Euphemisms for Jihadists in Britain May Boomerang

[jordan179]

I commented on level_head's "Euphemisms for Jihadists":

"Asian" is one of those continent-based racial descriptions that actually describes very little.  An "Asian" person may be Caucasian, Mongoloid or Negrito:  within the "Caucasian" category he may be of European, Indian or Semitic ancestry. 
When the British press describes a perp as "Asian" all they are

Comments

[skarman]

It's not just in Great Britain that this is happening.

Here in the Netherlands (an apt description), in a little over a decade, one group of immigrants has had their designation changed from Immigrant, to Moroccan (where they or their parents came from) to 'New Dutch Person'. Officially, by the government, because of the fact this one group is making such a massive hash of it. AND because all the other ethnic groups (Chinese, Turkish, Surinamese, Dutch Antillians etc.) were very vocal about being lumped in the same group ie. "immigrants".

When you read in the papers or hear on the radio/watch the news that perps have done something, they'll either name the group the person or persons belong to, except when it's the New Dutch People who are the perps. Then it's just, like last weekend, "Three persons attacked and kicked a soccer referee so hard, he died of his injuries". No mention of which ethnic group they belong to, which, in of itself, is already a clear signal to everybody that it's a group of "New Dutch People".

[fpb]

I was wondering about that - and I'd smelled the smell of cover-up. After all, even the worst football thugs in Europe did not do that; it was an evident sign of cultural alienness - doingthings that simply would not occur to us.

[marycatelli]

Now, now, now, you don't have to mention what everyone would naturally take for granted. It's only when something is anomalous that you have to point it out. This just goes to prove that everyone knows that they are the violent types. Violent types of other races have to be picked out to indicate they aren't the obvious default.

[marycatelli]

Well, duh. How would they manage without Islamophobia to feel superior to? You don't expect them to get their charge of moral superiority out of giving to the poor, telling the truth, etc., do you? They need a chance to get it by being arrogant bullies. Which means they need to foment situations where they think their arrogance and bullying make them morally superior.

[fervid_dryfire]

I remember during the London riots, the fires/looting/etc were committed by (reported) "youths" pretty much every time.

As if being young means your race is not discernible. =\

[fpb]

I'm afraid that people of every race took part. Plenty of whites and non-muslim blacks have done time since. "Youths," in that case, was simply a prudent description, because as a rule the rioters tended to be below 30. Oh, BTW, I happen to live there and saw it happen.

[marycatelli]

Which just goes to show that euphemisms do for you. If the media had been honest before, they would not have misled people by using the term "youths" accurately.

[x_eleven]

They don't care about market share. Their idiot-ology comes first and foremost. You see the same thing happening here: Hollywierd pumps out leftist propaganda pieces regardless of how badly they flop at the box office. It's all about "The Narrative" with these leftoids.

[fpb]

No, if they had a market to worry about, they would. But the British media is an oligopoly shared by two monsters (the BBC and the Murdoch thing), three TV channels, and eight newspapers. Each of these has a lock on a particular market area and therefore no real concern about competition or going bust. The one exception is the newspaper market for the educated left, where the existence of two broadsheets, The Guardian and The Independent, is destroying them both, and the only question is whether one of them will be left standing. Above all, though, all newspapers and broadcasters draw on the same talent pool and even those that cater for the large conservative market are staffed by people whose heart is elsewhere.

[x_eleven]

Nothing all that different here in the 'States about that. Hollywierd and the leftstream media are all on the same page, and have been for decades.

"...even those that cater for the large conservative market are staffed by people whose heart is elsewhere".

I've been saying the same about Faux Snooze (FOX News -- a Rupert Murdock outfit). It caters to a conservative audience, but their loyalties are to the "politics as usual" elite of the Republican Party. When they actually encounter a real conservative who isn't one of the neo-"con" cabal, or the get-along-to-get-along crowd, they show their true colours. This Faux did with Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

[fpb]

Naaah. Nobody is deceived. They just go through the motion to appease their own misguided consciences.