GRcade

jawafour wrote:

Hexx wrote:Well it’s not up do with skin colour in the way racists etc use for reasons you’re choosing to ignore

And you’re right. It’s to do with their chosen beliefs.

Their ignorant chuffin racist beliefs.

But please feed into (endorse) the victim narrative/complex of middle aged racist conservatives.

And it distracts you from his behaviour. And that says more about you than the person disparaging the racist banana split.

Or in an OTT dramatisation for illustrative purposes

Person A; What a racist!
Person B; What a racist!
Jawa; Hey now don’t say mean things about him being racist! that’s just as bad.

Hex, hopefully you will have seen above that I will respond to people who make a decent or challenging point. I won't respond to diatribes which try to imply I'm saying things that I am not, though.

You took that video and made it all about the ‘victimisation’ of the white guy...

‘Look racism’s bad guys, but...’ is not a stance for any reasonable person to take in response to that video

jawafour wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not a term used about white people, it’s a term used to describe a small subsection of white people. It’s not a word that abuses a race, it describes a section of a race that likes to abuse other races...

I believe I have responded to this thought already -

...I understand your point but I feel that, in future years, use of the term will be viewed with the same - quite correct - level of disdain as other phrases based upon a person's skin colour. I guess the reason for using it is to fight fire with fire; regrettably I accept this is the only method of response that sone people understand.

Moggy wrote:...It’s interesting that we are spending far more time on white people calling white people gammon, rather than on the racial abuse of minorities.

I agree that it does appear that my point distracts from the awful behaviour of that guy towards the woman. I probably picked the wrong moment to bring it up but I am frustrated by the increasing usage of the word here in GRcade. In my eyes, it is little different to the kind of language that is used by people who denigrate and/or label others because of their skin colour or cultural beliefs.

You’re still missing the point that it only describes a small percentage of a group, not the group itself. The word is also used to describe behaviour, it’s not a word that’s used to describe ALL white men of a certain age.

Jawa’s still not a risky answered

Cam we call racists ‘banana splits’ instead or does that too mirror racist languages/behaviour and victimise people?

Jesus Christ

Hexx wrote:

it still feels to be something that mirrors unwanted language rather than goes against it.

I’m legitimately furious and in complete dispair at Jawa for this opinion - and the completely false equivalency between ‘racist language’ and ‘gamon’.

even if you dislike ‘Gamon’ - what sort of person posts that?

Hexx, you are making yourself enraged because of what you *think* I'm saying - you're not reading my posts in full. To cut the story short; yes, I would prefer to combat the things said by boneheaded idiots by avoiding using "their kind" of insults as it reflects poorly on our own positive arguments. However, I accept that "fighting fire with fire" is the only way that some of them will listen.

Personally I'd put "gammon" around the same level as "snowflake" on the insult scale. Or "remoaner", "libtard", "SJW" etc.

jawafour wrote:

Hexx wrote:

it still feels to be something that mirrors unwanted language rather than goes against it.

I’m legitimately furious and in complete dispair at Jawa for this opinion - and the completely false equivalency between ‘racist language’ and ‘gamon’.

even if you dislike ‘Gamon’ - what sort of person posts that?

Hexx, you are making yourself enraged because of what you *think* I'm saying - you're not reading my posts in full. To cut the story short; yes, I would prefer to combat the things said by boneheaded idiots by avoiding using "their kind" of insults as it reflects poorly on our own positive arguments. However, I accept that "fighting fire with fire" is the only way that some of them will listen.

strawberry float off with that ‘their kind’ and ‘fire with fire’.

There is no equivalency between racist language (with all its weight of history and modern day implications) against races.

And a tongue in cheek comment designed to disparage, belittle and annoy group of people,l of which all hold certain views - based on the red faced anger (some of the) they work themselves up into (not all red faced people not all white etc)

I know exactly what you’re saying. And it’s strawberry floating offensive - particularly to people that suffer from actual racism.

Like the women you’ve ignored to defend racists from disparagement.

Even if you dislike Gamkn and want to criticise it. Stop presenting the two as equivalent.

You’re belittling the suffering of actual victims of racism by presenting those being called ‘gammon’ as suffering mirror’the same kind/equivalent. Just stop it.

