Alexikokopops Posted 4 February 2009 Posted 4 February 2009 Erm - why would you want to "call a black person a nigger"? It's so unjust! All I want to do is call these chocolatey people niggers and pakis! They can call each other it, IT'S JUST NOT FAIR! :cry:
Flynny Posted 4 February 2009 Posted 4 February 2009 if i was to have a argument with a black person and i shouted fook off you nigger you would get done however they call each other nigger how can that male sense Because they didn't historically oppress each other? Because words don't carry a fixed meaning, but come with shitloads of connotations. Because what a word means depends on its context. It'd be inappropriate. It's fairly simple really. I agree on the most part that reverse discrimination does happen to an extent that it perhaps shouldn't - but for the most part that's people either misunderstanding the spirit of anti-discrimination laws or trying to be nice without realising the extent to which they are discriminating in reverse.
Finnegan Posted 4 February 2009 Posted 4 February 2009 I find the word deeply offensive. Deeply, deeply offensive and I am sickened to my core that I have to keep hearing it over and over again on the radio, the television and see it written in print in this thread. Can we not just agree not to use it? Can we not simply refer to her as just "Carol"? saw that coming the second I started reading... THATCHER!
Corky Posted 4 February 2009 Posted 4 February 2009 Sorry to go off-topic but skinnydipper's got a great sig
Thracian Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 The big problem is that perception of what is 'correct' and what's not has changed from past generations. I recently went to a mates house (white) who I haven't seen for over 15 years and his dad who is over 75 years old said 'I remember you, your one of his paki school friends'. Now that is offensive but in his time and generation it was acceptable to call a guy from asian descent a 'paki' and it was acceptable to treat them like 'second' class citizens!! But times have changed, all races have in general become 'equal'. Those stigmas and perceptions of old are now not acceptable, and if your gonna be a figure on TV, then you should know better!!! I don't know what happened in the 15 years before I was born but cannot remember a time when it was right to treat anyone like a "second class citizen" and certainly not inmy family I do know we had a phrase about "sticks and stones" though. If Carol Thatcher flippantly likened the moppy look of a black tennis player, or any other tennis player, to a Golliwog then the whole reaction is just PC mischief making. And for anyone to seek to make more than was meant is just a sign of the sad times we live in. A golliwog is a black doll as you well know. The last four vintage golly's I've sold were all bought by West Indians who seem to like them. Why someone with appropriate looks shouldn't be likened to a gollywog I don't know if the term is clearly meant as a simile (boxing promoter Don King comes to mind), except, of course, for the opportunist risks involved the consequences of which are clearly demonstrated by the case in point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_promoter) Had Thatcher spat out some remark to the effect that she "didn't want to sit by that wog" or some other such indefensible insult then that would have been grossly offensive and she'd have deserved any and all the flak that followed. But this appears to have been a flippant but good humoured remark made in private and to have taken it out of context and into the public domain was a disgrace and would have been whoever had said it. It's interesting now to consider who "leaked" the comment because, as we all know, the BBC is full of Labour party apologists and has constantly failed to convince anyone with their eyes open that it not a blatantly biased mouthpiece for the government despite it's studied pretence at neutrality. I'm sure the place crawls with people who loathe Margaret Thatcher and anyone continuing to bear the name Thatcher. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...liwog-joke.html http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm
fox123 Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Just out of interest... maybe I am being a bit thick here, but why is it racist to call a black man black, but not a white man white? Why is there so much discrimination against a white man challenging a black man, why does a black man play the discrimination card when he doesn't get his own way, when this country has bent over backward to make ALL welcome... Today's society, today's World doesn't discriminate against what colour you are, of course it's ignorance, its playground tactics you used as kids, but the race card don't wash with me no more... every ones as equal as the next person.
Guest Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Just out of interest... maybe I am being a bit thick here, but why is it racist to call a black man black, but not a white man white? Why is there so much discrimination against a white man challenging a black man, why does a black man play the discrimination card when he doesn't get his own way, when this country has bent over backward to make ALL welcome...Today's society, today's World doesn't discriminate against what colour you are, of course it's ignorance, its playground tactics you used as kids, but the race card don't wash with me no more... every ones as equal as the next person. It's not is it? As far as I'm aware, all the black people I know refer to themselves as black, and the white ones refer to themselves as white
Thracian Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Just out of interest... maybe I am being a bit thick here, but why is it racist to call a black man black, but not a white man white? Why is there so much discrimination against a white man challenging a black man, why does a black man play the discrimination card when he doesn't get his own way, when this country has bent over backward to make ALL welcome...Today's society, today's World doesn't discriminate against what colour you are, of course it's ignorance, its playground tactics you used as kids, but the race card don't wash with me no more... every ones as equal as the next person. I'm not sure that's quite the case, but attacks on perceived racism provide the perfect ammunition by which activists can engineer more and more "fairness" for the immigrant communities even if, as now, it results in yet more unfairness to whites. Sadly I think the fact that people don't seem to be allowed to develop harmony naturally is causing more and more interracial antagonism and people that highlight issues like the Thatcher comment do far more harm than good. But for that view to be given any credence nowadays it would have to be uttered by an immigrant.
