Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lord Fellatio Nelson

The World of the Snowflake

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Let's be honest it's not the only pub in the country named after a disgusting human being.

 

Look how many pubs are called The Duke Of York, for example.

 

Yes the pretty little Adolf Hitler Arms in Oswestry spring to mind.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

 

Yes the pretty little Adolf Hitler Arms in Oswestry spring to mind.

 

When Norman and Betty took it over last year they changed it to the Adolf Hitler Tache. I believe they sell lager.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy said:

 

When Norman and Betty took it over last year they changed it to the Adolf Hitler Tache. I believe they sell lager.

 

Oh it's a few years since I've been - I had a lovely pint of 4skin bitter in there, a little gassy but it washed down the pork scratchings a treat. 

Share this post


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

The landlord of the Colston Arms pub in Bristol has listened to the community, shown support for BLM and removed the old name. The new name is open to suggestions.

 

Knowing how excellent the British public are at naming things, I can see this temporary name sticking. 

 

_113170152_arms1.png.jpeg.2707c2c2e23fd98e00060d88dbbe2a16.jpeg

We did it guys! Nobody will ever be racist ever again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

We did it guys! Nobody will ever be racist ever again!


Exactly what they’ve written on the chalkboard outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despair, I really do.

 

The Witches star Anne Hathaway has promised to "do better" following the criticism the film has received for its portrayal of limb difference.

The actress acknowledged that many people "are in pain" over the way her Grand High Witch character is depicted.

"I owe you all an apology," she wrote on Instagram.

In the new adaptation of Roald Dahl's 1983 book, the witches are revealed to have three elongated fingers on each hand and toe-less feet.

Comedian Alex Brooker and others with hand and arm impairments have accused the film of being insensitive towards disabled people.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54838201

 

Why do people pander to this nonsense?  It needs to be called out for the bollocks it is.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't a witch a misogynist stereotype?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looked shite from the trailer so the real shock is that enough people watched it to have an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

It looked shite from the trailer so the real shock is that enough people watched it to have an opinion.

I think you need to reconsider and accept the fact that the vast majority who are moaning like fuck about it have not actually seen it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Toast said:

I despair, I really do.

 

The Witches star Anne Hathaway has promised to "do better" following the criticism the film has received for its portrayal of limb difference.

The actress acknowledged that many people "are in pain" over the way her Grand High Witch character is depicted.

"I owe you all an apology," she wrote on Instagram.

In the new adaptation of Roald Dahl's 1983 book, the witches are revealed to have three elongated fingers on each hand and toe-less feet.

Comedian Alex Brooker and others with hand and arm impairments have accused the film of being insensitive towards disabled people.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54838201

 

Why do people pander to this nonsense?  It needs to be called out for the bollocks it is.

 

I couldn't agree more - it's a children's fantasy story, FFS.

 

As for Brooker's comment, I've never heard him complain about the title of "The Last Leg" (which he appears on all the time) when the main host has a foot disability...

 

Hmm, double standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Clarke uses abhorrent language

 

My understanding from reading this article is that Greg Clarke referred to 'coloured footballers' rather than the correct term 'footballers of colour'.

 

He was then criticised for using 'abhorrent language'.

 

Now I do understand that 'coloured footballers' is not acceptable language but I don't really understand why 'footballers of colour' ticks all the politically correct boxes.

 

The two phrases seem identical to me except that the abhorrent one seems to be slightly more straightforward language than the rather clunky second one.

 

This comes up a lot with 'coloured people' v 'people of colour' too and again I don't really understand the improvement of the second phrase over the first.

 

Just looking for someone to educate me because we've got well beyond the point where I would dare ask this question in the real world.

 

Thanks, GUN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

Greg Clarke uses abhorrent language

 

My understanding from reading this article is that Greg Clarke referred to 'coloured footballers' rather than the correct term 'footballers of colour'.

 

He was then criticised for using 'abhorrent language'.

 

Now I do understand that 'coloured footballers' is not acceptable language but I don't really understand why 'footballers of colour' ticks all the politically correct boxes.

 

The two phrases seem identical to me except that the abhorrent one seems to be slightly more straightforward language than the rather clunky second one.

 

This comes up a lot with 'coloured people' v 'people of colour' too and again I don't really understand the improvement of the second phrase over the first.