Hexx wrote:...Like the women you’ve ignored to defend racists from disparagement...

I feared that some people may not read my post. For clarity - and to protect myself from your horrendous accusation - I repeat:

For absolute clarity before I say this... there's no doubt that the guy's language is absolutely disgusting and shameful. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. It is unacceptable and no-one should have to face that.

I shall only briefly continue, Hexx, to make certain things clear:

> I have not said that the word "gammon" is as bad as some of the examples that Moggy posted. The phrase "fight fire with fire" was, in context, describing the need to tackle bone-headed people with the same kind of approach that they use

> I feel that it is better to avoid using the word "gammon" as it detracts from valid argument being made. It is "name calling" based upon skin colour or appearance

Oh no, I like you Jawa man but... Jesus Christ.

Photek wrote:Oh no, I like you Jawa man but... Jesus Christ.

Is there a particular aspect that has caused you to say that, Photek? Once again, I fear that people are putting two and two together and making eight.

It is name calling, but it’s name calling based on the actions of the people involved.

Racist language is used to denegrate people based on their skin colour alone.

Gammon is used to describe the red faces that racist people have when they are in full on racist rant mode. And it’s almost exclusively used by people of the same race.

That’s the difference.

This is not a good hill you've chosen to die on here, Jawa. Gammon is not racist, and the only people who claim it is are...gammons.

twitter.com/tripeuk/status/1053966369451139072

We understand your point Jawa but in choosing this particular hill to die on is weird. It’s false equivalency in its most basic form. I don’t use the word ‘gammon’ (mainly cos it’s not a phrase that’s caught on over here) but it’s not the same as denigrating people of a different race.

I just think it’s alarming that you pick out the word Gammon to respond to rather than the prick in the vid and Ryanair staff not doing their jobs. In terms of importance and relevance to the video, it’s practically has none. Note it’s not used about white racist women, again, it’s used about a small sub-section of society.

Moggy wrote:It is name calling, but it’s name calling based on the actions of the people involved...

I dispute that, Moggy. Gammon meat has certain colour properties and that's why somebody people use it as a descriptor. In my eyes, it's far better to - where possible - tackle racist people through shutting down their bone-headed arguments than by labelling them with a silly name.

Tafdolphin wrote:This is not a good hill you've chosen to die on here, Jawa. Gammon is not racist, and the only people who claim it is are...gammons.

The key point is in my response to Moggy's question (and stated several times before). I resent your implication, Taf; I know that we've had a disagreement or two in the past but this is very low to stoop.

I actually quite fancy some gammon now.

jawafour wrote:

Moggy wrote:It is name calling, but it’s name calling based on the actions of the people involved...

I dispute that, Moggy. Gammon meat has certain colour properties and that's why somebody people use it as a descriptor.

Yes it’s based on the colour of their faces when they are angry and screaming out their racist bullshit.

Middle aged white men are not called gammon. Racist white men are called gammon. That’s a big big big difference to words like “******” or “paki”.

Photek wrote:...I just think it’s alarming that you pick out the word Gammon to respond to rather than the prick in the vid...

This discussion has rumbled on for some pages and so newcomers to the thread are not, understandably, reading my original post. I shall re-post how I replied to Hexx's similar accusation:

jawafour wrote:I feared that some people may not read my post. For clarity - and to protect myself from your horrendous accusation - I repeat:

For absolute clarity before I say this... there's no doubt that the guy's language is absolutely disgusting and shameful. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. It is unacceptable and no-one should have to face that.

...

I don’t think you’re racist or defending the dude man. I didn’t make that claim.

jawafour wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:This is not a good hill you've chosen to die on here, Jawa. Gammon is not racist, and the only people who claim it is are...gammons.

The key point is in my response to Moggy's question (and stated several times before). I resent your implication, Taf; I know that we've had a disagreement or two in the past but this is very low to stoop.

I wasn't trying to imply you're a gammon jawa, just that whenever you hear the 'gammon is racist!' argument in the wild it's usually from people with Tommy Robinson avatars or the St George cross on their twitter profile.

I don't see you as someone like this, and I'm sorry if what I said implied that.

Bug Bunny was ahead of his time