FreeMason Protestor - Parliament Sq

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

However, sticks and stones......

You martyr :P

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Except of course, you have only quoted part of what I have said and taken it out of context

I talked about someone using a word or phrase with no offensive intention. In those circumstances if you twist something said with no offense intended to be offensive to you, then it is your problem.

That is different from saying something deliberately to be offensive.

However, sticks and stones......

Don't even try to weasel out of it you worm of a man. Don't you even dare!

You already explained that you know the word is offensive. You explained that you know why the word is offensive. You simply refuse to support the notion that it is offensive and you used that as your main justification for why you continue to use it. This justification doesn't stop the word from being offensive, intentional or not.

If I suddenly started referring to all women as bitches despite my belife that the word shouldn't be considered offensive, it doesn't stop it from being so.

So in the end spen, I think you are a prick, much like you think I'm 'coloured' I find that offensive and according to you that's my problem. So if you find my calling you a prick offensive then that is your problem. Doesn't stop both words being offensive.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Except of course, you have only quoted part of what I have said and taken it out of context

Hoisted by your won petard.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Bit like asking morotists if cyclists are legitimate road users

so cyclists and motorists are mutually exclusive and all motorists think cyclists are illegitimate road users? :? What sort of upside down world do you live in?

I don;t get many motorists trying to run me off the road - so I'd say it isn;t

or asking hunt sabboteurs if drag hunting etc is legitimate

I believe this was answered.

Why limit your sample to those who will give you the answer you want rather than the public at large?

Because when you live in society you consider everyone - otherwise we'd go back to ignoring the disabled and locking up the mentally ill. you need to stop living in the 19th century mate, you really do.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Except of course, you have only quoted part of what I have said and taken it out of context

I talked about someone using a word or phrase with no offensive intention. In those circumstances if you twist something said with no offense intended to be offensive to you, then it is your problem.

That is different from saying something deliberately to be offensive.

However, sticks and stones......

Don't even try to weasel out of it you worm of a man. Don't you even dare!

You already explained that you know the word is offensive.

Erm I never said that at all.

I know why you say it is offensive. I do not accept the word is offensive at all.

So never mind weaseling out- stop twisting my words again to make it appear I am saying the opposite of what I have said

You explained that you know why the word is offensive.

Erm no, see my last point I do not accept the word is offensive

You simply refuse to support the notion that it is offensive

Eh????? Now you seem to be contradicting your last point

and you used that as your main justification for why you continue to use it. This justification doesn't stop the word from being offensive, intentional or not.

If I suddenly started referring to all women as bitches despite my belife that the word shouldn't be considered offensive, it doesn't stop it from being so.

So in the end spen, I think you are a prick, much like you think I'm 'coloured' I find that offensive and according to you that's my problem. So if you find my calling you a prick offensive then that is your problem. Doesn't stop both words being offensive.

Erm When have I objected to your calling me that? Have I said it is offensive? I think if you calm down, take a deep breath and read the post again, you will find you are the only person complaining about things being offensive, not me.

however, as I said before, the intent is relevant

bails87

spen666
Clearly DDD finds it offensive. You don't find it offensive, he does. So does that make it not offensive?

lost_in_thought

bails87 wrote:

spen666
Clearly DDD finds it offensive. You don't find it offensive, he does. So does that make it not offensive?

DDD has to either a) be very offended by something on the internet or b) be very outraged that someone is offended by something on the internet at least once a day.

It's like oxygen for him.

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

I know why you say it is offensive. I do not accept the word is offensive at all.

Surely, if a person is offended by a word, that word is offensive (to them, at least).

For example, I'm not offended by the term halfcaste, but I accept that other people find it offensive.

I also remember when we were told "coloured" was the preferred term, and in those says I'd have used it. But in those days I also used to use "eeny meeny" to decide who was "on" in playground games. Times change.

cougie

Whats wrong with eeeny meeeny ? Have i missed something somewhere ?

