I think it unreasonable Paddy, so if we should not use dictionaries which were pioneered by white men, please be kind enough to update us your view, as to which dictionary the UK is advised to use. Thank-you.
(I presume the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries were pioneered by white men).
I just googled to see which dictionary we should be using, but realised I may be being racist.
So I googled who invented google and see it was apparently 2 white guys Larry Page and Sergey Brin, so I apologise for that and I'd better not use google again.
Does anyone know which search engine we can use that wasn't invested by a racist (someone white)?
I've never accused all white people of being racist. Keep your shirt on.
I think it unreasonable Paddy, so if we should not use dictionaries which were pioneered by white men, please be kind enough to update us your view, as to which dictionary the UK is advised to use. Thank-you.
(I presume the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries were pioneered by white men).
I've literally never said "don't use a dictionary".
In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.
Thanks xox
But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used. Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.
By jove, he's understanding it!
Jove? Is that really still acceptable? Please don't remind me of the Roman imperialist past that my family suffered, it's very backward looking, and I live this every day of my life.
In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.
Thanks xox
But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used. Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.
By jove, he's understanding it!
Do you know which dictionary we should use?
Does it have to be one that originated with black people or brown people or people of colour in general, or does it need to be more specific like East Asian or South Asian or perhaps a mixture of everyone?
Also, does it also have to originate from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex as well?
What about straight female or male, is that ok if they are not white?
I think what he is trying to say is that you have to use his definition, regardless of if the people he is ham-fistedly trying to represent actually agree.
Basically "don't use the actual definition of the word, use the one that allows me to make my argument."
Rinse and repeat.
Not what I've said at all. (NB My response to Covered End's comment that made fun of me was tongue in cheek, for the avoidance of doubt.)
I said that we have to be careful sticking solely to a dictionary-led definition of racism when it's a far more complex issue than can be summed up in one or two sentences, and also in part because dictionaries were primarily pioneered by white men. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold. If you do, let me know and we'll leave it there.
I do, and I think most people do.
You have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to your righteous battle to find racism at every possible turn. Try drawing it somewhere about 50 feet behind where you are now and you might enjoy life a little bit more, and seem a bit less... I don't know what the right word is for it because genuinely I think you are probably a nice person, your heart is in the right place you just seem a bit naive/sanctimonious, which isn't a crime but yeah...
With regards to the Jove comment, it is basically me drawing the line a few feet in front of where you currently stand. I am shocked I found something to be offended at that you disagreed with. Maybe you need to check your privilege as you don't have the same respect for the oppression of the Iceni (my heritage) that I do.
Anyway, I thought your last post on the subject was a few posts ago, and this is my last post on how everyone is racist apart from people who subscribe to my definition of racism and society as a whole.
Maybe in future we can all agree to let people post without jumping down their throats. And if we do, maybe doing so in a kinder manner would be nice rather than saying phrases like "what the fuck are you on about?" Just doesn't promote the idea of an inclusive forum, but instead looks more like the flaming torches and pitchforks mentioned above.
I think it unreasonable Paddy, so if we should not use dictionaries which were pioneered by white men, please be kind enough to update us your view, as to which dictionary the UK is advised to use. Thank-you.
(I presume the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries were pioneered by white men).
I've literally never said "don't use a dictionary".
You said "Racism is an incredibly complex topic and defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down."
So I agree that racism is an incredibly complex topic. But you suggest that "defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down."
Ok I hear you.
So which dictionary definition should be used/which dictionary should be used in UK schools? How in the UK do we define racism moving forward?
In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.
Thanks xox
But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used. Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.
By jove, he's understanding it!
Jove? Is that really still acceptable? Please don't remind me of the Roman imperialist past that my family suffered, it's very backward looking, and I live this every day of my life.
In the next thread like this, can we spend the first 2 pages agreeing the definitions of all the words we are arguing on before we argue, as it just makes everything a lot more easy then.
Thanks xox
But we will have to agree on which dictionary is permitted to be used. Possibly one that originated with white people is allegedly not the path to go down.
By jove, he's understanding it!
Do you know which dictionary we should use?
