. They have simple declared all his works as taboo. Its simple utter stupidity

They should be prosecuted for graffiti-ing.

Is that a crime? Or even a word, I wonder?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thank you Kindly.
I wouldn't want to upset the Didge any more than I did yesterday.

Why would this upset me, that you thought of the same thread? It means we thought this was either wrong or right ourselves. It garnered our interest

Looks like you are looking to stir and you moan at me. Frankly, I think your girlie group are nothing more than hateful, in how you constantly cast other people in the media, but that is my view I guess

You know I am seriously considering posting a link to the other thread to the Mother you slated. Simple, so she can have a chance to decide whether to respond to the poor and quite frankly vindictive views made against her. Simple where you and others, based on your perceived superior morality. That a person based simple on looks and going public, to where she and her son was wronged. Is some how  to you and others a bad mother, touting for buisness and an attention seeker.

I imagine, you would take an entirely different approach  if she came on here and expressed her views.

I guess its far easier to slag people off, when they cannot respond

So if you want to drag this onto other threads with Sly comments, am happy to continue with you.

You can't put someone's views up on their Facebook, that's just not done on forums.

eddie wrote:They should be prosecuted for graffiti-ing.

Is that a crime? Or even a word, I wonder?

Well it should be, but it would be down to the University to prosecute, which I very much doubt they will.

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:

Why would this upset me, that you thought of the same thread? It means we thought this was either wrong or right ourselves. It garnered our interest

Looks like you are looking to stir and you moan at me. Frankly, I think your girlie group are nothing more than hateful, in how you constantly cast other people in the media, but that is my view I guess

You know I am seriously considering posting a link to the other thread to the Mother you slated. Simple, so she can have a chance to decide whether to respond to the poor and quite frankly vindictive views made against her. Simple where you and others, based on your perceived superior morality. That a person based simple on looks and going public, to where she and her son was wronged. Is some how  to you and others a bad mother, touting for buisness and an attention seeker.

I imagine, you would take an entirely different approach  if she came on here and expressed her views.

I guess its far easier to slag people off, when they cannot respond

So if you want to drag this onto other threads with Sly comments, am happy to continue with you.

You can't put someone's views up on their Facebook, that's just not done on forums.

You are saying a person cannot respond to people, by joining this forum?

I never said I would post it publically to her, but If I did, it would be in private and allow her to side to join here.

Why should people think they can get away with slagging off people, when they cannot respond?

That to me is a sign of cowardice.

Though the reality is, I never would and do you know why?

Personally it's something I would never do or you for that matter.

What's here is here, although Syl wouldn't skulk away from her if you did. She says what she says and won't lie or deny it.

magica wrote:Personally it's something I would never do or you for that matter.

What's here is here, although Syl wouldn't skulk away from her if you did.  She says what she says and won't lie or deny it.

The point is people should really think about what they say and I doubt very much Syl would have made those views, if the mother was a poster here. To me, is all tough talk behind the PC, knowing they cannot respond.

So this is a public forum, and anyone can read the views of people here and they may even choose to join

Syl stands by what she says, so she would say it to her cyber face.

Anyway its all conjecture.

How many of us have views on forums, and write what we think about the subject, that's what they're for tbh.

magica wrote:Syl stands by what she says, so she would say it to her cyber face.

Anyway its all conjecture.

How many of us have views on forums, and write what we think about the subject, that's what they're  for tbh.

Having views is fine. I rightly get castigated for nasty or poor views. So if she stands by such poor and hateful views, the same applies to Syl when she does. Just because the person is not here, does not mean she can make unfounded poor hateful views against them.

Just as happens here and when you and Syl and Horatio were called derogative sexist words, that person was placed in the basement. The views made against you all were unfounded and wrong

But because the person is not on here, she thinks she can be as poor and as bad. Not saying she should be punished, as I believe in free speech, but that she should rightly be condemned.

So if she stands by such poor views, not even knowing the mother and doing so superficially off her looks. That is poor and hateful.

Right back to the debate

I'm saying she stands by it, but that's my take. Syls not here so have to wait until she comes in.

Right I'm watching a good thriller.

Laters.

magica wrote:I'm saying she stands by it, but that's my take. Souls not here so have to wait until she comes in.

Right I'm watching a good thriller.

Laters.  

Goodnight

Syl would absolutely stand by what she’s said. She’s never struck me as fake or cowardly.
It’s one of the many reasons I like her.

eddie wrote:Syl would absolutely stand by what she’s said. She’s never struck me as fake or cowardly.
It’s one of the many reasons I like her.  

Great, but what would you say if an Islamist called a non-Muslim woman a whore, based on her apperance?

