Danny Baker

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I never said "a derogatory term" I said "using a term in a derogatory fashion", there's a difference. And that's my whole point.

OK, I'll try again.
You claim no one is voting on what terms are now derogatory or shouldn't be used. You claim hypothetically that if one person or a small group want to he called a term then we change just for them. You say this is nonsense.
At the same time you acknowledge that calling someone nigger would be derogatory. How do you know this if by the standards in your own post there wasn't a vote taken or you aren't certain that everyone finds that term unacceptable?

The answer is that the ethnic group have collectively expressed opposition to being called by that term. No votes taken but people representing them have campaigned on it. Similar with indigenous Americans not being called red Indians anymore.
As newer generations come along more changes are made to what is deemed to be acceptable language.
Old farts like us struggle with this as words we found OK are now not OK.
Language evolves and it's entirely right that the ethnic groups being referred to are making these decisions.
As I said yesterday, the narrative over this particular area was controlled by whites for centuries and its only in the last 20 years or so that terms have changed.

Language is important and if you don't question it you allow others to control your identity.

[Lord Pityme]

Is Baker a racist? Never got that impression.

does that one tweet make him racist? If it did the having one drink would make us all alkies, saying you'd kill someone that upset you would make us all muderers etc.. etc...

should he have been sacked? Yes, regardless of his intent, or lack therof he works for the licence payer, he's got a huge public platform, he damaged his employers brand. 

He's thick, arrogant and has been for a very long time. Also talented!

[Bud the Baker]

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Is Bud the Baker a racist? 

Yes I'm a fucking racist - now close this thread!

Edited May 13, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Guest TPAFKATS]

If some racist made a speech denouncing "people of colour" as inferior or job thieves or murderers or anything else, then they are still being derogatory even though they used the "correct term". As I said, it's all about context.

I could go on (as you are well aware [emoji1] ) but I won't.

Yes, this scenario is racist regardless of the terminology. It's why we no longer accept signs that say no blacks, no Irish, no dogs.
I didnt think that really needed explaining in 2019 but hey every day is a school day.

[Callum Gilhooley]

Yes, this scenario is racist regardless of the terminology. It's why we no longer accept signs that say no blacks, no Irish, no dogs.
I didnt think that really needed explaining in 2019 but hey every day is a school day.

What about a sign that says no thieving gypos?

[Wilbur]

6 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

What about a sign that says no thieving gypos?

 

A racist pedant might accuse you of tautology.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

 

 

I wondered when someone would notice that...

I have acknowledged more than once that people have difficulty moving away from the terminology they have used for decades.

 

I've also agreed with you that the context of the words are important. In your example however the terminology is pretty meaningless as its racist irrespective of what collective term is used.

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

What about a sign that says no thieving gypos?

Yes racism toward roman gypsies and the wider travelling community appears to continue to be acceptable in our society.

[Callum Gilhooley]

What about smelly Gypo scum. Is that allowed.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

But that is my point (or at least one of them).  There was obviously no offence intended in your words, whether or not you were using the current acceptable term.
 
Are you saying that, in my example, that it doesn't matter what terminology was used (in place of "people of colour") or what group of people were being referred to?

Yes because your scenario classed a whole ethnic group using negative terms. That is racist.

[Sweeper07]

43 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

What about smelly Gypo scum. Is that allowed.

Oh you are naughty....   but funny with it . . .

[Guest TPAFKATS]

What if the negative term was accurate?  What if it was some other group of people and not an ethnic group?

What if a negative term about a whole race or ethnic group was accurate?
Really?
I'm hoping you are now at the trolling stage as opposed to actually believing this shite?

[Callum Gilhooley]

Ok , what if I said that the Gypo I know is a smelly tart and her Gypo family are thieving tax avoiding Gypo scum . I’m avoiding tarring the whole Gypo nation / tribe / race ... whatever . Just targeting the dirty smelly thieving tax avoiding ( did I mention illiterate? )Gypo bastards I know . Is this OK [emoji106]?

[Dirty Sanchez]

I've been wondering if this is cultural misappropriation, or perhaps just a good laugh.

 

 

[DougJamie]

1 hour ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Ok , what if I said that the Gypo I know is a smelly tart and her Gypo family are thieving tax avoiding Gypo scum . I’m avoiding tarring the whole Gypo nation / tribe / race ... whatever . Just targeting the dirty smelly thieving tax avoiding ( did I mention illiterate? )Gypo bastards I know . Is this OK ?