Does it have to be one that originated with black people or brown people or people of colour in general, or does it need to be more specific like East Asian or South Asian or perhaps a mixture of everyone?
Also, does it also have to originate from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex as well?
What about straight female or male, is that ok if they are not white?
I think what he is trying to say is that you have to use his definition, regardless of if the people he is ham-fistedly trying to represent actually agree.
Basically "don't use the actual definition of the word, use the one that allows me to make my argument."
Rinse and repeat.
Not what I've said at all. (NB My response to Covered End's comment that made fun of me was tongue in cheek, for the avoidance of doubt.)
I said that we have to be careful sticking solely to a dictionary-led definition of racism when it's a far more complex issue than can be summed up in one or two sentences, and also in part because dictionaries were primarily pioneered by white men. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold. If you do, let me know and we'll leave it there.
It’s probably impossible to avoid the fact that most dictionaries in daily use were originated by white men. So surely it’s more sensible for them to be updated ... as, I believe, most dictionaries are.
Below is an example:
Dictionaries can lag behind societal developments. Editors at Merriam-Webster are working on a revision of the definition of racism.
'Woke' is the ability to be a complete hypocrite due to cultural relativism, i.e treating people differently and having flexible principles depending on their minority and perceived victim status. It is the enemy of equality.
So a non-white person being racist is fine, but a white person even being perceived as having been racist is beyond the pale...they must be destroyed. No-one has a problem with genuine racists reaping what they sow, but there is a lack of supply of the real thing, so it requires the charge to be manufactured more often than not. Perception is all that matters, not intent, so being guilty of a thought crime needs no actual evidence. Not that the mob cares; it stills get a nice, warm, satisfying glow as it wields the sword of social justice - and all it required was a few clicks of the mouse, or for the more advanced, a mildly amusing sign attacking the correct targets to be circulated around social media following a demo for the 'right causes'.
The morally pure constantly pointing out the defects in others whilst having an inability to reflect on their own possible moral failings (which we all have, but only some will admit to). The type of people who will flock to the online equivalent of a pitchfork wielding mob to heap abuse and hatred of others, bullying, basically, yet still consider themselves 'nice' and on the side of the angels.
Virtue signalling is a tribal act where you display your membership of the tribe of the righteous by attacking the right figures and having the correct thoughts and incessantly letting the rest of the world know how 'right thinking you are'. If you are unsure of the definition, just watch any recent BBC 'comedy', where 'clapter' (VS statements denouncing the 'correct' targets that the audience can show their approval of) has replaced actually being funny. Even Frankie Boyle now has the disease, which is a shame. It is probably best described now as a religion, complete with immutable articles of faith, true believers and, of course, blasphemers (anyone who questions the holy tenets of the faith).
Critical race theory is just another conspiracy theory; it is a perception of the world confused with and presented as fact. It is the product of a self-serving industry that has grown huge recently and needs the world to see racism everywhere so that it can sell itself as being the solution to it. There's a lot of money to be made out of promoting racial disharmony, after all. Meanwhile the cohesion of the country is destroyed as people are re-calibrated to see what makes them different to others rather than looking for common ground and uniting. It is a poisonous, divisive ideology which makes a mockery of the inclusive message that MLK delivered to the world; I'll stick with him, thanks....the right-on racists can go to hell.
Anyway, it's Friday night. Time to get a life, at least for a while.
Use a dictionary and also engage with people of colour. A dictionary is a useful tool to employ but not the sole one.
I love life and I don't think I try to find racism at every possible turn. It is something I post about a lot on here though. But I don't spend all my time on CL. I also don't think I've explicitly accused anyone on here of racism (certainly in the last few years), with the possible exceptions of Chippy, PL54, harveys gardener and maybe others I've forgotten about.
It was intended to be my last post until I was repeatedly misrepresented.
People are free to post. I'm free to respond, and when I feel someone is being unfairly judgemental and reeling off the cliches, and claiming white privilege is a myth, I will. That's how a forum works.
Hopefully this really will be my last post on the matter.
I think the vast majority of people on CL are not racist and literally go out of their way, to be careful what they say, so as to not offend anyone (yes there may be the odd exception who are usually swiftly despatched).
