Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Was The Conservative Party Right To Withdraw The Whip From Anne Marie Morris
She claimed that the Brexit 'No deal is a n***** in a woodpile’
http://
Not even sure what this phrase means, especially in regard to Brexit (will look it up later), but perhaps in this instance the phrase is ill-considered rather than specifically offensive?
I mean she wasn't slagging off a black person - just using an out-of-date phrase?
http://
Not even sure what this phrase means, especially in regard to Brexit (will look it up later), but perhaps in this instance the phrase is ill-considered rather than specifically offensive?
I mean she wasn't slagging off a black person - just using an out-of-date phrase?
Answers
To address the instance first - I think use of the phrase does not show malice or racism, but it does show carelessness and lack of judgement, and those are things that no-one in public life can afford to exhibit - so a sanction is appropraite to show that the government is aware of such issues, and does not allow them to pass unoticed. As to Naomi's well-
22:19 Mon 10th Jul 2017
NJ
You wrote:
//The second is there seems no prohibition on black people using it and not only using it in passing but to positively offend each other.//
Second part contradicts the first.
Also, a caveat is needed here. For 'black people', read: 'a subsection of urban black people, generally in the U.S.'
You wrote:
//The second is there seems no prohibition on black people using it and not only using it in passing but to positively offend each other.//
Second part contradicts the first.
Also, a caveat is needed here. For 'black people', read: 'a subsection of urban black people, generally in the U.S.'
yeah I am not keen on coloured as it has a completely different meaning amongst my sarth efrican relations
a bit like kafr and kuffar - and yes kaffir is an arabic loan word in afrikaans
[ in the article on taboo words dont use them was their general advice they had t opoint out that jerk was really bad in America ( but not UK) and winker was really bad in the UK and seems to be unknown in the US)
a bit like kafr and kuffar - and yes kaffir is an arabic loan word in afrikaans
[ in the article on taboo words dont use them was their general advice they had t opoint out that jerk was really bad in America ( but not UK) and winker was really bad in the UK and seems to be unknown in the US)
jim360
/// Rather like when David Lammy referred to "posh white people", everyone on AB got, if not offended, then certainly angry especially about the "white" part. With some good reason, I might add -- but to then act surprised when black people might also be upset about being described as "you black [insult]", or "you N", is the height of hypocrisy. ///
It was not because Lammy referred to white people, most white people couldn't care less if people refer to them as white, even though to be correct we are not exactly white.
It was because had the boot been on the other foot, all hell would have broken out, and the race card played once again.
So it is not hypocrisy on our part Jim, but the seeking of a level playing field.
/// Rather like when David Lammy referred to "posh white people", everyone on AB got, if not offended, then certainly angry especially about the "white" part. With some good reason, I might add -- but to then act surprised when black people might also be upset about being described as "you black [insult]", or "you N", is the height of hypocrisy. ///
It was not because Lammy referred to white people, most white people couldn't care less if people refer to them as white, even though to be correct we are not exactly white.
It was because had the boot been on the other foot, all hell would have broken out, and the race card played once again.
So it is not hypocrisy on our part Jim, but the seeking of a level playing field.
So what if he is? As a general statement, among those who use it (and that's not everyone anyway), the expression "what up, my n****?" is a term of endearment. Because one black person is being a twit doesn't invalidate that point.
AOG, I'm sure you're trying to seek a level playing field, but I'm also sure you're aware that through most of our history, the "level playing field" was not only utterly non-existent but also very firmly set against black people. That is changing now, but I think it's more than a little rich to complain that you can't use one or two words as if somehow that is equivalent to what black people have suffered -- and, in many cases, still do suffer.
AOG, I'm sure you're trying to seek a level playing field, but I'm also sure you're aware that through most of our history, the "level playing field" was not only utterly non-existent but also very firmly set against black people. That is changing now, but I think it's more than a little rich to complain that you can't use one or two words as if somehow that is equivalent to what black people have suffered -- and, in many cases, still do suffer.
It was a phase in common use by all out grandmothers...it means a 'spanner in the works' or a 'fly in the ointment'. Something that needs to get resolved. Of course in those days no one would have thought of it as a racist term.
Why to people try and install todays 'values' (and I use that term loosely) onto today's world. Things have been said and done for centuries without malice or racism. It is Generation Snowflake that has to think that every person is a rasist just because they call a black board a....errr blackboard.......
Why to people try and install todays 'values' (and I use that term loosely) onto today's world. Things have been said and done for centuries without malice or racism. It is Generation Snowflake that has to think that every person is a rasist just because they call a black board a....errr blackboard.......
“Second part contradicts the first.”
I don’t think it does. The first part describes its use in publications whilst the second describes its use verbally.
“Also, a caveat is needed here. For 'black people', read: 'a subsection of urban black people, generally in the U.S.'”
Then a second caveat is needed because I have heard it used here in the UK amongst black people. It’s true that many of them speak and behave as if they are “a subsection of urban black people generally in the US” but they are here nonetheless.
“For 'black people', read: 'people whose characters may be portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, were they to be in a movie'”
I don’t know who Samuel L. Jackson is, but no matter. Please see above.
I don’t think it does. The first part describes its use in publications whilst the second describes its use verbally.
“Also, a caveat is needed here. For 'black people', read: 'a subsection of urban black people, generally in the U.S.'”
Then a second caveat is needed because I have heard it used here in the UK amongst black people. It’s true that many of them speak and behave as if they are “a subsection of urban black people generally in the US” but they are here nonetheless.
“For 'black people', read: 'people whose characters may be portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, were they to be in a movie'”
I don’t know who Samuel L. Jackson is, but no matter. Please see above.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but there's a simple rule. If you're a member of a race, you're "allowed" to make jokes about that race or use terms that would be offensive were non-members of that race to use them.
Hence Woody Allen can tell Jewish jokes and his namesake Dave Allen could tell Irish jokes. And Chris Rock can tell jokes about black people.
Hence Woody Allen can tell Jewish jokes and his namesake Dave Allen could tell Irish jokes. And Chris Rock can tell jokes about black people.
AOG
/// the "level playing field" was not only utterly non-existent but also very firmly set against black
people. ///
And in some cases, for a very good reason, and please don't refer back to the days of slavery, that was the norm back then, and the Black people themselves were the one's who sold off their fellow country men to the Whites.
/// as if somehow that is equivalent to what black people have suffered -- and, in many cases, still do suffer. ///
And do you not think the white people of South Africa don't suffer? In fact they are slaughtered in their beds and their farms etc confiscated.
/// the "level playing field" was not only utterly non-existent but also very firmly set against black
people. ///
And in some cases, for a very good reason, and please don't refer back to the days of slavery, that was the norm back then, and the Black people themselves were the one's who sold off their fellow country men to the Whites.
/// as if somehow that is equivalent to what black people have suffered -- and, in many cases, still do suffer. ///
And do you not think the white people of South Africa don't suffer? In fact they are slaughtered in their beds and their farms etc confiscated.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank251 mins ago
Why Are Oxbridge Students Now Terrorist...
News318 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.