 

Just looking for someone to educate me because we've got well beyond the point where I would dare ask this question in the real world.

 

Thanks, GUN. 

And shortly afterwards he’s out because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

Greg Clarke uses abhorrent language

 

My understanding from reading this article is that Greg Clarke referred to 'coloured footballers' rather than the correct term 'footballers of colour'.

 

He was then criticised for using 'abhorrent language'.

 

Now I do understand that 'coloured footballers' is not acceptable language but I don't really understand why 'footballers of colour' ticks all the politically correct boxes.

 

The two phrases seem identical to me except that the abhorrent one seems to be slightly more straightforward language than the rather clunky second one.

 

This comes up a lot with 'coloured people' v 'people of colour' too and again I don't really understand the improvement of the second phrase over the first.

 

Just looking for someone to educate me because we've got well beyond the point where I would dare ask this question in the real world.

 

Thanks, GUN. 


Well, the phrase ‘coloured person’ is archaic. It has never really been a slur, but my understanding of it is that it’s the bleak history of the phrase that’s the issue; it was used alongside the n-word when that still part of common vocabulary, for example. ‘People of colour’ seems just to mean ‘non-white’ today. Which, to me, is asking for trouble; the two phrases appear so similar linguistically that one might think they’re interchangeable. I’m not a fan of either phrase. But I’m white, so I’m not best placed to judge terminology used for non-white people.

 

Had the fucker just said ‘BAME Footballers’ though, he’d not be in the shit. Or even just ‘black footballers’ if that’s what he meant; ‘black’ is not a term that needs skirting around.

Share this post


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

Had the fucker just said ‘BAME Footballers’ though, he’d not be in the shit. Or even just ‘black footballers’ if that’s what he meant; ‘black’ is not a term that needs skirting around.

If he'd said it in normal speech rather than the written word he would have been in trouble too as BAME sounds too much like 'barmy' :-)

Share this post


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

Well, the phrase ‘coloured person’ is archaic. It has never really been a slur, but my understanding of it is that it’s the bleak history of the phrase that’s the issue; it was used alongside the n-word when that still part of common vocabulary, for example. ‘People of colour’ seems just to mean ‘non-white’ today. Which, to me, is asking for trouble; the two phrases appear so similar linguistically that one might think they’re interchangeable. I’m not a fan of either phrase. But I’m white, so I’m not best placed to judge terminology used for non-white people.

 

Thanks although I think you've not been able to explain why 'people of colour' is the chosen phrase by newsreaders, politicians etc now.

 

Which suggests you don't really know which suggests that I'm not alone in my lack of understanding. 

 

PS I think sometimes people try and avoid using the word black now (wrongly) because they are terrified of being called racist and then disastrously land on the word coloured as the alternative. I also think adding 'of colour' as the correct phraseology makes it extremely likely that in conversation you are going to use the term 'coloured' because it is a more natural use of the English language, however abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was at school we were told never to say "black" as it was highly offensive.  We were taught that the polite word was "coloured".

I have no patience with this kind of thing now.  Next thing "people of colour" will be unacceptable and it'll be on to a new term.

It's the same with words describing physical or mental disabilities.  Constantly changing so that what was the buzzword last week is now a playground insult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me saying the term "coloured" makes me thing of bible belt America where there was the N word thrown about like candy and lynchings going on. Only time when I think you should say it is if you are talking about the South African ethnic group of people who are called coloureds.

 

To be honest I think if you are talking to a black person call them black and if they wish to be called anything else which isn't racist to them like N word then ask them. I work in customer service and so i'm always on high alert being politically correct in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that what's polite this week might be unacceptable next week.  I'm tired of all the chopping and changing.

We'd all manage a lot better if the goal posts weren't being continually moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

 

Thanks although I think you've not been able to explain why 'people of colour' is the chosen phrase by newsreaders, politicians etc now.

 

Which suggests you don't really know which suggests that I'm not alone in my lack of understanding. 

 

PS I think sometimes people try and avoid using the word black now (wrongly) because they are terrified of being called racist and then disastrously land on the word coloured as the alternative. I also think adding 'of colour' as the correct phraseology makes it extremely likely that in conversation you are going to use the term 'coloured' because it is a more natural use of the English language, however abhorrent.


