Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The problem with the term "colo(u)red", as I undestand it, having read something, is that it it is unacceptable to blacks because that is how they (the black population) was labelled by whites as a means to segregate. It is explicitly an exclusive term.

See the source image

 

People of colo(u)r is the preferred term as its inclusive (i.e. includes hispanic, asian etc). but it doesn't include whites, which seems to upset some people. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:


They have different career interests” appears to lump all of that race into one trait/mindset/whatever. It’s a generalisation.

 

It doesn't and it isn't.

It seems that the offending word here is "they".  I give up.  The  way this is going, we're going to have to write out everything we want to say in advance, and double and triple check it in case someone takes a word the wrong way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, time said:

The problem with the term "colo(u)red", as I undestand it, having read something, is that it it is unacceptable to blacks because that is how they (the black population) was labelled by whites as a means to segregate. It is explicitly an exclusive term.

See the source image

 

People of colo(u)r is the preferred term as its inclusive (i.e. includes hispanic, asian etc). but it doesn't include whites, which seems to upset some people. 

 

A growing number of far left democrats want to bring back segregation they just won the election and have a bigger voice in politics.

 

 

 

 

https://www.buzzsprout.com/164767/4160390-far-leftists-enact-racial-segregation-at-the-chaz-in-seattle-right-wing-groups-rise-up-over-riots

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-speech-patriotic-education-national-archives-b471885.html?amp

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, the_engineer said:

I'd like some proper evidence to support that claim. Each of those three sources has a right-wing agenda.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, time said:

I'd like some proper evidence to support that claim. Each of those three sources has a right-wing agenda.

True.

The problem is that there is also a lot of places out there that pedal the left wing manifesto too.

The truth is out there but we really don't always know who is telling it.

Best to ignore the lot of them.:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, good news: what seems like the annual diatribe about Fairytale of New York is now open for business this year!

 

The BBC are split on whether to play the completely original version or not; Radio 2 are, Radio 6 Music are leaving it up to the individual DJs and Radio 1 are playing a version where ‘slut’ is no longer audible and the line ‘you cheap lousy faggot’ is replaced with an alternative version where Kirsty MacColl instead sang ‘you’re cheap and you’re haggard’.

 

My understanding is that they’ve decided that shows with younger audiences may not be familiar with the song and may misunderstand the sentiment (faggot, of course, being Irish slang for a layabout in this context and not the homophobic slur), and ‘slut’ being just one pejorative word out of many thrown about by, as per the theme of the song, embittered, nasty drunks, rather than just for the sake of being derogatory. Some may not see that. So this, in itself, is not where the problem lies.
 

Though I must admit, as one of the LGBTs it’s supposedly at risk of upsetting, the word ‘faggot’ hasn’t bother me one fucking mite, it’s quite a funny word, particularly in this completely unrelated context, but that’s beside the point.
 

But all this has succeeded in doing is it’s stirred some shit, basically. People aren’t talking about different contexts, or societal attitudes and inclusivity 35 years ago compared to today. It’s simply become another ‘snowflake’ versus ‘gammon’ shit slinging match, where the cream of each crop (the grossly over-offended and the raging bigots who scream when yet another poison of society is attacked) are the main infuriating, triggering, hateful voices heard.

 

It’s done nothing for attitudes and inclusivity, as was the idea of deleting ‘slut’ and ‘faggot’, rather it’s exacerbated the problem. I wouldn’t be surprised now if Laurence Fox released a cover version as a retort where every single word has been replaced with a homophobic slur.

 

This is all an act that should’ve stayed as a thought, as the context will now probably never be understood, rather just buried in the bile from bigots from one side and the tears of the offended-by-proxy wing of society from the other.

 

All that being said, I could also say that the band themselves have disowned the two words, and the song doesn’t noticeably change, and this does just seem like a thinly-veiled way of hanging on to things that could be offensive in a fairly bilious way. But that might turn a considered argument into a woke snowflake rant, so I won’t say that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter’s a mess with all this FoNY discourse, but in amongst all this mess, there’s this delicious piece of art:

 

F01FAADD-FAA6-469B-9933-7CCC7BF0C1AA.thumb.jpeg.6f17361c9fc8cb904ff084a147633026.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Fairytale of New York

 

I hear entirely what you are saying here and speaking personally as a non-LGBT person, I leave the discussion about how to feel about it up to those individuals, such as your good self, who have much firmer ground on which to argue the pro's and con's of the lyrics.