DonDaddyD

The word coloured is offensive to me, it is a word which hails from colonial times used disparagingly to identify ethnic minorities.

Spen, saying that you do not accept the word is offensive is a moot. I don't expect you to find the word any more offensive than you would the word nigger, negro, coon, spick, spade or chink because those words aren't generally used to attack you or your ethnicity. I, however, have been called coloured with racial hatred and threatening physical violence.

The fact that you acknowledge that I find it offensive and the fact that you understand why I would but still dismiss the validity of this is an insult in and of itself.

So while you arrogantly dismiss those words as inoffesive have a thought for the many people who have suffered racial abuse at the words expense.

mybreakfastconsisted

It is enough that black people find the word offensive, ignorant and extremely unpleasant.

The use of the term "coloured" to describe people of African descent is now considered archaic and rude in most contexts.

"Coloured" is offensive and is as played out as "negro" is. It is a word used without regard to one's culture or as a Ethnic group.

Using the word "nigger" and then claiming complete innocence because YOU don't feel that the word "nigger" is offensive is equally as facile and weaselly as spen's defence of using the word "coloured".

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

bails87 wrote:

spen666
Clearly DDD finds it offensive. You don't find it offensive, he does. So does that make it not offensive?

DDD has to either a) be very offended by something on the internet or b) be very outraged that someone is offended by something on the internet at least once a day.

It's like oxygen for him.

No, those are when I'm joking around.

I'm not laughing about this one.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

bails87 wrote:

spen666
Clearly DDD finds it offensive. You don't find it offensive, he does. So does that make it not offensive?

DDD has to either a) be very offended by something on the internet or b) be very outraged that someone is offended by something on the internet at least once a day.

It's like oxygen for him.

No, those are when I'm joking around.

I'm not laughing about this one.

It's like that old story...

And come on, you take all your so-called 'debates' way too far.

DonDaddyD

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

It is enough that black people find the word offensive, ignorant and extremely unpleasant.

The use of the term "coloured" to describe people of African descent is now considered archaic and rude in most contexts.

"Coloured" is offensive and is as played out as "negro" is. It is a word used without regard to one's culture or as a Ethnic group.

Using the word "nigger" and then claiming complete innocence because YOU don't feel that the word "nigger" is offensive is equally as facile and weaselly as spen's defence of using the word "coloured".

Firstly +1

mcj78

lost_in_thought wrote:

bails87 wrote:

spen666
Clearly DDD finds it offensive. You don't find it offensive, he does. So does that make it not offensive?

DDD has to either a) be very offended by something on the internet or b) be very outraged that someone is offended by something on the internet at least once a day.

It's like oxygen for him.

Hmmm, I know plenty of people who would be distinctly unimpressed by being described as "coloured" in this day & age so I don't think he's being precious.

Moreso, he's explicitly explained that he finds the term offensive & why, yet Spen666 says;

spen666 wrote:

I know why you say it is offensive. I do not accept the word is offensive at all.

apparently implying he understands he's causing offence but doesn't give a sh!t.

I think if someone is genuinely offended by your choice of language you should apologize & choose your words a little more carefully next time, regardless if it's in relation to skin colour, nationality, sexual orientation, sex, hair colour, weight etc. etc.

LIT - if someone referred to women as "bitches" or "domestic appliances" or some other term that may be deemed as offensive by women, would it be defensible simply by them saying "well, that's your problem because I don't accept that's offensive"?

J

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's like that old story...

And come on, you take all your so-called 'debates' way too far.

Secondly, what is your point?

lost_in_thought

mcj78 wrote:

LIT - if someone referred to women as "bitches" or "domestic appliances" or some other term that may be deemed as offensive by women, would it be defensible simply by them saying "well, that's your problem because I don't accept that's offensive"?

Wouldn't bother me in the first place. People are way, way, way too easily offended, and need to stop worrying so much.

Peace out, bitches.

rjsterry

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I know why you say it is offensive. I do not accept the word is offensive at all.