Finnegan Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 It's not inherently racist to use the word 'black.' I'd personally say it becomes racist when it's unnecessary in context. But then that's it's use that I find offensive not the phrase. For example "Barry Hayles is black" = not offensive. If you were to say "Steve Howard's a big twat!" and on the other hand say "Barry Hayles is a big, black twat!" that's where - as far as I'm concerned - you're out of line. I don't really care who wants to call me PC like it's a bad thing. I loathe, like the rest of you, overly political correctness. But I also loathe ignorance and using anti-PC as an excuse to be an abusive, bigotted tit. & Black people don't just go about willy nilly accusing people of being racist "to get their own way." There are cases of it happening, sure, black people can be dickheads too! Wadda ya know! How many similar cases have we seen where, say, Christian folk have had a cry and played the religious discrimination card?
Daggers Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 saw that coming the second I started reading...THATCHER! And for a while I thought the whole effort that went into that was going to go unrecognised.
The Stig Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 It's not inherently racist to use the word 'black.'I'd personally say it becomes racist when it's unnecessary in context. But then that's it's use that I find offensive not the phrase. For example "Barry Hayles is black" = not offensive. If you were to say "Steve Howard's a big twat!" and on the other hand say "Barry Hayles is a big, black twat!" that's where - as far as I'm concerned - you're out of line. I agree totally. There was once a time when I was trying to describe someone. I called the gentleman black and someone thought I was being racist. I hate racism, I was using his skin colour as a form of identification. The same way if there was a room full of white people and one black person If I needed to point out that person I'd say "the black man". If there was a room full of black people and one white man again I'd say "the white man". People are very cereful not to be racist and it gets to the point where someone is accused of racism when they are just identifying someone. However, the fact that people are being so careful can be a good thing as we don't want racism in this world.
Ultra Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Wonder how the Beeb decided that Thatcher should be dismissed forthwith for this, yet Jonathan Ross can escape with a couple of months off air with his salary intact for obscene phone calls to a pensioner. His salary wasn't intact - it was withheld for THREE MONTHS. There's more than a tinge of misogyny about this incident, though. I very much doubt Moyles or Clarkson would have faced discipline for such a comment.
Daggers Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 If it stops people talking about the snow for a couple of minutes it can't have been a totally bad decision to sack her.
The Stig Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 His salary wasn't intact - it was withheld for THREE MONTHS.There's more than a tinge of misogyny about this incident, though. I very much doubt Moyles or Clarkson would have faced discipline for such a comment. Had they said it on air they would have faced certain punishment. It's a racist term. Off air, I'm not so sure.
Corky Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 If it stops people talking about the snow for a couple of minutes it can't have been a totally bad decision to sack her. Has Peter Snow been sacked as well?
skinnydipper Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Sorry to go off-topic but skinnydipper's got a great sig
Ultra Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 I don't know what happened in the 15 years before I was born but cannot remember a time when it was right to treat anyone like a "second class citizen" and certainly not in my family I do know we had a phrase about "sticks and stones" though. Historically, though, racism's gone way beyond simple name-calling. Why someone with appropriate looks shouldn't be likened to a gollywog I don't know if the term is clearly meant as a simile (boxing promoter Don King comes to mind), except, of course, for the opportunist risks involved the consequences of which are clearly demonstrated by the case in point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_promoter) Don King would probably sue you for every cent (among other things) if you were to use that word in his presence.. Had Thatcher spat out some remark to the effect that she "didn't want to sit by that w*g" or some other such indefensible insult then that would have been grossly offensive and she'd have deserved any and all the flak that followed.But this appears to have been a flippant but good humoured remark made in private and to have taken it out of context and into the public domain was a disgrace and would have been whoever had said it. You know as well as anyone how British journalism works. How often have "off-the-record" quotes somehow found their way into print? Many folk have built entire careers out of twisting and distorting the words of others. And as a scribe herself she should have been more aware of the potential traps - especially given the audience to whom she was speaking. It's interesting now to consider who "leaked" the comment because, as we all know, the BBC is full of Labour party apologists and has constantly failed to convince anyone with their eyes open that it not a blatantly biased mouthpiece for the government despite its studied pretence at neutrality. Sorry, is this the same BBC that regularly roasts ministers and other government on the Today programme? The same BBC that told us last year that if you were white and working-class, then you must be a supporter of the BNP? The same BBC that resisted public and even government pressure to screen an appeal for aid to Gaza? Whatever else it might be, a "blatantly biased mouthpiece for the government" it most definitely is NOT! I'm sure the place crawls with people who loathe Margaret Thatcher and anyone continuing to bear the name Thatcher. I was a Thatcherite once upon a time.. I thought Ben was one of our best players in 03-04. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...liwog-joke.html The Daily Mail - such an impartial, fair and neutral source...