Nonetheless, we still get a fairly constant dressing down that infers, that if you are white you are privileged and possibly racist (even if you don't realise you're racist).
If you reply, as I am, then you're definitely presumed racist, but if you are non white you cannot be racist and are free to say what you like.
I've never knowingly done or said anything racist and I try ever so hard not to offend, so yes I do get really fed up with the comments.
If you are fed up with comments in the outside world (then I'm on your side and would back you if I were with you), but please don't make everyone on CL feel like it's their fault, because it's not.
'Woke' is the ability to be a complete hypocrite due to cultural relativism, i.e treating people differently and having flexible principles depending on their minority and perceived victim status. It is the enemy of equality.
So a non-white person being racist is fine, but a white person even being perceived as having been racist is beyond the pale...they must be destroyed. No-one has a problem with genuine racists reaping what they sow, but there is a lack of supply of the real thing, so it requires the charge to be manufactured more often than not. Perception is all that matters, not intent, so being guilty of a thought crime needs no actual evidence. Not that the mob cares; it stills get a nice, warm, satisfying glow as it wields the sword of social justice - and all it required was a few clicks of the mouse, or for the more advanced, a mildly amusing sign attacking the correct targets to be circulated around social media following a demo for the 'right causes'.
The morally pure constantly pointing out the defects in others whilst having an inability to reflect on their own possible moral failings (which we all have, but only some will admit to). The type of people who will flock to the online equivalent of a pitchfork wielding mob to heap abuse and hatred of others, bullying, basically, yet still consider themselves 'nice' and on the side of the angels.
Virtue signalling is a tribal act where you display your membership of the tribe of the righteous by attacking the right figures and having the correct thoughts and incessantly letting the rest of the world know how 'right thinking you are'. If you are unsure of the definition, just watch any recent BBC 'comedy', where 'clapter' (VS statements denouncing the 'correct' targets that the audience can show their approval of) has replaced actually being funny. Even Frankie Boyle now has the disease, which is a shame. It is probably best described now as a religion, complete with immutable articles of faith, true believers and, of course, blasphemers (anyone who questions the holy tenets of the faith).
Critical race theory is just another conspiracy theory; it is a perception of the world confused with and presented as fact. It is the product of a self-serving industry that has grown huge recently and needs the world to see racism everywhere so that it can sell itself as being the solution to it. There's a lot of money to be made out of promoting racial disharmony, after all. Meanwhile the cohesion of the country is destroyed as people are re-calibrated to see what makes them different to others rather than looking for common ground and uniting. It is a poisonous, divisive ideology which makes a mockery of the inclusive message that MLK delivered to the world; I'll stick with him, thanks....the right-on racists can go to hell.
Dunno which dictionary you copy and pasted those definitions from, but I bet it's fucking massive.
Using a dictionary only as a way of defining terms is only part of the discussion regarding what do we mean by what we say or write. A dictionary is a point in time but not something for all time. However often when one embarks on the 'what do we mean by what we say/write' discussion, helpful dialogue is dismissed as 'mere semantics'. Some words evolve and alter in their meaning and power over time, the word 'gay' is an example. There really was a time when a term like 'happy and gay' was about some kind of merriment and not about sexual preferences, but that word has changed in it's (dare I say 'principle'?) meaning.
I have a problem with the term white privilege, because it implies that such things as not being constantly stopped by the police, paid less for the same job, denied promotion, etc is a "privilege", when I think that's how all people should be treated. However, just because the label is the wrong way round, it doesn't mean those things don't happen. There's a similar thing for all forms of discrimination. As @PaddyP17 pointed out earlier, it's about relative discrimination. If you are a white man and you have a black man from the same economic and educational background, you'll have an easier time than he will in dealings with the police, employers, etc. Is that really so hard to grasp? Back to the OP, this is a generational thing by and large - it's young people who object to the word "faggot" being used as a slur, most of my gay friends and acquaintances who grew up with the song have no problem with it, but crucially, most also accept that they've been telling younger gay people not to put up with slurs for the last 30 years and it would be a bit hypocritical to turn round and say "oh but not that one". This generational divide may also be why it's been changed by Radio 1 (aimed at young people) and not changed by Radio 2 (aimed at older people) but then that doesn't fit the narrative of "lefty BBC censorship"
Comments
(I presume the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries were pioneered by white men).
