FreeMason Protestor - Parliament Sq

Porgy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

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

your attitude amazes me and you persist in implying that there is a set of rules. No - there are no rules and there is no rule book - but in order not to offend the people you interact with on a daily, weekly, or whatever basis, it is necessary to be aware of what they find offensive, otherwise you are ignorant or being deliberately offensive.

Being "PC" occupies in total none of my time - trying to be inclusive and accepting of those who are different from oneself is a way of being - not a task that needs to be caarried out.

And no - I didn't say you looked like a tit - I said someone who either deliberately or through ignorance persists in offending people and then claim repeatedly that no-one told them - they look like tits. Make your own mind up about what you want to look like. I make no judgement.

01djb

I dont like black coffee. Am i racist?

Porgy

01djb wrote:

I dont like black coffee. Am i racist?

What? :?

01djb

Just wanted to check. Listen, i agree that using terms that people find offensive is a pretty tactless way of acting. I also think that alot of people who maybe do not know or mix with others from differing origins to their own can be completely befudled by what terms to use when describing some one, and sometimes you have to use distinguishing terms. I`m sure no one in their right mind sets out to offensive. I do really like black coffee.

Jay dubbleU

Porgy wrote:

01djb wrote:

I dont like black coffee. Am i racist?

What? :?

That's part of the problem - I must confess to a certain amount of devils advocate here - sorry Porgy - but I don't think trivialising things helps.
Point is I think to treat others as you would wish to be treated but at the same time not to make people feel as if they are trading on eggs around you - I don't care if people call me an old git - others of my age may do so.
If you are offended by a term then say so and say why - don't just call someone a pr*ck - that doesn't get you anywhere
I have to say I agree with Spen666 about the BNP - I don't agree with anything they stand for but if they are banned who is next - the Communists? People are smarter than you think - you may find a few disaffected types who will support them but the majority of voters know them for what they are

Porgy

01djb wrote:

Just wanted to check. Listen, i agree that using terms that people find offensive is a pretty tactless way of acting. I also think that alot of people who maybe do not know or mix with others from differing origins to their own can be completely befudled by what terms to use when describing some one, and sometimes you have to use distinguishing terms. I`m sure no one in their right mind sets out to offensive. I do really like black coffee.

I think Spen did. He's a tactless bugger and an obstinate fool. He will stick to his guns on this no matter what the majority of us say. go check his old posts. I'm not saying he's always wrong - but he never gives ground or gives up in an argument regardless of the rights and wrongs.

Noone knows better than I do that people make mistakes -- best will in the world - but the correct response is to throw your hand up and say sorry, i didn;t know, not argue otherwise till you're blue in the face, go on about the mythical PC Brigade and bleat "how should i know" - I come from Plymouth and my early days living in London led to a few embarrassing episodes - but that's how we learn, if we allow ourselves to admit we were wrong.

Porgy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Porgy wrote:

01djb wrote:

I dont like black coffee. Am i racist?

What? :?

That's part of the problem - I must confess to a certain amount of devils advocate here - sorry Porgy - but I don't think trivialising things helps.
Point is I think to treat others as you would wish to be treated but at the same time not to make people feel as if they are trading on eggs around you - I don't care if people call me an old git - others of my age may do so.
If you are offended by a term then say so and say why - don't just call someone a pr*ck - that doesn't get you anywhere
I have to say I agree with Spen666 about the BNP - I don't agree with anything they stand for but if they are banned who is next - the Communists? People are smarter than you think - you may find a few disaffected types who will support them but the majority of voters know them for what they are

There are very good grounds for taking action against the BNP if not banning it outright. At the moment the BNP survives as a "legitimate" party while many of the members belong to other more extreme groups and carry out activiites under a different banner - but they are the same people - Middle England doesn't approve of the BNP and attempts to exclude it from the mainstream - remember the furory over the Question Time appearance, but in order to exclude them we end up in the absurd position that other small parties who do not incite violence against others end up being excluded unfairly - such as the Green Party. It would be much fairer to all small parties if the BNP was forced to change, investigated, prevented from carrying out extra curricular activities in sensitive areas, etc.
Forcing them to allow non-whites to join was a good move, but realistically, how many non-whites are going to join? I think there may be grounds for banning them on how they open their party up to non-whites....and the activities of many of their members under other banners.

Jay dubbleU

Porgy - you are missing the point here - I'm not supporting the BNP or its methods - learn from history - you can see where this is leading - my argument is that everyone has their opinion - you may not like mine - I may not like yours but we each have a right to think for ourselves. Do we end up not teaching Evolution in schools because the Christian right objects ? Do we have male and female schools because Muslims think they should be separated ? Diversity and multiple opinions are the enemy of the extremist - reducing diversity plays into their hands

PBo

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

coloured is racist now? :roll:

Yes apparently- describing someone to identify them from other protestors is apprently racist.

