Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
By that rationale, the Charlie Hebdo staff got what they deserved.
What the.
Yeah not entirely sure what I meant either.
Basically though, if all it takes is one person to take offence to something that is said (that isn't directly aimed at them) it can be a very slippery slope towards people deciding what is right or wrong.
A lot of people will say some pretty nasty things about religion, all priests are pedos etc, people will take a lot of offence to that, is that ok?
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
By that rationale, the Charlie Hebdo staff got what they deserved.
What the.
Yeah not entirely sure what I meant either.
Basically though, if all it takes is one person to take offence to something that is said (that isn't directly aimed at them) it can be a very slippery slope towards people deciding what is right or wrong.
A lot of people will say some pretty nasty things about religion, all priests are pedos etc, people will take a lot of offence to that, is that ok?
I’m not a betting man (that’s a lie, I am) but I’d bet serious wedge a lot more than one person is offended by the term coloured.
As for the second part, it’s up to the person on the end of it, like I said. What do I stand to lose by not being able to call someone coloured? Nothing, so if makes a few thousand, million whatever happier by not saying it, seems legit to me.
'All priests are pedos' is just deeply stupid above all though. You say that and you'll mostly just get derision aimed at you
As opposed to the fist bumps, cheers and congratulations when someone calls someone "coloured"?
I think the problem will always be there's a lot of stupid people unfortunately, and they end up making smart/decent people spend far too much time thinking about them.
Greg Clarke got hammered for using the term "coloured players". That term was used years ago and was classed as being acceptable and being PC, I still fail to see how it is being racist now. Then you could not say "black player", now you can.
Best thing to do is ask the people on the end of the insult.
By that rationale, the Charlie Hebdo staff got what they deserved.
What the.
Yeah not entirely sure what I meant either.
Basically though, if all it takes is one person to take offence to something that is said (that isn't directly aimed at them) it can be a very slippery slope towards people deciding what is right or wrong.
A lot of people will say some pretty nasty things about religion, all priests are pedos etc, people will take a lot of offence to that, is that ok?
I’m not a betting man (that’s a lie, I am) but I’d bet serious wedge a lot more than one person is offended by the term coloured.
As for the second part, it’s up to the person on the end of it, like I said. What do I stand to lose by not being able to call someone coloured? Nothing, so if makes a few thousand, million whatever happier by not saying it, seems legit to me.
I bet they are too, but I would also bet that you could say a lot of things that a lot of people would find equally offensive based on their beliefs etc.
It's a shame really that there's so many people out there who want to offend people in the first place really...
Well this thread is going completely to plan isn't it.
The BBC makes a ridiculous decision (after complaints by, one would imagine, WUMs), knowing that once the culture-war operatives (the Daily Mail) grab a hold of it, angry citizens all across the country will be once more stirred up to lay into 'the woke'. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be claimed that 'we' are at the mercy of an unknowable, unseeable enemy ('the woke') who have all the power over death and life, forever and ever, amen. And so will the old media cackle and rub their hands, for yea, verily, this is what they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, power over death and life belongs to *checks* the establishment, as usual, Brexit is coming wahey, the Tories are in power and ahead in the polls, and 'the woke' are just young people.
All this hysterical whinging about how if you say you're English they throw you in jail bears absolutely no relation to our lives.
Universal instalment of 'wokeness' (ugh) isn't what I want, nor what other progressives want. Nah, what we want is practical stuff, chiefly that people are treated well, not victimised and given the respect they're due. Steve Thompson isn't victimising anyone. He's not offending or ostracising anyone. He's yet another pawn in the culture war now though, and this is yet another example of the bollocks you're all being daily drip-fed to keep you angry at the 'woke'.
But that's not quite true is it?
Thanks to the long march through the institutions, it's not the young, purple haired types that are the problem (although they are certainly irritants who see 1984 not so much as a warning from history, but more of an instruction manual).
