Carol Thatcher and the racist remark

dannybcity said:
shaundickov said:
dannybcity said:
Thatcher offended a whole race

dannybcity said:
Ross didn't offend thousands, thousands offended themselves.

How can you argue that Thatcher offended a WHOLE RACE and not just the tennis player she referred to, then you say that Jonathan Ross offended only ONE person and not the thousands who complained that they found it offensive.

The double standards here are glaringly obvious, you know it yourself even though you're not prepared to admit it.

So now you want to argue that the BBC behaved incorrectly. I don't see how they could have done anything else. If you go into work tommorrow and offend somebody (regardless of what was said), then refuse to apoligise what do you expect to happen?

No, I was pointing out your blatant inconsistency.

I don't think Ross or Thatcher should have been sacked, both were jokes. I don't think Ron Atkinson or Rodney Marsh should have been sacked either.

If I called someone ginge at work I would expect not to be disciplined even if they complained. But if I called someone a gollywog I would expect to be sacked regardless of whether they complained or not.

It is DOUBLE STANDARDS and I can't stand it.
 
This is worth stating again because, unbelievably, the same shite is still being quoted about 'My Asiain mate doesn't mind this' and 'what's the difference between this and big ears'.

I don't expect ShaunDickov to take any notice, he shows time and again that he is either unable or unwilling to take on baord any sane point that detracts from his constant need to whine about how everyone is against him, be it people stopping him saying things, people taking his money or just the general conspiracy to persecute him.

In fact he whines so much about it, with 'the let wing' this and 'PC' that, that he sounds exactly like those that he likes to portray as professional PC victims.

Anyway, that's not the point, it's just a nice irony about stereotypes like him.

The point is, can we stop this thread jsut going round in a fucking loop.


JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Let me spell this out for all the stupid fuckers banging on about this.

Over several centuries there have been people in Britain who genuinely felt that black people are inferior beings to white people, should be 'sent back home' and should be second class citizens purely because of that feature. The same goes for Asian people, Jewish people and loads of others who are minorities in British society.

These people still exist. I know some of them. And so do you unless you live in some sort of fucking bubble.

Now, don't get me wrong. Exactly the same sort of cocks exist abroad and hold similar views towards white people. They are also cocks, but we are talking about incidents in British society here.

Therefore when someone makes a comment that includes a term that has historically been a byword for racial/religious discrumination they are on very dodgy ground. It is totlly different to a comment about 'big ears', being ginger or whatever as, unless you can tell me otherwise, there aren't people around who genuinely believe that gingers or people with big ears are inferior or should fuck off out of British society.

Therefore, it should be pretty simple to get into your thick heads that the reaction to someone saying such stuff is going to be totally different.

One is just an insult about someone's apperance. The other is the language that is used by people who genuinely want to get rid of, persecute or discriminate against people because of the colour of their skin or religion.

As for the "Well, I said this to my black mate and he is ok with it" bullshit.

Well, of course he fucking is. I assume, unless he is a fucking masochist, that part of his critieria for being mates with you is that you don't genuinely feel that black people are inferior and should 'go back home'.

SO he knows if you say "Monfils looks like that Gollywog on the jam jars" then that is probably what you mean. And only that. He can distinguish that, even though that term is steeped in racial overtones, knowing you well, you probably genuinely are referring only top an unusual similarity in appearance.

If a stanger said it to him, eg: Carole Thatcher, then he has no way of knowing that she isn't using it in the same terms as racists do and therefore he is probably going to think "WTF is going on here" at best, and at worst be deeply offended.

Even if she is genuinely saying something like that in relation to unusual appearance, and not using it in the same way racists do, then she is still thick as fuck for not realising that strangers have no way of knowing that and are more than likely to be offended.

It's context dummy. Context. How fucking difficult can that be to understand?

Re: Le Tissier. I have no way of knowing whether he is anti semetic or not. However, if the comments above are true then he is also thick as fuck.

I assume that he doesn't personally know everyone in the room. Therefore, the people he is speaking to have no way of knowing whether he is having a laugh about a charicature because it's a funny comparison and play on it, or because he is genuinely a bit anti semetic and finds the charicature of the big nosed, money grabbing Jew hilarious.

How is any stranger supposed to know? They probably give him the benefit of the doubt but he is still a stupid fucker for assuming they will.

But, if he hd said the same comment in a room with 5 of his Jewish mates, who he had known for years, all of whom knew he wasn't anti semetic, then it would be totoally different because they would know exactly what he meant by the joke and that it wasn't a case of "let's laugh at the Jews cos they've all got big noses". They'd know he was making a joke based around a daft charicature that he didn't believe in anyway.

See? It's not fucking rocket science. It's just simple context and relationships to people.

So, instead of getting pi$$ed off and 'PC (yes, PC), moaning about why Coolio can say the n word nd you can't (Again, context dummy. Is anyone really going to hear it nd think 'Geez, is Coolio one of those bastards that thinks blacks are inerior and should 'feck off home'?), moaning about how you are persecuted because he can say it and get a totally different reaction to you.

Get off your fucking 'woe is me, I'm persecuted soap box, I want to be able to say it' trip and just think about the fucking context.

Failing that, stick to your colouring books and the Daily Mail and enjoy filling up your lives with shithouse bleating that everything that is wrong with your lives is because of "PC gone mad".
 
shaundickov said:
No, I was pointing out your blatant inconsistency.

I don't think Ross or Thatcher should have been sacked, both were jokes. I don't think Ron Atkinson or Rodney Marsh should have been sacked either.

If I called someone ginge at work I would expect not to be disciplined even if they complained. But if I called someone a gollywog I would expect to be sacked regardless of whether they complained or not.

It is DOUBLE STANDARDS and I can't stand it.

It's quite sad that someone who has seriously studied history can't tell the difference between calling someone a 'ginge', and what Thatcher came out with.

Top post by the way, JMA. Please go and read it, Shaun.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Therefore when someone makes a comment that includes a term that has historically been a byword for racial/religious discrumination they are on very dodgy ground. It is totlly different to a comment about 'big ears', being ginger or whatever as, unless you can tell me otherwise, there aren't people around who genuinely believe that gingers or people with big ears are inferior or should fuck off out of British society.

Well this is where we fundamentally disagree John. If someone who doesn't have ginger hair calles someone a ginge, it is because they are mocking their physical appearance and so think they are somehow 'inferior'. Otherwise why would they even comment on it? They may not want them to 'fuck off out of British society', but so what if they do or don't - that makes no difference at all to the insult and the offence caused to that particular person.

In fact, I know a guy from Saudi who has no problem being called a 'paki', but I also know a ginger person who hates people calling her 'ginge'. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT WORD IS MORE OFFENSIVE?

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on calling women 'bitches' John - not whether or not you personally do it, but whether this is equivalent to the n-word or p-word given your whole 'context and history' argument, where men have for centuries degraded, persecuted and held extreme prejudice against women? It still happens, far more than any racism, in places like the Middle East as we both know.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.