Surely, if a person is offended by a word, that word is offensive (to them, at least).

For example, I'm not offended by the term halfcaste, but I accept that other people find it offensive.

I also remember when we were told "coloured" was the preferred term, and in those says I'd have used it. But in those days I also used to use "eeny meeny" to decide who was "on" in playground games. Times change.

Whether you accept it or not Spen, a lot of people, both black and white, do find it offensive. This is not just DDD getting worked up in the hot weather. The fact that at some point in the past, the word was not generally considered offensive is beside the point. I'm intrigued by the idea that in spite of plenty of evidence that the word 'coloured' in this context had long dropped out of polite use/taken on negative connotations (when was the last time you saw it used in a newspaper or on television?) you can somehow define that the word is unoffensive when used in this context. Will we be seeing a revised dictionary according to Spen published soon?

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's like that old story...

And come on, you take all your so-called 'debates' way too far.

Secondly, what is your point?

That you ought to take a step back and relax.

mcj78

lost_in_thought wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

LIT - if someone referred to women as "bitches" or "domestic appliances" or some other term that may be deemed as offensive by women, would it be defensible simply by them saying "well, that's your problem because I don't accept that's offensive"?

Wouldn't bother me. People are way, way, way too easily offended, and need to stop worrying so much.

Peace out, bitches.

Haha, like it 8) You're obviously more thick-skinned than some women I know, perhaps a bad example - but don't people have the right to be offended anymore?

Not that that was the point, i think it was spen666's refusal to accept the term "coloured" could be offensive to black people, especially having had it's historical connotations explained in depth.

j

mybreakfastconsisted

"They call me a coloured man but i ain't never changed the colour of my skin".


Think about why using a word from the old segregated Southern States is offensive.

We don't describe white europeans as colourless so it certainly is not about them calling black people coloured. The offence generated by the term coloured isn't about people being PC it's that it is a term meant to segregate people by the very essence of their culture.

I don't stand for the use of the word as anyone who uses it in my earshot soon finds out.

And anyone who believes in the "PC Brigade" is a weapons grade cockwomble.

Finally, spen is trolling. He enjoys being called a cunt because at least he's getting the attention he doesn't receive elsewhere in his life. Any response he generates is like oxygen to him, ignore him as you would ignore the drunken old man in the pub who grumbles about pakis and niggers.

Porgy

Here's some links here - not to prove anything but just to scotch any idea that DDD is alone in thinking "coloured" is an offensive term in this context. Therefore personalisation of this debate and attacking DDD for being "sensitive" is entirely inappropriate.

Google coloured and offensive and you get a lot of hits - mind you DDD's post comes up on the first page. 8)

http://www.cliftonpeople.co.uk/news/Bri ... story.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6132672.stm

http://www.naar.org.uk/newspages/051005.asp

Porgy

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Think about why using a word from the old segregated Southern States is offensive.

In south africa you were either white, black or coloured. in this context i believe Spen would be coloured. It's astonishing therefore that he is so unaware of the connotations of the word.

Porgy

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

And anyone who believes in the "PC Brigade" is a weapons grade cockwomble.

I've looked for them high and low but they are nowhere to be found

Finally, spen is trolling. He enjoys being called a **** because at least he's getting the attention he doesn't receive elsewhere in his life. Any response he generates is like oxygen to him, ignore him as you would ignore the drunken old man in the pub who grumbles about pakis and niggers.

I always suspected as much - trouble is he is such an annoying tit - I find him impossible to ignore. It's like if you try to ignore the drunken bore and then he comes over and starts poking you in the face.

Agent57

cougie wrote:

Whats wrong with eeeny meeeny ? Have i missed something somewhere ?

Well, the version I used was "catch a nigger by his toe. If he hollers, let him go," which I don't expect many people would use these days. This was in the 70s, and quite honestly I didn't know any better. Looking back, I find that rather strange given my own mixed race, but I suppose it was just the context in which I was growing up at the time, and probably not even knowing what the word meant, or at least not knowing it was offensive to some people.

