|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2020 12:08:46 GMT
Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered. My point was that SC is suggesting it’s ok to have a split system where BAME are able to use certain terms which everyone else is prohibited from using. Surely there has to be some consistency otherwise we will never move forward? You could well educate yourself on this point Eric. Ill give you a starter for 10 why BAME people can use certain terms and why us white people can't... www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53749800If you can't be bothered to read the article ill give you a quote "The word is being policed because black folks did not have a choice in the matter at a certain time when it was used to their disadvantage, to abuse and to inscribe and reinforce the sense of black people as inferior by white people," she said. "That the word survives is an act of redemption by black folk. The word survives on the conditions that black folks have inscribed for it and nobody else can take that. And it becomes violent when other people try to take it and use it." For a more comedic view on it just you tube Chris Rock, he'll give you the rules....
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 11, 2020 12:21:22 GMT
My point was that SC is suggesting it’s ok to have a split system where BAME are able to use certain terms which everyone else is prohibited from using. Surely there has to be some consistency otherwise we will never move forward? You could well educate yourself on this point Eric. Ill give you a starter for 10 why BAME people can use certain terms and why us white people can't... www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53749800If you can't be bothered to read the article ill give you a quote "The word is being policed because black folks did not have a choice in the matter at a certain time when it was used to their disadvantage, to abuse and to inscribe and reinforce the sense of black people as inferior by white people," she said. "That the word survives is an act of redemption by black folk. The word survives on the conditions that black folks have inscribed for it and nobody else can take that. And it becomes violent when other people try to take it and use it." For a more comedic view on it just you tube Chris Rock, he'll give you the rules.... I think it’s more concerning that people seem to be bothered that they don’t get to call people the n word. Poor them, they’re so discriminated against.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 11, 2020 12:24:10 GMT
My point was that SC is suggesting it’s ok to have a split system where BAME are able to use certain terms which everyone else is prohibited from using. Surely there has to be some consistency otherwise we will never move forward? There's this whole concept of "punching up/down", i.e. in jokes for example, a Disabled person can get away with making a disabled joke, than an abled person. Same thing with language and inclusion such as we're talking about. I think it comes down to *if you're a minority and don't like being called something because of X/Y/Z, then it should be respected by the majority who aren't able to fully comprehend the cultural relevances* Language isn't uniform over the world, hence why people in France speak French. So the cultural nuances shouldn't be added into the discussion - aluminium / aluminum anybody? And this is exactly it. What is deemed as offensive shouldn’t be decided by the majority in power who say that thing, it should be by the people who’re offended by it.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2020 12:28:06 GMT
Its called education and being bothered to understand and educate yourself then ridding your brain to use such terms. Pure and simple and its really not difficult if you can be bothered. It seems to change fairly regularly though- who is the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Perhaps there needs to be an IEEE like institute regulating these things with standards for language and what words are in and what words are out. It sounds ridiculous and it is, but that’s what’s being expected of people these days trying to keep up with what words affects which group with the result that people’s actual intentions are being taken out of context and otherwise well meaning people losing their jobs. It’s getting similar to the gender pro-noun stuff- language being used to create obstruction and division between people, giving people tools to take offence like never before and the actual *intention* is lost in the noise. All because there is a lot of focus on making everyone feel special and included through the use of language, an endeavour that goes against our human nature which is to abbreviate and otherwise shorten our language for brevity. We’d all get along much better if there was more of a focus on intention and education rather than punitive reaction. Its not hard to understand what is right and wrong though is it 365, which is the crux of comments from individuals on here, like Eric's. A human conscience has the ability to discern what vocabulary used will be used to be either upbuilding, polite and respectful or to be offensive, disrespectful and derogatory. It just depends on how we want to convey a particular emotion and that can vary on what we want from that person or whether we want them to know we are angry with them. How we speak about different races, creeds and nationalities when we aren't in their company will also discern how we truly feel about those individuals, otherwise, why would we have to watch our choice of words when in public company? Its no different to regularly swearing in front of people we know and not doing it when we are in an environment when it would be inappropriate. You mention the gender pronoun stuff - that is a tricky one simply because unless there is a genetic chromosomal error in your DNA, its likely you will be born male or female. Sexuality maybe discernible by the obvious actions of behaviour, but that may not always be the case for those who feel a lack of identity to their born sex. And for someone who doesn't have those feelings, myself included, may be hard to understand and no amount of explaining from another individual may help us to either. Either way, we can't condemn them for feeling the way they do, just try and understand them. I remember at school terms being used as gay if someone decided to be different, or even if you did something stupid. If you were being tight with sharing something, you were called a jew. When I look back on it there has been a massive shift in what language is used to describe actions and im only 40. But you have to move with it and not look back on it like some kind of halcyon era where being offensive was ok.+