I do however think no station should play any version at any time, Christmas or not - because it's shit.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

I hear entirely what you are saying here and speaking personally as a non-LGBT person, I leave the discussion about how to feel about it up to those individuals, such as your good self, who have much firmer ground on which to argue the pro's and con's of the lyrics.

I do however think no station should play any version at any time, Christmas or not - because it's shit.


That’s great, and that’s exactly what the BBC and the extremes of the argument don’t get; this isn’t about listening to people’s opinions on the matter, it’s either about one side wanting to censor everything or the other side wanting to create more division.

 

Honestly, despite all my analysis above, my opinion is that I couldn’t give a shit. I think the ‘offence’ is either such a minute, militant group of people, or, much like most “offensive” things, it’s completely fabricated to facilitate the argument and an excuse to lift the lid on actual closeted bigotry and to belittle and ridicule those who are in those minorities but also don’t actually give a shit.


I’d rather they just played the original and didn’t even mention it; most people know the context; fuck, even the Pogues have waded in several times before and clarified it. Just a shame this has to play out every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Just a shame this has to play out every year.

FTFY.

 

Mind, you can add pretty much every other 'xmas' song to that as well. I don't habitually use my phone as a music source, but I'll make an exception if my local Supermarkets start up this nonsense. Working in retail is a thankless enough task mostly, subjecting your poor 'colleagues' to six weeks a year of this mental abuse should be a felony.

 

I've drifted off your original point though, sorry. IMO all songs should be played in the original or not at all. It can mess with the original intent if you start changing words and sometimes its subtle, Creep (like it or loathe it) just isn't really the same meaning with 'very special' replacing 'fucking special'. :S

At the risk of repetition I still feel I'm not really qualified to either be offended or not about faggot and slut but think that since they were in the original they should stay there, if people are offended there's the oft quoted 'off switch' (well, shops....but I've covered that ;). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Fairytale...

 

I reckon if the BBC had just played the bowdlerised version without saying a word, 99.9% of the population either wouldn't notice or wouldn't care. I'm don't understand why they (the beeb) are making a point of announcing it. They haven't, to the the best of my knowledge, ever announced they aren't showing I Spit on Your Grave because it might cause offence.

 

I mean if they're worried about offending people, get rid of Mrs Brown's Boys for a start.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being somewhat dated myself, I grew up with the OED principal meaning of "slut", so I never understood the outrage.

 

image.png.c5e731ec4d8649a6310f922ffffcb620.png

 

i-hate-housework.jpg

 

 

Oh yeah, and faggots are something we eat with mashed potatoes and gravy.  Very tasty they are too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as another member of the LGBT community supposedly at risk of being offended by the word, I think Quim summed it up perfectly. 

 

Don't quite understand the point of the BBC making such a song and dance about it either, as if requiring some rainbow stamp of approval. All I can see they've done is bring the actual word in discussion back into discourse for a few days. If they'd made the decision and not announced I suspect people wouldn't have noticed/gotten so riled and likewise if they'd just played the original song I suspect people wouldn't have noticed either.

 

Then again I'm sure we all have the means to listen to whatever version we want, so maybe this is just the case of the beeb craving some attention.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not bothered by the words in question, but surely the radio stations have their own standards they adhere to. Thousands of sweary songs are edited for family-friendly radio stations. They can also remove sections without swear words which are still offensive (Stan from the Eminem song self-harming, or Cardi B in her new song wanting you to touch her uvula). Very few people complain about those being censored.

 

Thatcher's right in saying nothing's stopping people from listening to the faggot/slut version on streaming, if they feel they need to. IMO it makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

Cardi B in her new song wanting you to touch her uvula


Oh yes, the one that goes “Get a bucket and a mop for this wet ass uvula”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Oh, good news: what seems like the annual diatribe about Fairytale of New York is now open for business this year!

 

The BBC are split on whether to play the completely original version or not; Radio 2 are, Radio 6 Music are leaving it up to the individual DJs and Radio 1 are playing a version where ‘slut’ is no longer audible and the line ‘you cheap lousy faggot’ is replaced with an alternative version where Kirsty MacColl instead sang ‘you’re cheap and you’re haggard’.

