GRcade

Tories were on a roll yesterday

twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/1103672976715722753

twitter.com/beltel/status/1103774825812647936

strawberry floating hell

Moggy wrote:

twitter.com/beltel/status/1103774825812647936

strawberry floating hell

It's easy to say that when instead of a brain you have a little hamster in a wheel.

Always a minefield when trying to use different terms to describe people. What one person finds offensive another might have no problem with. There doesn't seem to be a consenses on what a certain 'people' like being called. Often seems to be the way though that the outrage and furore around what term someone's used deflects from whatever issue they were actually trying to talk about.

Lotus wrote:Always a minefield when trying to use different terms to describe people. What one person finds offensive another might have no problem with. There doesn't seem to be a consenses on what a certain 'people' like being called. Often seems to be the way though that the outrage and furore around what term someone's used deflects from whatever issue they were actually trying to talk about.

It’s not really very difficult though is it?

You have your super offensive words that even the most gammony of gammons would accept was offensive . Things like n*gger, p*ki, ch*nk.

Then you have the words your kindly 90 year old grandmother might get away with saying, but everyone else knows is wrong. Things like “coloured”, “half-caste” or “funny tinge” for instance.

Then you have the words that normal people use with no problems. White, Black and Asian for example.

If people want to make important points without creating a furore then they should probably try not being stupid twats when describing people.

Moggy wrote:

Lotus wrote:Always a minefield when trying to use different terms to describe people. What one person finds offensive another might have no problem with. There doesn't seem to be a consenses on what a certain 'people' like being called. Often seems to be the way though that the outrage and furore around what term someone's used deflects from whatever issue they were actually trying to talk about.

It’s not really very difficult though is it?

You have your super offensive words that even the most gammony of gammons would accept was offensive . Things like n*gger, p*ki, ch*nk.

Then you have the words your kindly 90 year old grandmother might get away with saying, but everyone else knows is wrong. Things like “coloured”, “half-caste” or “funny tinge” for instance.

Then you have the words that normal people use with no problems. White, Black and Asian for example.

If people want to make important points without creating a furore then they should probably try not being stupid twats when describing people.

I don't think it's as black and white (ha) as you think it is.

Obviously there are words that shouldn't be used, like the first examples you gave, but there are grey areas in the other terms. My girlfriend is Asian (Pakistani) and refers to herself and her family as 'coloured'. But even Asian isn't straightforward, as you could be talking about South Asian or East Asian, and there are different terms withi those (far eastern, oriental, etc, which some people might not like). The Guardian constantly uses 'person of colour', and if you read it every day you might think it's perfectly fine to a call a black person that, while they might find take offense. I've met mixed-race people who don't like being called mixed-race and prefer black, while somebody like Meghan Markle says she prefers being called mixed-race to being called black. Some Americans find 'black' offensive and prefer african american.

That's where the 'difficulty' comes in and people can be caught out, especially online.

I misread that as you saying some people like being called Meghan Markle

What a strawberry floating car crash

Just don’t give people labels or single them out on their differences whether it’s the colour of their skin, eye/hair could/gender or whatever

Lotus wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lotus wrote:Always a minefield when trying to use different terms to describe people. What one person finds offensive another might have no problem with. There doesn't seem to be a consenses on what a certain 'people' like being called. Often seems to be the way though that the outrage and furore around what term someone's used deflects from whatever issue they were actually trying to talk about.

It’s not really very difficult though is it?

You have your super offensive words that even the most gammony of gammons would accept was offensive . Things like n*gger, p*ki, ch*nk.

Then you have the words your kindly 90 year old grandmother might get away with saying, but everyone else knows is wrong. Things like “coloured”, “half-caste” or “funny tinge” for instance.

Then you have the words that normal people use with no problems. White, Black and Asian for example.

If people want to make important points without creating a furore then they should probably try not being stupid twats when describing people.

I don't think it's as black and white (ha) as you think it is.