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 11, 2020 12:49:26 GMT
This is hardly breaking news Gastafari, it's been an unacceptable term since I was a teenager in the 80s. Also the NAACP was set up by people of colour, so they have a right to say the slurs they want to say. I mean, the "United Negro Fund," still exists; and I doubt anyone on gaschat would be fine with using that slur Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t? No one is saying you cant use phrases like "coloured people" or use the N word. They are just saying you are a twat if you do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 12:59:55 GMT
Women being referred to as "birthing people" - some of this terminology is a minefield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 13:03:28 GMT
Women being referred to as "birthing people" - some of this terminology is a minefield. Bloody idiotic more like. “Birthing people” - whatever next.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Nov 11, 2020 13:39:43 GMT
I think its pretty simple.... If you don't know if a word is offensive or not, don't use it.... Go home and look it up....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 13:43:31 GMT
Is it any wonder that people like Clarke innocently use the wrong and “offensive” terminology when it seems half of the world can use a certain term and the other half can’t? No one is saying you cant use phrases like "coloured people" or use the N word. They are just saying you are a twat if you do. Succinct as always Hugo😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 13:46:18 GMT
Perhaps When, in a general conversation, on whatever topic, any topic, why is it necessary to invoke a person's race, or skin colour? Or, religion?
Never understood that.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 11, 2020 14:09:06 GMT
There's this whole concept of "punching up/down", i.e. in jokes for example, a Disabled person can get away with making a disabled joke, than an abled person. Same thing with language and inclusion such as we're talking about. I think it comes down to *if you're a minority and don't like being called something because of X/Y/Z, then it should be respected by the majority who aren't able to fully comprehend the cultural relevances* Language isn't uniform over the world, hence why people in France speak French. So the cultural nuances shouldn't be added into the discussion - aluminium / aluminum anybody? And this is exactly it. What is deemed as offensive shouldn’t be decided by the majority in power who say that thing, it should be by the people who’re offended by it. The terms "People of Colour" and "BAME" are predominantly used by the majority in power too, though.The terms are widely used by government departments, public bodies, the media and others when referring to ethnic minority groups. They're used by White people who are scared to cause offence, and you see what happens to them when they dont use those terms. The majority of people from minority backgrounds dislike these new terms too, pigeon holing every Black, Mixed Race, Asian, African into the same box is silly. Minorities on the whole do not use these terms. If it makes certain White people feel better about themselves then go for it. Just dont have this sense of superiority and smugness about it.
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Nov 11, 2020 14:17:46 GMT
Of course white is a colour as much as black or brown, we all originate from the river valleys of south west Asia, so by describing someone as coloured refers to everyone. I suppose Clarke could have referred to players who are not of Anglo Celtic origin as black or Asian, but they then might describe themselves as British which of course they are not, as the British comes from the Celtic word Briton people from Northern Spain and Western France (Brittany)that travelled up into our island some 10,000 years ago, most people in this country are 50% or more Anglo Celtic and often people make comments on race without knowing peoples background. The point is though that we are all from similar origins and colour should not make a difference, in the winter i am often pasty but in the summer go brown, at the end of the day we are all coloured .
|
|
|
Post by Westy on Nov 11, 2020 14:27:14 GMT
Of course white is a colour as much as black or brown, we all originate from the river valleys of south west Asia, so by describing someone as coloured refers to everyone. I suppose Clarke could have referred to players who are not of Anglo Celtic origin as black or Asian, but they then might describe themselves as British which of course they are not, as the British comes from the Celtic word Briton people from Northern Spain and Western France (Brittany)that travelled up into our island some 10,000 years ago, most people in this country are 50% or more Anglo Celtic and often people make comments on race without knowing peoples background. The point is though that we are all from similar origins and colour should not make a difference, in the winter i am often pasty but in the summer go brown, at the end of the day we are all coloured . That's another point of it right there though. White/Pink whatever; is a *colour* so to call *coloured* people such, is pointing out *we are white and anybody that isn't is 'coloured'* is the whole concept of the discrimination!