 

My understanding is that they’ve decided that shows with younger audiences may not be familiar with the song and may misunderstand the sentiment (faggot, of course, being Irish slang for a layabout in this context and not the homophobic slur), and ‘slut’ being just one pejorative word out of many thrown about by, as per the theme of the song, embittered, nasty drunks, rather than just for the sake of being derogatory. Some may not see that. So this, in itself, is not where the problem lies.
 

Though I must admit, as one of the LGBTs it’s supposedly at risk of upsetting, the word ‘faggot’ hasn’t bother me one fucking mite, it’s quite a funny word, particularly in this completely unrelated context, but that’s beside the point.
 

But all this has succeeded in doing is it’s stirred some shit, basically. People aren’t talking about different contexts, or societal attitudes and inclusivity 35 years ago compared to today. It’s simply become another ‘snowflake’ versus ‘gammon’ shit slinging match, where the cream of each crop (the grossly over-offended and the raging bigots who scream when yet another poison of society is attacked) are the main infuriating, triggering, hateful voices heard.

 

It’s done nothing for attitudes and inclusivity, as was the idea of deleting ‘slut’ and ‘faggot’, rather it’s exacerbated the problem. I wouldn’t be surprised now if Laurence Fox released a cover version as a retort where every single word has been replaced with a homophobic slur.

 

This is all an act that should’ve stayed as a thought, as the context will now probably never be understood, rather just buried in the bile from bigots from one side and the tears of the offended-by-proxy wing of society from the other.

 

All that being said, I could also say that the band themselves have disowned the two words, and the song doesn’t noticeably change, and this does just seem like a thinly-veiled way of hanging on to things that could be offensive in a fairly bilious way. But that might turn a considered argument into a woke snowflake rant, so I won’t say that.

Oh, never mind that song bollocks.

I read somewhere, long ago, that gay men tended to have bigger cocks than hetrosexual men.

So, come on Quim, are you hung like an amorous tiger or is it just another myth? :D

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Oh, never mind that song bollocks.

I read somewhere, long ago, that gay men tended to have bigger cocks than hetrosexual men.

So, come on Quim, are you hung like an amorous tiger or is it just another myth? :D

 


Tragically, and this must be because I like women too, mine’s not quite the Pink Panther’s tail your article suggests :lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Oh, never mind that song bollocks.

I read somewhere, long ago, that gay men tended to have bigger cocks than hetrosexual men.

So, come on Quim, are you hung like an amorous tiger or is it just another myth? :D

 

 

"gay men tended to have bigger cocks than hetrosexual men"

 

nature can be cruel at times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:


Oh yes, the one that goes “Get a bucket and a mop for this wet ass uvula”

 

The version they play on Radio 1 is a tad cleaner than the original release. 

 

The BBC have received received a complaint email on the subject though. I see I'm A Celebrity and Strictly are also busy doing there annual gross sexualisation of the celebrity participants as normal, utterly disgusting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 13:42, time said:

I'd like some proper evidence to support that claim. Each of those three sources has a right-wing agenda.


Biden only picked Kamala Harris only cuz she's a woman and her colour. Proof right there,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 106 years, Cleveland’s baseball team is set to change its identity.

According to a report from the New York Times, the Cleveland Indians will drop the nickname that has long been viewed as racist and insensitive to Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, torbrexbones said:

After 106 years, Cleveland’s baseball team is set to change its identity.

According to a report from the New York Times, the Cleveland Indians will drop the nickname that has long been viewed as racist and insensitive to Native Americans.

So what is next? I would go for the Cleveland Pakistanis. That shouldn't offend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what's wrong with being Indian?  If I was Indian I'd be very offended by this.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most clever / trolling thought I read was whether they'd have to rename the state of Indiana now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, torbrexbones said:

After 106 years, Cleveland’s baseball team is set to change its identity.

According to a report from the New York Times, the Cleveland Indians will drop the nickname that has long been viewed as racist and insensitive to Native Americans.

 

So....

 

Already done: -

The Washington Football Team

 

In progress:-

Cleveland Indians

 

Still to be done and owners apparently don't give a fuck since it isn't hurting the bottom line:-

Atlanta Braves - even the chop hasn't got the chop.

Kansas City Chiefs

 

Haven't even given it any thought:-

Dallas Cowboys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use