Nah , I woukd stick to the OP as it was a slur on Royalty and as we all know they are far more important human beings

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by DougJamie

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I never said race or ethnic group, just group.

That's irrelevant to a conversation on racism. It's the sort of thing the fascists like bannon say to deflect and try to minimise their racist talk and actions.
I'm sure you are better than that.

[Callum Gilhooley]

I need to apologise for my earlier slur on the whiter than white Gypo community as it turns out the group I was referring to  actually prefer to be called  “Showfolk” . 

So i would have to amend my question to say , what if I was to say that the group of showfolk I know are dirty ,smelly, untrustworthy ,thieving ,tax avoiding , illiterate scum . Would that be offensive ?

btw , these showfolk regard the wonderful upstanding citizens previous referred to as Gypos as all of the above ...... f**king racists !!

[Wendy Saintss]

the current terminology is people of colour.

 

No it isn’t

 

You’ve just made that up

[BuddieinEK]

 
No it isn’t
 
You’ve just made that up

Looks like he used a USA search engine...

The term "person of color" today is used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not considered white. The term encompasses all non-white people, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism. Wikipedia

[Wendy Saintss]

TPAFKUNT was a believer of the VIP paedo ring.

 

Think I’ll call him Mr Beech from now on!

 

[Wendy Saintss]

Looks like he used a USA search engine...

 

The term "person of color" today is used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not considered white. The term encompasses all non-white people, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism. Wikipedia

 

And many people find it racially offensive!

 

Mr Beech usually keeps his posts very short to avoid folk realising that he’s a clown!

 

He’s certainly given the game away in this thread though!

 

[emoji23][emoji23]

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Capt Wendy is looking for attention again. How sad

[oaksoft]

On 5/12/2019 at 3:23 PM, TPAFKATS said:

 

 

Generally speaking yes, however the context here is that whites have controlled the narrative for centuries.

 

Speak for yourself.

I haven't controlled anyone's narrative.

[oaksoft]

On 5/12/2019 at 9:36 PM, TPAFKATS said:

"They" don't keep changing how they want to be referred to though.
People of this ethnicity have made changes to what they regard as acceptable terminology over years, decades in fact.
That ethnic group should be controlling it otherwise it would still be acceptable to use terms like "nigger" and "coon".
Its not about being PC, it's about calling an ethnic group by the words that they find acceptable.

No it wouldn't. Why on earth are you bringing those terms up?

That last sentence is about allowing people to hit you over the head for the sins of others in history.

In Scotland that would be the equivalent of blaming the English for oppressing Scots 250+ years ago.

And what DO they find acceptable? It used to be "coloured" then it was "black" and now it is "people of colour". This is ridiculous. pandering and does nothing to stop real persecution of that group.

[oaksoft]

On 5/12/2019 at 10:57 PM, TPAFKATS said:

On 5/12/2019 at 10:21 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Only if you want to avoid answering the question.

How do you refer to any group of people if that group disagree within themselves on how they want to be referred to? Never mind the opinions of the self proclaimed voices of that group, they won't speak for them all, they probably won't even have asked them all. Why should I take the word of a small, or even large, group of people who try to claim to talk for everyone in an even larger group? What if even one of that group object to being called what "their mouthpiece" claims to be the correct phrase? Who's opinion matters most? If a group of black people came out and claimed that they wanted to be referred to as niggers, is it then OK to call every black person that? What if they claimed to be representing the majority of black people? It's all ridiculous. As I said, it's usually obvious when someone is using a term in a derogatory fashion, concentrate on pulling them up, not people who are obviously not intending any offence by using a specific word or phrase.

A word or phrase in itself is not offensive, it's the context it is used in which can make it offensive. If I called a black man a nigger, then that would probably make the word offensive to him. If I said that it is offensive to call a black man a nigger, then the word would probably not be offensive to him. It's all about context.

Your last paragraph is the only part that actually makes any sense. The rest is contradictory nonsense or irrelevant to what I said.

It really isn't. You need to take a moment and re-read it. He is making perfect sense and is raising a very good point about who is controlling the words the rest of society are being asked use to refer to black people.