Jay dubbleU

That''s the problem really - you can't expect people to keep up with what is or is not offensive when a small group of politically active people seem to make arbitary decisions - so coloured is now offensive - well no one told me - I though black was offensive but apparently it isn't now - how do you expect people to keep up if you keep changing the goalposts - maybe it's done deliberately by those who like to feel offended - who knows?

Porgy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

That''s the problem really - you can't expect people to keep up with what is or is not offensive when a small group of politically active people seem to make arbitary decisions - so coloured is now offensive - well no one told me - I though black was offensive but apparently it isn't now - how do you expect people to keep up if you keep changing the goalposts - maybe it's done deliberately by those who like to feel offended - who knows?

1. it's not a small number of people - it's cultural, it's societal, it involves masses of people - and it happens slowly over years not suddnely when you've nipped out for a pee, come back and then suddenly coloured is offensive. Hey wha'ppen?
2. It was offensive in the 80s when I arrived in London - that's over 20 years - come on - even living under a rock you must have caught up at some point
3. No people don't come round your house to tell you - it's like anything - you have to pay attention. and it's no saying "i didn;t know" i'm afraid. You still end up looking like a tit - or in spen's case, and offensive tit.

Agent57

Agent57 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I know why you say it is offensive. I do not accept the word is offensive at all.

Surely, if a person is offended by a word, that word is offensive (to them, at least).

I was thinking about this, and I'm less convinced of my own argument here. I suppose a word isn't generally "offensive" just because someone's offended by it. I mean, I could say "he's a fat bloke", and he may be offended by that. But in itself, "fat" isn't an offensive word; it's descriptive though, and I wouldn't have any qualms about using it.

Regarding "coloured", I think it's perfectly understandable that people "of a certain age", say, would use that as their preferred descriptive term. And I can also understand why they might have trouble understanding why it has now become deemed offensive, when in the past it was pushed as less offensive than "black".

In some cases, I think "black" would also be seen as offensive. If, for example, I talked about "the blacks", rather than "black people". The point being that it's not just the word, but the way its used and the intention (or perceived intention) behind its use.

rjsterry

Jay dubbleU wrote:

That''s the problem really - you can't expect people to keep up with what is or is not offensive when a small group of politically active people seem to make arbitary decisions - so coloured is now offensive - well no one told me - I though black was offensive but apparently it isn't now - how do you expect people to keep up if you keep changing the goalposts - maybe it's done deliberately by those who like to feel offended - who knows?

I know you refer to yourself as an old git, but seriously? As I said in my last post, when was the last time you read the word coloured (in that context) in a newspaper, or heard someone on TV use it? I understood 'coloured' to be considered offensive when I was at school in the 80s and early 90s, and this was a school of about 1800 pupils with maybe 3 or 4 black pupils.

Mind you, my wife did tell her mum off for using it the other day, with a similar response.

Jay dubbleU

Porgy wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

That''s the problem really - you can't expect people to keep up with what is or is not offensive when a small group of politically active people seem to make arbitary decisions - so coloured is now offensive - well no one told me - I though black was offensive but apparently it isn't now - how do you expect people to keep up if you keep changing the goalposts - maybe it's done deliberately by those who like to feel offended - who knows?

1. it's not a small number of people - it's cultural, it's societal, it involves masses of people - and it happens slowly over years not suddnely when you've nipped out for a pee, come back and then suddenly coloured is offensive. Hey wha'ppen?
2. It was offensive in the 80s when I arrived in London - that's over 20 years - come on - even living under a rock you must have caught up at some point
3. No people don't come round your house to tell you - it's like anything - you have to pay attention. and it's no saying "i didn;t know" i'm afraid. You still end up looking like a tit - or in spen's case, and offensive tit.

Sorry why do I look like a tit ? Believe me paying attention to what is or is not PC is lower down my list of things to do than gargling vomit