Would you condemn them or say, "one of things I most admire about this Islamist is they absolutely stand by what they say?"

Of course in the real world, countless people have read or even see this happen and get majorly angry, when this happens

A female poster says this about someone she does not know and based on her look, basically states the very same thing

Now I am not afraid to condemn people for when they do wrong

She had no justification for such a view and yet everyone side steps that she did

I generally try to see the good and positive in people and like I say, many constantly look at the negative and poorly so

There was zero justification for her comment and is derived from the same poor reason that an Islamist would say the same. Based on a periceved view in how women to them, should look

So she can continue to stand by such a poor view

What does that then say about the person, whether they then cannot see how wrong that is?

So its a good thing I do not stand by everything I say, or I would never see, how in fact I can be wrong

What that says is a person cannot look at themselves skeptically or critically, even onto their own views. By saying they stand by what they say.

I do not call that a good value to have in anybody

Hey ho

Anyway, I am done talking about this.

To me, if people cannot condemn or be critical of someone. For being blatantly hateful towards another woman based on their looks. Then they have no cause to complain at anyone who does so. As otherwise they are showing the worst possible double standard.

Night

And yet you want to have free speech. You have to take the good with the bad otherwise it’s you, who’s the hypocrite.

And that’s all I have to say.

Didge wrote:Anyway, I am done talking about this.

Allelujah! It's a miracle

Didge wrote:Anyway, I am done talking about this.

To me, if people cannot condemn or be critical of someone. For being blatantly h
ateful towards another woman based on their looks. Then they have no cause to complain at anyone who does so. As otherwise they are showing the worst possible double standard.

Night

Well I will reply whether you are done or not.

If you think the woman in the thread needs to know what has been said about her on a discussion forum by all means tell her.  Not sure how Ben would feel about dragging forum topics onto facebook, but do your worst.

In the meantime she isnt here, so my opinion was based on what I read and what I saw, just as we all make judgments and give opinions on every topic posted on a forum.

You really should concentrate more on how YOU speak to and about people, because you seem unable to control your own venom as soon as someone has a different opinion to yourself.

You carried on bringing my name up long after I had done with the thread, in fact you killed the thread stone dead with your ranting.....as per.

magica wrote:Personally it's something I would never do or you for that matter.

What's here is here, although Syl wouldn't skulk away from her if you did.  She says what she says and won't lie or deny it.

No I wouldnt deny or lie, I always stand by what I say, and if I am proven wrong, I will also admit that.
 Thanks Mags.

eddie wrote:Syl would absolutely stand by what she’s said. She’s never struck me as fake or cowardly.
It’s one of the many reasons I like her.  

Thanks Eddie, it's also one of the many things I like about you too.

eddie wrote:And yet you want to have free speech. You have to take the good with the bad otherwise it’s you, who’s the hypocrite.

And that’s all I have to say.

Again side stepping the issue and thus like I say people have a double standard

This is about people being critical and condemning someone when they say something poor

You have no problem when I do, but when a poster does it about someone that cannot respond back, to you and others, its no problem and do you know

You all do and think the same. Thinking its acceptable to slag off other women based on their looks

So how is that denying Free speech?

Its about how your all hypocritical, which I am fine with

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:Anyway, I am done talking about this.

To me, if people cannot condemn or be critical of someone. For being blatantly h
ateful towards another woman based on their looks. Then they have no cause to complain at anyone who does so. As otherwise they are showing the worst possible double standard.

Night

Well I will reply whether you are done or not.

If you think the woman in the thread needs to know what has been said about her on a discussion forum by all means tell her.  Not sure how Ben would feel about dragging forum topics onto facebook, but do your worst.

In the meantime she isnt here, so my opinion was based on what I read and what I saw, just as we all make judgments and give opinions on every topic posted on a forum.

You really should concentrate more on how YOU speak to and about people, because you seem unable to control your own venom as soon as someone has a different opinion to yourself.

You carried on bringing my name up long after I had done with the thread, in fact you killed the thread stone dead with your ranting.....as per.

You started this on this thread with your Sly dig

So you are just like the Islamist that calls women whores for their appearance

So your opinion was based superficiallly, not knowing the woman

You again did so based off her looks

No different to the hateful Islamist that speaks about western women this way in their looks. As there was nothing you read to show she was a whore, as she works in a retail store and is in a relationship. You constantly said and went off her pictures, so please do not lie, its poor to say the least. There was zero to indicate your claim how you think she is a Prostitute. It was simple nasty and vindictive as you also have a beef for a mother standing up against an injustice but rightly speaking out pubically. So I guess you did not read very well or bothered too and decided to slag her off like I say on her looks. Where no amount of excuses will cut it from you, as you simple do not like the way, certain women look

So this proves to me, you are no better. As you have no just reason for classing this mother this way and it is because you think you believe how she looks is wrong, based on some backward self righteous nonsense. Just like Islamists do

So no problem. I now truely know what a kind of person you are now

I also know many who side stepped being critical of you, do so from the worst possible double standard, where they allow women to be cast as whores based on looks.