Obviously there are words that shouldn't be used, like the first examples you gave, but there are grey areas in the other terms. My girlfriend is Asian (Pakistani) and refers to herself and her family as 'coloured'. But even Asian isn't straightforward, as you could be talking about South Asian or East Asian, and there are different terms withi those (far eastern, oriental, etc, which some people might not like). The Guardian constantly uses 'person of colour', and if you read it every day you might think it's perfectly fine to a call a black person that, while they might find take offense. I've met mixed-race people who don't like being called mixed-race and prefer black, while somebody like Meghan Markle says she prefers being called mixed-race to being called black. Some Americans find 'black' offensive and prefer african american.

That's where the 'difficulty' comes in and people can be caught out, especially online.

It all seems pretty simple to me. We have baseline words that are agreed upon. White, Black, Asian.

If somebody would prefer a different label then use what they prefer.

And how often do people have to use such words anyway? It’s not very often you have to refer to somebody by their colour/race.

I have this image in my head of Lotus meeting a new person:

"Hello, black man!"

It's not a minefield because between strangers/non-friends there is never any actual reason to make the definition in a casual setting. If there is then you're probably already friendly enough with them that it's not an issue.

There may be certain circumstances where it is required in a more formal manner, in which case common courtesy would see you go through a process, e.g. "I'm just filling out this form and there's a section on diversity — how would you like your race to be recorded?".

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have this image in my head of Lotus meeting a new person:

"Hello, black man!"

It's not a minefield because between strangers/non-friends there is never any actual reason to make the definition in a casual setting. If there is then you're probably already friendly enough with them that it's not an issue.

There may be certain circumstances where it is required in a more formal manner, in which case common courtesy would see you go through a process, e.g. "I'm just filling out this form and there's a section on diversity — how would you like your race to be recorded?".

When we had to record ethnic background, gender and any disabilities for new customers this is what we did. I always gave them the option to not answer if they'd prefer not to. Literally the only complaints we ever had were "I'm not white British, I'm white English, where's that option?!"

Outrunner wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have this image in my head of Lotus meeting a new person:

"Hello, black man!"

It's not a minefield because between strangers/non-friends there is never any actual reason to make the definition in a casual setting. If there is then you're probably already friendly enough with them that it's not an issue.

There may be certain circumstances where it is required in a more formal manner, in which case common courtesy would see you go through a process, e.g. "I'm just filling out this form and there's a section on diversity — how would you like your race to be recorded?".

When we had to record ethnic background, gender and any disabilities for new customers this is what we did. I always gave them the option to not answer if they'd prefer not to. Literally the only complaints we ever had were "I'm not white British, I'm white English, where's that option?!"

“That option is there listed as “gammon””.

Moggy wrote:

Outrunner wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have this image in my head of Lotus meeting a new person:

"Hello, black man!"

It's not a minefield because between strangers/non-friends there is never any actual reason to make the definition in a casual setting. If there is then you're probably already friendly enough with them that it's not an issue.

There may be certain circumstances where it is required in a more formal manner, in which case common courtesy would see you go through a process, e.g. "I'm just filling out this form and there's a section on diversity — how would you like your race to be recorded?".

When we had to record ethnic background, gender and any disabilities for new customers this is what we did. I always gave them the option to not answer if they'd prefer not to. Literally the only complaints we ever had were "I'm not white British, I'm white English, where's that option?!"

“That option is there listed as “gammon””.

I can neither confirm or deny that this was the case (but yes, yes it was)

Moggy wrote:And how often do people have to use such words anyway? It’s not very often you have to refer to somebody by their colour/race.

Maybe Lotus just has trouble remembering names.

Not sure where I said that it was me that uses these terms or has issues with them. Anyway, forget it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145

Sajid Javid with blood on his hands?

twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1104085389189484544

strawberry floating hell Chuka, the gammon vote love national service but they are never going to vote for you.

Well that's the hope they may be a viable alternative to vote for out the window.....
British politics is a joke.

mcjihge2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145

Sajid Javid with blood on his hands?

Unfortunately this was likely to happen even if her citizenship hadn't been revoked and Javid hadn't intervened in any way at all.