The point is that 'woke-ism' is now the preserve of the middle class/managerial class. Hence why it has been adopted by all sections of Government, corporations and is of plague proportions within the public sector (where it is a well paid alternative to work for the most narcissistic and dim, as far as I can work out - a great way to be a success without the need for intelligence, nuance or critical thinking). What is the consequence of this? Compulsory 'training' and 'diversity' initiatives throughout the land based on the racist conspiracy theory that is 'critical race theory' which has unaccountably, once again, been adopted by all levels of Government, the corporations and the public sector. Of course, such courses are provided for a suitable fee by the professional race baiters who have to see racism everywhere to justify their own lucrative existence. Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
The woke have the power nowadays, that is the point.
P.S Chizz, in classic woke fashion, you are ignoring the points made to you about the original 'offender' and instead, I assume as you have provided no evidence of e.g that no complaints were made about the 'handbags' comments, your perception, or fact? If, as you say, this is 'fake news' then please provide the evidence. If you're right, then you're right. That's how debate works.
A worthy adversary!
'Woke' is, as I've said, a term originating in Black, American and largely LGBT Twitter. What you're referring to is good old-fashioned political correctness, which is a distinct phenomenon, referring specifically to language use rather than an awareness of structural inequality.
I'm sure we're in agreement that policing language for corporate purposes is frequently gratuitous and unhelpful.
HOWEVER.
Actual, practical initiatives such as the Rooney rule and diversity targets etc are DISTINCT from superficial political correctness bollocks. They have actual, measurable impact on people's livelihoods, and they exist for good reasons, i.e. actual, measurable difficulties for those within certain demographics to find employment in certain sectors.
As for racism being everywhere...well, it's hardly nowhere, is it? Come now.
Let's talk about language use, though, as this appears to be your predominant axe to grind.
People are hardly ever destroyed for marginal, ambiguous, merely 'politically incorrect' language. Shall we take the recent example of Greg Clarke? Here's what a certain Charlton legend and real-life black person had to say:
Darren Bent, former England striker: "Slip of the tongue was it? Awful, just awful."
You wouldn't call Darren Bent a member of the woke army, would you? Just a man who's suffered more racist abuse in his life than you or I will ever know, snapping at the head of his profession uttering something that isn't just 'politically incorrect' but hideously unacceptable for any public figurehead to utter.
Clarke hasn't had his life ended, nor his well-being, just his role as the figurehead of English football.
Then take poor old JK Rowling, who's said some decidedly unsavoury things about transgendered people, and received pushback for it from a small section of the internet.
Do you think she's suffered materially as the result of this? Shall we check her net worth? Her ongoing readership?
Do you think that for her, to escape the consequences of her arguably irresponsible speech is not merely a matter of logging out of Twitter?
Then take Suzanne Moore, who's waged a much more ongoing and serious campaign against transgendered people, to the extent where her words have resulted in her leaving The Guardian.
And how silenced she was, silenced to the extent where the Murdoch press, the Mail and the Spectator all ran their own week-long Festival Of Suzanne! You'd rather think she'll land on her feet, wouldn't you?
Let's examine the crux of your argument once again:
Failure to give the correct answers that the cult of woke demands will mean punishment and even dismissal. As such, there are numerous stories of terrified employees reduced to tears as they apologise for simply existing, or 'white privilege' as its known these days. Add to this the 'cancellation' of people and you can see that it is not just the Twitter snowflakes that are the problem and if they are harmless, why do they now have the power to dictate the policy of public institutions, corporations and even sections of government?
A nice fantasy. I'd like examples, though. Examples of people whose lives were ruined simply 'by their existence', or by 'Twitter snowflakes', as opposed to by them being massive bastards.
I'd also like to know which policies of public institutions and government (no comment on corporations, lol) have material, damaging impacts on those who are, according to you, deemed to be impure.
Actual lives ruined for no good reason. Examples. My desk.
I take your points about PC/wokeness, but the two have become messily intertwined.
Why can't Darren Bent be woke? The FA chief used clumsy language, maybe, but if you are that offended by it, then you are simply not a rational actor. He may well have been shit at his job and deserving of the sack, but why make it all about him not using the current PC word, but an older version which is still used by many elsewhere without causing offence? Do you think that his words were motivated by malice and racism, really?