So the difference between you and I is this. Yes I am sometimesd abusive, when I get passionate about things that matter to me, which is no excuse either, but happilly admit when wrong and apologise. You cannot even see how you are wrong and stand by your hate. You do not even want to attempt to even understand how and why it is wrong. That is being dogmatic in your beliefs.

So again, a perfect example of someone thinking its fine to be vindictive towards a mother, just because they do not like how they look. What is worse is you cannot even admit. That is the reason and why from the start, you too a blatant disliking to her. That is again utterly superficial. The fact you cannot even recognise how wrong it was for you to assume such a poor claim onto her, just confirms to me. How and why shallow women (most women are not shallow) can be the most hateful towards other women.

wow

One day, maybe you will actually learn why such superifical judgements are wrong

Didge wrote:Now that I have dealt with that silliness, my views on this issue

We are continuing down a very slippery slope.

I agree 100% with Lord Foul on this and how pathetic some of these students are being over anything they do not like

They have every right to dislike the author based on his views, but what exactly was wrong with this poem, for then have them deface this?

Its not then even a rational way to look at individual works by the author. They have simple declared all his works as taboo. Its simple utter stupidity

Apparently, the Victorian writer’s 300-word celebration of hard work and bloody-minded determination — which has several times been voted Britain’s favourite poem — is offensive to ethnic minorities.

The reason? Kipling, who was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1865, was, like the vast majority of his countrymen, an advocate of the British Empire.

Though many of his famous works, such as the novels Kim and The Jungle Book, contain nuanced and affectionate portrayals of indigenous cultures, some, notably the poem The White Man’s Burden, portray other races as inferior.

This, in the eyes of modern critics, is enough to render all of his work verboten. Including the famous poem ‘If’.

They are, of course, entitled to their view. But perhaps these sensitive souls should be a little more generous in the way they judge the social opinions that were held in another age.

Or they could take a lesson from the likes of the black tennis star Serena Williams.

She has walked past a mural of ‘If’ on each of the ten occasions she has contested a singles final at Wimbledon, since its most famous lines are carried above the entrance to Centre Court, to inspire players.

Williams, who arguably has done more in her lifetime to advance racial and sexual equality than any other living athlete, is like many fans inspired by the poem’s celebration of stoicism and bravery in the face of adversity.

Last year, she even decided to publish a recording of herself reading a specially adapted version, to celebrate International Women’s Day.

In the recording, Williams replaced Kipling’s final line (‘You’ll be a Man, my son!’) with a form of words more appropriate to the occasion. Namely: ‘You’ll be a woman, sister!’

Some might take the view that Serena’s adoption of the 1910 poem highlights the extraordinary degree to which it can remain relevant and inspiring more than a century after publication.

But apparently Manchester’s right-on student leaders know better as they sparked yet another round of soul-searching about British cultural icons being demonised by the insidious forces of political correctness.

Yesterday, critics accused Ms Khan of ‘liberal fascism’, arguing that even George Orwell, who once described Kipling as a ‘jingo imperialist’, might have found recent events a touch, well, Orwellian.

Equally vociferous supporters, meanwhile, stood by her, arguing that Kipling was ‘imperialistic and racist’ and that the mural was therefore ‘inappropriate’.

One thing neither side bothered to consider, though, was what ‘If’ is actually about.

For while admirers consider it a brilliant motivational text and Left-wing critics regard it as a stiff-upper-lipped celebration of outmoded values, the truth is that Kipling’s poem is a unique, and in its own way quite subversive, take on a little-known chapter in Britain’s colonial history.

Indeed, had Ms Khan, who claims to be an English Literature student, bothered to actually study the work, she would have learned that it was intended as a bitter condemnation of one of our government’s largely forgotten imperial adventures in 1890s Africa.

The poem was in fact written to celebrate the exploits of Dr Leander Starr Jameson, a buccaneering Scottish adventurer and friend of Kipling who was betrayed and imprisoned by the British Government.

Jameson, a medical doctor who boasted the Matabele chief Lobengula as a patient — and was made an honorary tribal ‘induna’, or adviser, in return — came to grief in 1896 when leading an audacious military raid on Boers in the Transvaal region of what would later become South Africa.