Daggers Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 One of my sister-in-laws uses the terms 'wog', 'nig-nog' and 'gollywog'. She is a manager at Sainsburys. And a major league cunt.
Webbo Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 I wasn't there so I'm relying on second hand reports, and even though I was a huge fan of her mother I can't condone what she said. Perhaps there is a bit of anti-Thatcher spite in the way the way the BBC have handled it, but she shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Finnegan Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Jesus, this is pissing me off now. This is nothing like Woss. She has not been banned from the BBC. She made an ignorant, racist remark to the people on the One show and now they don't want her back. Why is this even a scandal? Like I said, if I made obnoxious, stupid and offensive comments when I came round your house to meet your family and friends - you wouldn't invite me back, would you? The BBC offered her the opportunity to apologise and accept that what she said was inappropriate - which is good, really, it suggests they want more than a tokenistic 'sorry' and more some reassuance that she isn't just a racist twat. The only thing that's wrong with this is that it got thrust into the media somewhat unnecessarily.
Thracian Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Whatever else it might be, a "blatantly biased mouthpiece for the government" it most definitely is NOT! ========= It's bias (as reflected in the Carol Thatcher saga) is blatant and well documented, often reflecting sympathy with Labour policies as emphasied by this comment in a BBC commissioned report of June 2007 which condemned its "culture of bias":- After the BBC broadcast a week of programmes to highlight poverty in Africa and a day celebrating the National Health Service, Adam Boulton, political editor of Sky News, told a House of Lords select committee the BBC’s coverage came dangerously close to peddling government propaganda. The BBC's chairman is considered by many to be a Labour crony and his selection caused considerable cross-party criticism: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/154...rown-crony.html And journalists can be quite subtle in how they impart their bias but it is there. This is just one example. And approaching election time I am sure there will be lots more. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/151...ews-report.html I don't defend the wisdom of Carol Thatcher's remarks one bit because she should have realised there are arseholes in every closet of the BBC. But it is a poor do if the Corporation is going to support people who make a mockery or free speech and who are so treacherously bad mannered as to intrude on private conversations. Talk about Big Brother. The BBC should be defending us against such things not encouraging it, though that very encouragement is yet further evidence of its sympathy with the government's Orwellian attitudes whereby everyone's thoughts, words, actions and deeds are there to be scrutinised, controlled and, if possible, steered into line with socialist political doctrine. "Big Brother Is Watching You" has never been more appropriate.
Daggers Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Why is this even a scandal? Like I said, if I made obnoxious, stupid and offensive comments when I came round your house to meet your family and friends - you wouldn't invite me back, would you? It depends on whether you smeared shit all over my television, the rest I could live with but not that. The fact that you may even be contemplating it disgusts me, your sort make me puke.
Thracian Posted 5 February 2009 Posted 5 February 2009 Jesus, this is pissing me off now.This is nothing like Woss. She has not been banned from the BBC. She made an ignorant, racist remark to the people on the One show and now they don't want her back. Why is this even a scandal? Like I said, if I made obnoxious, stupid and offensive comments when I came round your house to meet your family and friends - you wouldn't invite me back, would you? The BBC offered her the opportunity to apologise and accept that what she said was inappropriate - which is good, really, it suggests they want more than a tokenistic 'sorry' and more some reassuance that she isn't just a racist twat. The only thing that's wrong with this is that it got thrust into the media somewhat unnecessarily. If you want to talk about a my fuzzy-haired tennis playing grandson looking like a golden golliwog, feel free. I couldn't give a shit. And why the hell Carol Thatcher or anyone else should accept being bullied into making the sort of coerced Inquisitional apology that somehow justifies the BBC's warped idea of what was meant or conveyed by the remark, I've no idea.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.