As for the example of Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling, that is simply one of perception. What you see as rampant anti-transgenderism, I see as standing up for empirical, biological fact and also for an argument for womens' rights. Yet both were hounded and abused incessantly; Moore was bullied out of her job and I'll be surprised if her failing paper doesn't end up on the wrong end of a damages ruling as a result. It is easy for you to play down the impact on their lives but how would you feel if you were bombarded with messages threatening to rape your children, amongst other things?
If you think they're aren't any examples then let me introduce you to my two friends, Google and The News. Here's one that was the first example I thought of:
The woke are the new McCarthy-ites, constantly looking for non-existent racists (and transphobes) under the bed. How far the left have fallen. Once the defenders of liberty, they are now the loudest voices calling for an an authoritarian society, which used to be the preserve of the nutters on the far-right!
I think calling people irrational for being offended by offensive language is a little out of order.
You are quite right that we examine the context though, and what he might have meant, and that he didn't mean it as a pejorative term.
But he was the FA Chairman - heading an organisation that champions diversity and inclusion. (Which are good things, I would say.) If that organisation allows its head to use such language, even if it's not intentionally racist... why can potentially racist language be allowed to flourish in the first instance?
I'd like to think I am woke. I don't want Clarke "cancelled" (education and rehabilitation are crucial to progress), but at the same time he shouldn't have remained in his post - which he didn't. And the FA itself needs examining.
I would rather not get into a discussion about trans rights (which are of course human rights) but feel free to get acquainted with your friend Google again and see what Katy Montgomerie has to say on Twitter.
If I decide to get offended by something someone says and then murder them, does that make it their fault?
Of course not (unless you are an extremist or an apologist from the left; c.f Charlie Hebdo etc. - witness the almost total absence of response from our spineless leaders and media to the killing of the history teacher in France, for example).
So to make the moral judgement conditional on the feelings of the offendee makes no sense....however, it is the central pillar of political correctness which makes judgement according to a hierarchy of victimhood. No wonder the majority reject it for the relativist nonsense that it is.
There has to be a better way; how about just accepting that people have different opinions and one person's deity is another's reason to take the piss, and people must always have the right to choose what they want to laugh at. This used to be the accepted norm in a pluralist, post-enlightenment society, but then the cultural relativists came along and fucked it all up and here we are.
There is no blasphemy law in a civilised society yet we have seen attempts to introduce one via the vehicle of political correctness both north of the border and here in recent times. That is very worrying IMHO.
If I decide to get offended by something someone says and then murder them, does that make it their fault?
Of course not (unless you are an extremist or an apologist from the left; c.f Charlie Hebdo etc. - witness the almost total absence of response from our spineless leaders and media to the killing of the history teacher in France, for example).
So to make the moral judgement conditional on the feelings of the offendee makes no sense....however, it is the central pillar of political correctness which makes judgement according to a hierarchy of victimhood. No wonder the majority reject it for the relativist nonsense that it is.
There has to be a better way; how about just accepting that people have different opinions and one person's deity is another's reason to take the piss, and people must always have the right to choose what they want to laugh at. This used to be the accepted norm in a pluralist, post-enlightenment society, but then the cultural relativists came along and fucked it all up and here we are.
There is no blasphemy law in a civilised society yet we have seen attempts to introduce one via the vehicle of political correctness both north of the border and here in recent times. That is very worrying IMHO.
P.S It appears neither of us have a desire to talk of trans rights....like most of the population, I suspect; in reality it is just a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of people insulting each other on social media. Somewhat niche, to put it mildly.
If I decide to get offended by something someone says and then murder them, does that make it their fault?
Of course not (unless you are an extremist or an apologist from the left; c.f Charlie Hebdo etc. - witness the almost total absence of response from our spineless leaders and media to the killing of the history teacher in France, for example).
So to make the moral judgement conditional on the feelings of the offendee makes no sense....however, it is the central pillar of political correctness which makes judgement according to a hierarchy of victimhood. No wonder the majority reject it for the relativist nonsense that it is.