Kipling’s poem celebrates what he saw as his heroism and bravery, when faced with the duplicity of the British ruling class.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5972809/Why-Rudyard-Kiplings-classic-poem-rightly-revered-Serena-Williams.html

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well I will reply whether you are done or not.

If you think the woman in the thread needs to know what has been said about her on a discussion forum by all means tell her.  Not sure how Ben would feel about dragging forum topics onto facebook, but do your worst.

In the meantime she isnt here, so my opinion was based on what I read and what I saw, just as we all make judgments and give opinions on every topic posted on a forum.

You really should concentrate more on how YOU speak to and about people, because you seem unable to control your own venom as soon as someone has a different opinion to yourself.

You carried on bringing my name up long after I had done with the thread, in fact you killed the thread stone dead with your ranting.....as per.

You started this on this thread with your Sly dig

So you are just like the Islamist that calls women whores for their appearance

So your opinion was based superficiallly, not knowing the woman

You again did so based off her looks

No different to the hateful Islamist that speaks about western women this way in their looks. As there was nothing you read to show she was a whore, as she works in a retail store and is in a relationship. You constantly said and went off her pictures, so please do not lie, its poor to say the least. There was zero to indicate your claim how you think she is a Prostitute. It was simple nasty and vindictive as you also have a beef for a mother standing up against an injustice but rightly speaking out pubically. So I guess you did not read very well or bothered too and decided to slag her off like I say on her looks. Where no amount of excuses will cut it from you, as you simple do not like the way, certain women look

So this proves to me, you are no better. As you have no just reason for classing this mother this way and it is because you think you believe how she looks is wrong, based on some backward self righteous nonsense. Just like Islamists do

So no problem. I now truely know what a kind of person you are now

I also know many who side stepped being critical of you, do so from the worst possible double standard, where they allow women to be cast as whores based on looks.

So the difference between you and I is this. Yes I am sometimesd abusive, when I get passionate about things that matter to me, which is no excuse either, but happilly admit when wrong and apologise. You cannot even see how you are wrong and stand by your hate. You do not even want to attempt to even understand how and why it is wrong. That is being dogmatic in your beliefs.

So again, a perfect example of someone thinking its fine to be vindictive towards a mother, just because they do not like how they look. What is worse is you cannot even admit. That is the reason and why from the start, you too a blatant disliking to her. That is again utterly superficial. The fact you cannot even recognise how wrong it was for you to assume such a poor claim onto her, just confirms to me. How and why shallow women (most women are not shallow) can be the most hateful towards other women.

wow

One day, maybe you will actually learn why such superifical judgements are wrong

You twist things so much I think you come to believe them yourself.

I never once called her a whore or a prostitute....stop lying.

It was YOU who  went onto her facebook page where you copied a post she had made.
At that time there were no new updates in the news so I asked where you had found the link and you said it was on her facebook which was open.
Her facebook page is 99% filled with provocative pics of herself....then there is the story of her son.
I said her pics looked like she was touting for business....which they do.
I have never called the girl a prostitute or a whore, I didn't say she WAS touting for business, I said that's what her facebook page pics  looked like.

Its you have carried on and on and on about the womans looks....I dont give a toss what she looks like or what images she puts on her fb, I was making the point that her facebook page was not the place to drag her son into the media spotlight.....poor kid.

eddie wrote:
They should be prosecuted for graffiti-ing.

Is that a crime? Or even a word, I wonder?

I think the actual crime would be "vandalism", and the charge could be one of "defacing university property" ???

You can't charge people with simply being stupid, however -- and that particular student union executive body really is a bunch of idiots..

Didge wrote:...........

...........

I agree 100% with Lord Foul on this and how pathetic some of these students are being over anything they do not like

They have every right to dislike the author based on his views, but what exactly was wrong with this poem, for then have them deface this?

Its not then even a rational way to look at individual works by the author. They have simple declared all his works as taboo. Its simple utter stupidity

Too true, that...

There is no doubt that Rudyard Kipling was a racist, sexist, and an imperialist  --  all together, a man of his time..

However, not only did that student union choose a stupid way to voice their protest --  through an open and quite public act of vandalism --  but those idiots also chose the wrong poem for their attack.   There is simply nothing "racist" about it  --  I have a copy of "IF" hanging up on a wall here.

All they have achieved is to provide yet more ammo for those who look for any reason to deride and devalue modern-day uni' students, in general..

