Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
16 January 2009
09:2512923the best way is to go back clearly even if its a minority view to harrass/abuse/ b violent towards
is that not enough reason to say we should be careful as to what/how things we say
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 January 2009
20:2512993trying to understand your post here keith.
i hope that this 24 hour drinking is not responsible.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
16 January 2009
21:1613007Just saying, if 1 person(like Mandies daughter) has to endure abuse, isn't that enough to tell us we need to be careful not to offend, or where could it lead,,,,
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
16 January 2009
21:2513010Interesting little piece in today's Telegraph - page 7
Quote:"Homosexuals facing hostility"
More than 1/3rd of people feel hostility towards homosexuals, a study shows.
This compares with around 1/4 who dislike people of other races, particularly those from Asian backgrounds, the findings, presented at a British Psychological Society Conference indicate.
Whilst this is not the majority it clearly puts the lie to some of the nonsense posted on here
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
16 January 2009
22:2113014Ross the survey only involved 60 people between the ages of 18-65 hardly a true representation.
I still stand by my comments which are based on fact and which involve a broad section of society from all walks of life.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
17 January 2009
00:2513021Ah Dave
I will see yuor fact and raise you 2 folk myths and a bundle of supposition
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
17 January 2009
01:2113022Ross let us agree not to agree. Both of us consider that we are right, I can only voice my personal opnions gathered from past experiences.
17 January 2009
08:3313023Exactly, and one persons experience of abuse is sufficient to make us cautious. Stats can do whatever we like - and I think "fact" is probably not an appropriate term when we consider abuse and feelings....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2009
13:1914538OK I am dragging up this old thread but this morning I have read something that I believe superbly addresses this issue of the use of language and offense.
I recommend reading the following written by Andrew Lilco it really does put thing whole thing into perspective.
Do note: Despite the website link this article is NOT in any way party politicial.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/02/love-is-not-qui.html2 February 2009
14:5514548A good article, BarryW, thank you. I am reminded of Peter Ustinov, who created all kinds of trouble for himself by referring to himself as "pink" on the forms when entering America, especially as it was during the McCarthy times!!! I also used to know a woman who was accused by some of her colleagues of being "not black enough" to be classed as black, but not white. That was when I worked for the ghastly-pc-totally-mad-and-bonkers (yes, it was left wing) local authority some years ago which banned the use of the phrase "black coffee".....!!!!! There is some sense in the article, and some lessons to be learned from the experiences of my ex-colleague (neither black not white...) and of others - but there is still some room for the understanding of the offence genuinely caused by some words and phrases. Words really matter, and are so often used to keep people in their places that we need to use some care when applying them. Care, not fanaticism; caution, not censorship. I think we may agree, BarryW!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2009
16:33145542 February 2009
21:0114582DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2009
23:0514656Sorry to bring this to the top again but...
What about Carol Thatcher! The tolerant establishment, wonderful!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 February 2009
23:1414658would you be so kind as to elucidate dt.
less than a thousand words though please.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
4 February 2009
00:0514662"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
4 February 2009
08:4514671I had a dark skinned baby doll as a child and named her Jemimah. Is this an offence? No. If I said now that a baby reminded me of Jemimah, would that be an offence? No. (I also had a big golliwog doll ( I am very very old).) However, if I referred to Jemimah or the baby as Golliwogs, there is no doubt it would be offensive given the history of the term used and the clear use of the term as a hate-word. It is always context, and all parts of the word Golliwog have been used as terms of abuse, rendering them offensive. Abuse=offence, easy when you know.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
4 February 2009
09:0114674Carol Thatcher having a private conversation with someone about a tennis player's hairstyle looking like a golliwog (no reference to racism, just that a hairstyle was like a golliwog doll's) gets overheard and misinterpreted; is then "snitched on" by the program's presenter.
She gets the sack from the BBC, yet Jonathon Ross gets his job back and all is forgiven for what must be the most disgraceful radio broadcast ever - is there a distinct lack of consistency here ?
Roger
4 February 2009
09:1214677Thatcher is an educated and bright woman who must know the history and offensive nature of the term she used, but she used it anyway - why? Why draw attention to a black tennis players hair being like an offensive historic toy which was used as a means of highlighting "difference" and a means of oppression in the first place? Like "noticing" that African-Americans have thick lips. Not funny, not gracious and not necessary. And remember this was not a private conversation, but one held in her workplace, in a public arena of a broadcasting organisation.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
09:1514678yes Roger and in fact the person she referred to was white as well, not black and referred only to his hairstyle.....
I have never heard golliwog used as a hate word. To me it has always been a childs doll or some jam jar characters, indeed I did not even as a child relate them to black people. Once again we see an example of excessive sensitivity over the use of a word ignoring the context, plainly daft and once again we see a clear example of BBC hypocracy and double standards. It is so sad that something so innocent should be hijacked by the pc extremists.
The word 'wog' is the hate word incidentally, not golliwog. To object to golliwog can be likened to the original reason for this thread and to object to the use of Pakistani...... think about it.
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
4 February 2009
09:4814689I assume then that the pollywog is now out of the door?
The termination here means nothing offensive - it's a derivation from middle English, for "wiggle". The noun is entirely descriptive - a head with a wiggle. Indeed, in the potential speciesism, I would defend to the utmost its use. It's alternative, tadpole, is not synonymous but refers merely to one creature - the middle English version of a toad-head.
What then of all the other larval forms, such as our humble frog? Must she/he/it/they/e/ey suffer linguistic discrimination and potential exclusion?