There has to be a better way; how about just accepting that people have different opinions and one person's deity is another's reason to take the piss, and people must always have the right to choose what they want to laugh at. This used to be the accepted norm in a pluralist, post-enlightenment society, but then the cultural relativists came along and fucked it all up and here we are.
There is no blasphemy law in a civilised society yet we have seen attempts to introduce one via the vehicle of political correctness both north of the border and here in recent times. That is very worrying IMHO.
No one is saying that.
What are you worried about not being able to say?
Do you think that Monty Python's Life of Brian should have been banned?
Do you think that I should, if I choose, be able to mock the figures prominent in others' belief systems?
If I decide to get offended by something someone says and then murder them, does that make it their fault?
Of course not (unless you are an extremist or an apologist from the left; c.f Charlie Hebdo etc. - witness the almost total absence of response from our spineless leaders and media to the killing of the history teacher in France, for example).
So to make the moral judgement conditional on the feelings of the offendee makes no sense....however, it is the central pillar of political correctness which makes judgement according to a hierarchy of victimhood. No wonder the majority reject it for the relativist nonsense that it is.
There has to be a better way; how about just accepting that people have different opinions and one person's deity is another's reason to take the piss, and people must always have the right to choose what they want to laugh at. This used to be the accepted norm in a pluralist, post-enlightenment society, but then the cultural relativists came along and fucked it all up and here we are.
There is no blasphemy law in a civilised society yet we have seen attempts to introduce one via the vehicle of political correctness both north of the border and here in recent times. That is very worrying IMHO.
No one is saying that.
What are you worried about not being able to say?
Do you think that Monty Python's Life of Brian should have been banned?
Do you think that I should, if I choose, be able to mock the figures prominent in others' belief systems?
I don’t really understand the relevance of the reference, maybe I’m too young.
I guess it depends on what you’re saying exactly doesn’t it.
Which brings me back to my original question to you, what do you want to say that you can’t? Or what are you worried about not being able to say?
People probably do have the right to choose what they want to laugh at, although to me laughter is a surprise almost involuntary response to something found funny, not a choice. However does the stance have exactly the same force when it comes to the choice of what to joke about? The reaction to the Hebdo 'humour' is appalling and wrong, but what ought to be the reaction to the relentless stream of 'jokes' that for example are designed to make the Irish look stupid? Shrug and let it go? What if there were an endless stream of jokes about the noses of Jewish people, or the hair of Afro Caribbean people, or the eyes of Chinese people? Is the creator of those phenomena to be granted a similar licence to do as they wish as the person laughing? If so called political correctness is wearisome and wrong, does that mean a cultural free for all and no line drawn anywhere?
P.S It appears neither of us have a desire to talk of trans rights....like most of the population, I suspect; in reality it is just a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of people insulting each other on social media. Somewhat niche, to put it mildly.
I've used this line recently, but I have to go back to the paradox of tolerance - society shouldn't tolerate that which is intolerant. Offence is a question of perception, sure, but much as you can "choose" to be offended, if you're saying something potentially offensive then you are not free of potential repercussions. Of course, that doesn't mean I think the writers of Charlie Hebdo "got what they deserved" or any such thing (again, society doesn't tolerate murder or terrorism), but if your actions are like that of Greg Clarke's, perhaps you are making your own bed.
And... well, maybe it's not a "minority" who are getting "offended" unreasonably, but a sign of shifting social values? To go incredibly big-picture here, racism was perhaps normalised 150 years ago (certainly was with the slave trade in the 18th century); women's suffrage used to be a pipe dream; democracy and pluralism was once eschewed by the likes of Voltaire in favour of enlightened despotism; and so on. All of that has changed. Maybe the nature of what constitutes offence has, too.
I'm not wanting to make the point that some things should - or should not be - considered offensive, by the way. More an examination of the reasoning behind it.
As for the NAACP - a name change would create more confusion, and the hundred or so years of its existence contextualise usage of the word "coloured" sufficiently for it not to be widely offensive, I would think.