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

You started this on this thread with your Sly dig

So you are just like the Islamist that calls women whores for their appearance

So your opinion was based superficiallly, not knowing the woman

You again did so based off her looks

No different to the hateful Islamist that speaks about western women this way in their looks. As there was nothing you read to show she was a whore, as she works in a retail store and is in a relationship. You constantly said and went off her pictures, so please do not lie, its poor to say the least. There was zero to indicate your claim how you think she is a Prostitute. It was simple nasty and vindictive as you also have a beef for a mother standing up against an injustice but rightly speaking out pubically. So I guess you did not read very well or bothered too and decided to slag her off like I say on her looks. Where no amount of excuses will cut it from you, as you simple do not like the way, certain women look

So this proves to me, you are no better. As you have no just reason for classing this mother this way and it is because you think you believe how she looks is wrong, based on some backward self righteous nonsense. Just like Islamists do

So no problem. I now truely know what a kind of person you are now

I also know many who side stepped being critical of you, do so from the worst possible double standard, where they allow women to be cast as whores based on looks.

So the difference between you and I is this. Yes I am sometimesd abusive, when I get passionate about things that matter to me, which is no excuse either, but happilly admit when wrong and apologise. You cannot even see how you are wrong and stand by your hate. You do not even want to attempt to even understand how and why it is wrong. That is being dogmatic in your beliefs.

So again, a perfect example of someone thinking its fine to be vindictive towards a mother, just because they do not like how they look. What is worse is you cannot even admit. That is the reason and why from the start, you too a blatant disliking to her. That is again utterly superficial. The fact you cannot even recognise how wrong it was for you to assume such a poor claim onto her, just confirms to me. How and why shallow women (most women are not shallow) can be the most hateful towards other women.

wow

One day, maybe you will actually learn why such superifical judgements are wrong

You twist things so much I think you come to believe them yourself.

I never once called her a whore or a prostitute....stop lying.

It was YOU who  went onto her facebook page where you copied a post she had made.
At that time there were no new updates in the news so I asked where you had found the link and you said it was on her facebook which was open.
Her facebook page is 99% filled with provocative pics of herself....then there is the story of her son.
I said her pics looked like she was touting for business....which they do.
I have never called the girl a prostitute or a whore, I didn't say she WAS touting for business, I said that's what her facebook page pics  looked like.

Its you have carried on and on and on about the womans looks....I dont give a toss what she looks like or what images she puts on her fb, I was making the point that her facebook page was not the place to drag her son into the media spotlight.....poor kid.

Actually its you being the poor liar, when you claimed off her pictures about touting for buisness.

Clearly you meant prostitute

You then say provocative pictures?

The sort of thing that is said by idiots that claim women are looking for trouble and claim they are to blame when raped for how they dress. Its the exact same stupid thing to claim

Proving that is what you meant by touting for buisness

You see this is all about how you perceive how women should look

AKA, you are no better than misogynist men that call women whores based on how they look.

Where you are even empowering them to do so, by how you think women should look a certain way

Your views are sending women back into the stone age, as a woman should be able to dress as they please

Of course you will wrongly compare this to the Burka, where countless women are forced to wear. Where those who claim to choose to wear do no such thing. As its a belief that instills fear, that they have to wear or face the hell fire in the next life in their beliefs. Hence its not a choice to wear but a choice to believe they will suffer if they do not where.

Hence they are being forced to wear based on a threat of suffering

Its you and still are going on about how she looks and you are doing so superifically again

Like I say, you hold some pathetic self righteous view on how women should look

Which is no better than radical religious idiots, sexist men and clearly very shallow women.

So the problem has always been you here

Looking attractive and wearing makeup a certain way and how some does there hair, does not mean they are touting for buisness, aka you meant a sexual client, aka prostitution. You have decided it is the case, where again you have no idea about this mother

She is in a relationship and how she dresses does not effect anybody else

Yet you shat all over for doing so

Like I say, please continue to live within this world, where you castigate and cast women in the poorest way. Due to the fact you sterotype women on a certain way they dress

That is 100% pathetic and hateful

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:...........

...........

I agree 100% with Lord Foul on this and how pathetic some of these students are being over anything they do not like

They have every right to dislike the author based on his views, but what exactly was wrong with this poem, for then have them deface this?

Its not then even a rational way to look at individual works by the author. They have simple declared all his works as taboo. Its simple utter stupidity

Too true, that...

There is no doubt that Rudyard Kipling was a racist, sexist, and an imperialist  --  all together, a man of his time..

However, not only did that student union choose a stupid way to voice their protest --  through an open and quite public act of vandalism --  but those idiots also chose the wrong poem for their attack.   There is simply nothing "racist" about it  --  I have a copy of "IF" hanging up on a wall here.

All they have achieved is to provide yet more ammo for those who look for any reason to deride and devalue modern-day uni' students, in general..

+1