The gist is, historically one's bad and one’s not. Linguistically, they should mean the same thing. This is why I avoid saying ‘of colour’; to me, it just sounds like an offhand, dismissive separation of white people and other ethnicities. So no, perhaps I don’t see why ‘people of colour’ would ever be used over BAME or simply that person’s ethnicity.
 

It’s worth pointing out though, if you’ve grown up believing one particular term is correct and you use it once in conversation, that doesn’t mean you’re racist. It only becomes racist if you use such a term with the consciousness of any negative connotations it might have.

 

Like the opposite case with ‘black’. Many people, dare I say of a certain age, remember when ‘black’ was considered to be offensive. Maybe because race and racism was more often an issue that was skirted around for being either ‘PC’ or simply uncomfortable, and maybe because there was, even if unsaid, more of a ‘white’ and ‘not white’ segregation in society. Now, one’s ethnicity is rightly something one can be proud of and not something loaded with any negative connotations. If Clark was talking about black footballers, he should’ve said just that. Though I read he has a track record when it comes to launching out with something outdated, which is pretty poor form for someone in his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read all the criticism of this poor chap, who hasn't made any derogatory remarks at all as far as I can see, I'm beginning to think it's best to say nothing at all about anyone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54878817

 

Seems you're not even allowed to make a general comment like  "If you go to the IT department of the FA, there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans. They have different career interests". Seems like a valid and interesting observation to me, but no, somebody's had a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Toast said:

Seems you're not even allowed to make a general comment like  "If you go to the IT department of the FA, there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans. They have different career interests". Seems like a valid and interesting observation to me, but no, somebody's had a go.


But that there is a sweeping generalisation that’s a gateway to stereotyping.

Share this post


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


But that there is a sweeping generalisation that’s a gateway to stereotyping.

 

It's just a fucking observation:banghead:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

It's just a fucking observation:banghead:


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I promised myself that I'd shut the fuck up over this but....

Some of what he said made me wince a bit, he is from a different generation, some of his words belong in the past, for sure.

Thing is, is this man a racist and sexist? I don't think he is.

I think he was incredibly naive to use some of the language he used, particularly as he was the head of a body that is committed to ridding football of racism.

Maybe his resignation is justified, maybe it isn't but there is a bit of a witch hunt going on out there for those that fail to use the right words and terminology.

We have overlooked the educating of people and, instead, are hauling them to the stake to be burnt.

Rather than getting everybody singing from the same hymn sheet it will, undoubtedly, cause resentment amongst those that may feel that the notion that most whites are inherently racist is being stuck on their arse in big letters.

Les Ferdinand made a point of stating that kneeling before kick off was no longer having the effect it did at the outset.

He is a black working class lad from West London who is now a director of football at QPR.

He got shot at over it, many people criticizing him, labelling him as privileged! :lol:

This is the boy who trashed the Blue Peter Garden!

There is a danger that the message will be lost, change will take even longer because people will tire of the way we are dealing with what is now outdated an inappropriate.

Does anybody still stare at the players as they kneel before kick off and nod in agreement or do they all say, just get on with the fucking game!

That is the question.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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


The gist is, historically one's bad and one’s not. Linguistically, they should mean the same thing. This is why I avoid saying ‘of colour’; to me, it just sounds like an offhand, dismissive separation of white people and other ethnicities. So no, perhaps I don’t see why ‘people of colour’ would ever be used over BAME or simply that person’s ethnicity.
 

It’s worth pointing out though, if you’ve grown up believing one particular term is correct and you use it once in conversation, that doesn’t mean you’re racist. It only becomes racist if you use such a term with the consciousness of any negative connotations it might have.

 

Like the opposite case with ‘black’. Many people, dare I say of a certain age, remember when ‘black’ was considered to be offensive. Maybe because race and racism was more often an issue that was skirted around for being either ‘PC’ or simply uncomfortable, and maybe because there was, even if unsaid, more of a ‘white’ and ‘not white’ segregation in society. Now, one’s ethnicity is rightly something one can be proud of and not something loaded with any negative connotations. If Clark was talking about black footballers, he should’ve said just that. Though I read he has a track record when it comes to launching out with something outdated, which is pretty poor form for someone in his position.


Okay

 

On a slightly more amusing level my mother in law really struggles with this - she thinks black is wrong and she now knows coloured is wrong so the other day she told us about this girl in the supermarket who was colouredish. We just laughed.

  • Haha 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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