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2020 14:28:00 GMT
Of course white is a colour as much as black or brown, we all originate from the river valleys of south west Asia, so by describing someone as coloured refers to everyone. I suppose Clarke could have referred to players who are not of Anglo Celtic origin as black or Asian, but they then might describe themselves as British which of course they are not, as the British comes from the Celtic word Briton people from Northern Spain and Western France (Brittany)that travelled up into our island some 10,000 years ago, most people in this country are 50% or more Anglo Celtic and often people make comments on race without knowing peoples background. The point is though that we are all from similar origins and colour should not make a difference, in the winter i am often pasty but in the summer go brown, at the end of the day we are all coloured . But you cannot use a coloured term towards someone who is of BAME background. Its offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Baxtinho on Nov 11, 2020 14:33:30 GMT
Why are people falling over themselves to justify old, outdated terminology and not accept that as things move forward, so must us all?!
It's the same as terms like a Chinky or P-Shop which were probably fine back in the day (though it's weird thinking that was the case).
|
|
|
Post by Westy on Nov 11, 2020 14:36:18 GMT
Perhaps When, in a general conversation, on whatever topic, any topic, why is it necessary to invoke a person's race, or skin colour? Or, religion? Never understood that. "Was chatting to this black fella in the pub" Likewise oldie , seems odd when people mention something so superficial. But then, myself I grew up in the 90s and even then was typical. To be honest the same people likely say the same now, but it's interesting in my lifetime at least - how far the conversations people have come (such as this). Now I wouldn't like to make assumptions on your user name but I bet you've seen a fair bit more than me!
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Nov 11, 2020 14:42:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 14:57:40 GMT
Perhaps When, in a general conversation, on whatever topic, any topic, why is it necessary to invoke a person's race, or skin colour? Or, religion? Never understood that. "Was chatting to this black fella in the pub" Likewise oldie , seems odd when people mention something so superficial. But then, myself I grew up in the 90s and even then was typical. To be honest the same people likely say the same now, but it's interesting in my lifetime at least - how far the conversations people have come (such as this). Now I wouldn't like to make assumptions on your user name but I bet you've seen a fair bit more than me! I say sir!! But yes. 68 now and my adolescent years were in the 60s, I studied under the tuition of Dr Timothy Leary😂 I went to Hengrove Comprehensive, we had three non white kids during the whole of my 6 years there. One was made Head Boy, on reflection that was patronising beyond belief. But he did introduce me to Ska, so forever grateful. The two others were in my year, one Iranian one second generation Carribbean. Adrian, I was friends with throughout, but he was picked on unmercifully by one group. Including spitting on him during line ups. I stayed in Ladbroke Grove for a brief spell in 1970 (summer) They literally had signs in bed sit properties "No Blacks". There were some great pubs on Portabello Rd, but one was designated for afro Carribbean, I don't ever recall seeing any mixing. Absolutely horrendous. 12 years later I moved to the States and witnessed Apartheid first hand. Some things stay with you. (Including the flashbacks😜)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 15:21:46 GMT
Why are people falling over themselves to justify old, outdated terminology and not accept that as things move forward, so must us all?! It's the same as terms like a Chinky or P-Shop which were probably fine back in the day (though it's weird thinking that was the case). I don’t think anyone is falling over themselves to justify outdated terminology. It would just be nice to have some consistency and simplicity on what terms can and can’t be used and if someone like Clarke makes a genuine mistake there shouldn’t be a witch hunt and triumphant behaviour that he’s lost his job - does anyone think Clarke is racist or was deliberately setting out to offend people? I think he was trying to do the right thing and instigate change but him and his organisation have failed - that doesn’t make him evil or public enemy number one imo.
|
|
|
Post by Baxtinho on Nov 11, 2020 15:29:43 GMT
Why are people falling over themselves to justify old, outdated terminology and not accept that as things move forward, so must us all?! It's the same as terms like a Chinky or P-Shop which were probably fine back in the day (though it's weird thinking that was the case). I don’t think anyone is falling over themselves to justify outdated terminology. It would just be nice to have some consistency and simplicity on what terms can and can’t be used and if someone like Clarke makes a genuine mistake there shouldn’t be a witch hunt and triumphant behaviour that he’s lost his job - does anyone think Clarke is racist or was deliberately setting out to offend people? I think he was trying to do the right thing and instigate change but him and his organisation have failed - that doesn’t make him evil or public enemy number one imo. "Clarke received further criticism for comments he made referring to gay players making a "life choice", about the different career choices of people from black and Asian communities, and about a coach telling him young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them." If he was trying to do the right thing, I'd hate to see him trying to appear wildly incompetent.
|
|