Don't worry, give it a few years and the term black will be racist and we will have to use coloured again.


BTW the coloured male was there again this morning putting up his placards about the freemasons killing various people. He is not part of the other protests in parliament square and seems to have little contact with the other groups

I'm 43 and it's been an offensive word as far as I can remember. It is not descriptive - as I asked earlier - what colour was he spen? Pink? Red? Yellow? Brown? Orange?

This.

Irrespective of offensiveness, coloured is absolutely sh1te as a descriptor. I didn't read all of DDSs ethnicity thread, but use of colour as a descriptor can be useful - trying to spot someone etc. - but if you are going to do so, then why not actually provide the proper colour?

Just how many freemason protestors are there btw, such that his colour is actually relevant?

Agent57

PBo wrote:

if you are going to do so, then why not actually provide the proper colour?

So... what? "Dark brown"?

Jay dubbleU

Agent57 wrote:

PBo wrote:

if you are going to do so, then why not actually provide the proper colour?

So... what? "Dark brown"?

Pink ?

DonDaddyD

To be honest the correct method of describing someone is by their ethnicity. I.e. African, Asian, Caucasian etc.

However, attempting to do so can be impossible. In the grand scheme of things I am not African, in this Country for the past 29yrs (my lifetime) black will do. However, if you were to translate black into Spanish then you open up a can of worms. Go to America and say black you may also be frowned upon. Cultural and social norms I guess.

But it isn't just what you call a black person. Say Oriental to a Chinese person from America and they will be offended. The correct term to them is Asian.

What pissed me off about spen is that while he understands that I found the term offensive, and while he understands why I find it offensive, he refuses to accept that it is offensive.

That's like a disabled person telling you that the term spastic is offensive and despite you understanding their feelings on this you refuse to accept their view and continue to call them a spastic. It's arrogant, dismissive and vile.

tailwindhome

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12710576

Spen666 wrote:

Hmmm
Mick McCarthy - Paddy
Jim Beglin - Paddy
Mark Lawrenson - Paddy


And the Paddies were playing? This was I presume on British TV, so why have we got foreign has beens rather than English or even British has beens on?

Don't be watching ITV Spen, you may have to readjust your set when that Marcel Desailly is on.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

DDD I could say I find your p[osts offensive - following your logic, you should therefore desist from posting as otherwise you are causing offence.

So, are you going to stop posting? No? Strange that isn't it. Bit of double standards.

You are finding offence where there was none. You are the one with the need to adjust your position. If i used the term intending to cause offense then the issue may be different

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

To be honest the correct method of describing someone is by their ethnicity. I.e. African, Asian, Caucasian etc.

Maybe if you are describing their ethnicity, but not if you are attempting to describe their colour

Different descriptors

However, attempting to do so can be impossible. In the grand scheme of things I am not African, in this Country for the past 29yrs (my lifetime) black will do. However, if you were to translate black into Spanish then you open up a can of worms. Go to America and say black you may also be frowned upon. Cultural and social norms I guess.

But it isn't just what you call a black person. Say Oriental to a Chinese person from America and they will be offended. The correct term to them is Asian.

What pissed me off about spen is that while he understands that I found the term offensive, and while he understands why I find it offensive, he refuses to accept that it is offensive.

simply because you find something offensive doesn't mean it is offensive per se. It means you find it offensive.

If you find offense at it but others don't, what is to say your offense should have sway over others?

What makes you think your attitude is more important than others and gives you the right to censor things others don't object to.

There is a serious wider issue of freedom of speech and censorship here. Far wider than the word "coloured"

That's like a disabled person telling you that the term spastic is offensive and despite you understanding their feelings on this you refuse to accept their view and continue to call them a spastic. It's arrogant, dismissive and vile.

Except of course I've not called you anything have I?

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

...


Don't be watching ITV Spen, you may have to readjust your set when that Marcel Desailly is on.

.

If you think I have any issue with him or other Frenchmen, then you clearly are mistaken.

You are mistaking the defending of free speech with my supporting the views of those whose rights to free speech is being attacked or eroded.

I have representedin court and elsewhere rapists, murderers, paedophiles, racists, anti racists, homophobes, etc. It does not mean I support or even have any sympathy with their views.

spen666

As I was riding home tonight, I was thinking about some of the things said on here.

Now, please correct me if I have misunderstood some of what was posted as there are 9 pages or so of posts.