Comments
Basically though, if all it takes is one person to take offence to something that is said (that isn't directly aimed at them) it can be a very slippery slope towards people deciding what is right or wrong.
A lot of people will say some pretty nasty things about religion, all priests are pedos etc, people will take a lot of offence to that, is that ok?
As for the second part, it’s up to the person on the end of it, like I said. What do I stand to lose by not being able to call someone coloured? Nothing, so if makes a few thousand, million whatever happier by not saying it, seems legit to me.
I think the problem will always be there's a lot of stupid people unfortunately, and they end up making smart/decent people spend far too much time thinking about them.
It's a shame really that there's so many people out there who want to offend people in the first place really...
You are quite right that we examine the context though, and what he might have meant, and that he didn't mean it as a pejorative term.
But he was the FA Chairman - heading an organisation that champions diversity and inclusion. (Which are good things, I would say.) If that organisation allows its head to use such language, even if it's not intentionally racist... why can potentially racist language be allowed to flourish in the first instance?
I'd like to think I am woke. I don't want Clarke "cancelled" (education and rehabilitation are crucial to progress), but at the same time he shouldn't have remained in his post - which he didn't. And the FA itself needs examining.
I would rather not get into a discussion about trans rights (which are of course human rights) but feel free to get acquainted with your friend Google again and see what Katy Montgomerie has to say on Twitter.
If I decide to get offended by something someone says and then murder them, does that make it their fault?
Of course not (unless you are an extremist or an apologist from the left; c.f Charlie Hebdo etc. - witness the almost total absence of response from our spineless leaders and media to the killing of the history teacher in France, for example).
So to make the moral judgement conditional on the feelings of the offendee makes no sense....however, it is the central pillar of political correctness which makes judgement according to a hierarchy of victimhood. No wonder the majority reject it for the relativist nonsense that it is.
There has to be a better way; how about just accepting that people have different opinions and one person's deity is another's reason to take the piss, and people must always have the right to choose what they want to laugh at. This used to be the accepted norm in a pluralist, post-enlightenment society, but then the cultural relativists came along and fucked it all up and here we are.
There is no blasphemy law in a civilised society yet we have seen attempts to introduce one via the vehicle of political correctness both north of the border and here in recent times. That is very worrying IMHO.
I can't find a quote like that anywhere.
No one is saying that.
I think that you need to pen a strongly worded letter to these people, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP
P.S It appears neither of us have a desire to talk of trans rights....like most of the population, I suspect; in reality it is just a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of people insulting each other on social media. Somewhat niche, to put it mildly.
Do you think that I should, if I choose, be able to mock the figures prominent in others' belief systems?
I guess it depends on what you’re saying exactly doesn’t it.
Which brings me back to my original question to you, what do you want to say that you can’t? Or what are you worried about not being able to say?
However does the stance have exactly the same force when it comes to the choice of what to joke about?
The reaction to the Hebdo 'humour' is appalling and wrong, but what ought to be the reaction to the relentless stream of 'jokes' that for example are designed to make the Irish look stupid? Shrug and let it go? What if there were an endless stream of jokes about the noses of Jewish people, or the hair of Afro Caribbean people, or the eyes of Chinese people? Is the creator of those phenomena to be granted a similar licence to do as they wish as the person laughing?
If so called political correctness is wearisome and wrong, does that mean a cultural free for all and no line drawn anywhere?
And... well, maybe it's not a "minority" who are getting "offended" unreasonably, but a sign of shifting social values? To go incredibly big-picture here, racism was perhaps normalised 150 years ago (certainly was with the slave trade in the 18th century); women's suffrage used to be a pipe dream; democracy and pluralism was once eschewed by the likes of Voltaire in favour of enlightened despotism; and so on. All of that has changed. Maybe the nature of what constitutes offence has, too.
I'm not wanting to make the point that some things should - or should not be - considered offensive, by the way. More an examination of the reasoning behind it.
As for the NAACP - a name change would create more confusion, and the hundred or so years of its existence contextualise usage of the word "coloured" sufficiently for it not to be widely offensive, I would think.