You have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to your righteous battle to find racism at every possible turn. Try drawing it somewhere about 50 feet behind where you are now and you might enjoy life a little bit more, and seem a bit less... I don't know what the right word is for it because genuinely I think you are probably a nice person, your heart is in the right place you just seem a bit naive/sanctimonious, which isn't a crime but yeah...
With regards to the Jove comment, it is basically me drawing the line a few feet in front of where you currently stand. I am shocked I found something to be offended at that you disagreed with. Maybe you need to check your privilege as you don't have the same respect for the oppression of the Iceni (my heritage) that I do.
Anyway, I thought your last post on the subject was a few posts ago, and this is my last post on how everyone is racist apart from people who subscribe to my definition of racism and society as a whole.
Maybe in future we can all agree to let people post without jumping down their throats. And if we do, maybe doing so in a kinder manner would be nice rather than saying phrases like "what the fuck are you on about?" Just doesn't promote the idea of an inclusive forum, but instead looks more like the flaming torches and pitchforks mentioned above.
So I agree that racism is an incredibly complex topic.
But you suggest that "defining it strictly according to a book that originated with white people is probably not the path to go down."
Ok I hear you.
So which dictionary definition should be used/which dictionary should be used in UK schools?
How in the UK do we define racism moving forward?
Dictionaries can lag behind societal developments. Editors at Merriam-Webster are working on a revision of the definition of racism.
I love life and I don't think I try to find racism at every possible turn. It is something I post about a lot on here though. But I don't spend all my time on CL. I also don't think I've explicitly accused anyone on here of racism (certainly in the last few years), with the possible exceptions of Chippy, PL54, harveys gardener and maybe others I've forgotten about.
It was intended to be my last post until I was repeatedly misrepresented.
People are free to post. I'm free to respond, and when I feel someone is being unfairly judgemental and reeling off the cliches, and claiming white privilege is a myth, I will. That's how a forum works.
Hopefully this really will be my last post on the matter.
I think the vast majority of people on CL are not racist and literally go out of their way, to be careful what they say, so as to not offend anyone (yes there may be the odd exception who are usually swiftly despatched).
Nonetheless, we still get a fairly constant dressing down that infers, that if you are white you are privileged and possibly racist (even if you don't realise you're racist).
If you reply, as I am, then you're definitely presumed racist, but if you are non white you cannot be racist and are free to say what you like.
I've never knowingly done or said anything racist and I try ever so hard not to offend, so yes I do get really fed up with the comments.
If you are fed up with comments in the outside world (then I'm on your side and would back you if I were with you), but please don't make everyone on CL feel like it's their fault, because it's not.
Dunno which dictionary you copy and pasted those definitions from, but I bet it's fucking massive.
A dictionary is a point in time but not something for all time.
However often when one embarks on the 'what do we mean by what we say/write' discussion, helpful dialogue is dismissed as 'mere semantics'.
Some words evolve and alter in their meaning and power over time, the word 'gay' is an example.
There really was a time when a term like 'happy and gay' was about some kind of merriment and not about sexual preferences, but that word has changed in it's (dare I say 'principle'?) meaning.
I still think the song is great and is one of my Christmas favourites that I look forward to hearing every year.
Does this mean I have "straight privilege"?
There's a similar thing for all forms of discrimination. As @PaddyP17 pointed out earlier, it's about relative discrimination. If you are a white man and you have a black man from the same economic and educational background, you'll have an easier time than he will in dealings with the police, employers, etc. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Back to the OP, this is a generational thing by and large - it's young people who object to the word "faggot" being used as a slur, most of my gay friends and acquaintances who grew up with the song have no problem with it, but crucially, most also accept that they've been telling younger gay people not to put up with slurs for the last 30 years and it would be a bit hypocritical to turn round and say "oh but not that one". This generational divide may also be why it's been changed by Radio 1 (aimed at young people) and not changed by Radio 2 (aimed at older people) but then that doesn't fit the narrative of "lefty BBC censorship"
Just with the one word removed