Part of the objections to the use of the word coloured seems to be because in the past it was used as a derogatory term.

Well, I then started to consider racist behaviour in particular some of the racist chanting at football matches in the past. The chants included the following

"You Black b*stard"

"Ain't no black on the Union Jack"

"Its plain to se, to see
He's blacker than you and me
He a ......."

Now, what is the relevance of these?

They all make abuse at the fact the target is BLACK. I'm not aware of any chants that make reference to somebody being COLOURED

No if I was right in my understanding as stated in 3rd paragraph of this post, then the preferred term of many of you should by considered offensive as it is clearly used in a derogatory term.

The whole idea of" banning" words because someone finds offense in them is fraught with dangers. It seems to me that a better way is to copy the behaviour used by the gay/ lesbian community and reclaiming the words rather than trying to censor people.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

[You are mistaking the defending of free speech with my supporting the views of those whose rights to free speech is being attacked or eroded..

You're the one doesn't want the Paddies on your TV

Or have I been sucked in by another bit of trolling?

Damn

Hmmm
Mick McCarthy - Paddy
Jim Beglin - Paddy
Mark Lawrenson - Paddy


And the Paddies were playing? This was I presume on British TV, so why have we got foreign has beens rather than English or even British has beens on

?

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[You are mistaking the defending of free speech with my supporting the views of those whose rights to free speech is being attacked or eroded..

You're the one doesn't want the Paddies on your TV

Or have I been sucked in by another bit of trolling?

Hmmm
Mick McCarthy - Paddy
Jim Beglin - Paddy
Mark Lawrenson - Paddy


And the Paddies were playing? This was I presume on British TV, so why have we got foreign has beens rather than English or even British has beens on

?

You seem to be implying something into it that I am not saying.

I'm genuinely interrested as to why the punters listed as being on TV are all Irish when they are not involved in the tournament AND they are on British TV, but are not from Britain. I'm interested why there are not suitable British pundits. It may well be simply the only British pundits are not good enough.

I have not watched anything other than 1st English game, so have no idea who are pundits.

tailwindhome

Edit

Spen, I'm just going to let your posts speak for themselves

WesternWay

Spen,

You are coming across as a tedious, racist moron.

DDD,

You are not going to convince Spen out of being a tedious, racist moron.

Can we stop?

spen666

WesternWay wrote:

Spen,

You are coming across as a tedious, racist moron.

DDD,

You are not going to convince Spen out of being a tedious, racist moron.

Can we stop?

Really?

What have I said that is racist?

I have at no time discriminated against anyone on grounds of race.

notsoblue

WesternWay wrote:

Spen,

You are coming across as a tedious, racist moron.

DDD,

You are not going to convince Spen out of being a tedious, racist moron.

Can we stop?

+1, This is going nowhere. He's just going to continue to argue the toss, trying to offend as many people as he can. He gets off on it.

sebastiandangerfield

I agree with almost all of what DDD has said other than the part about it being correct to describe people by their ethnicity. If we use that method then the point of using it as a description is totally pointless. I'm African but I'm whiter than my pale Irish girlfriend in the midst of a cruel winter.

The point that gets me when people describe people by thier (presumed) continent of heratage is the fact that they don't know me so they're just assuming. It's as bad as people describing black people as 'coulored' or my favorite 'jamaican'. How the fuck do they assume they're Jamaican? Have the seen their passport!?

Ultimately, we don't need to be attacked by the PC croud and end up being afraid to talk so why not just use common sense and courtesy? I work with the most diverse range of people imaginable as a lawyer but never ever presume anything. It's always more acceptable to just ask, it also shows that you're actually interested in the heratige and culture as opposed to just pidgeon holing the person. Surprisingly, people are never offended when you don't know something but have a genuine interest, they're always offended when you just presume.

mcj78

notsoblue wrote:

+1, This is going nowhere. He's just going to continue to argue the toss, trying to offend as many people as he can. He gets off on it.

it would certainly appear so, sorry to keep this rumbling on, but I was thinking - Spen666 kinda reminds me of someone...

Cafewanda

"I'm African but I'm whiter than my pale Irish girlfriend in the midst of a cruel winter."

SD - not sure what took place prior to this, but I can guess. This sentence made me smile .

rjsterry

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I agree with almost all of what DDD has said other than the part about it being correct to describe people by their ethnicity. If we use that method then the point of using it as a description is totally pointless. I'm African but I'm whiter than my pale Irish girlfriend in the midst of a cruel winter.

The point that gets me when people describe people by thier (presumed) continent of heratage is the fact that they don't know me so they're just assuming. It's as bad as people describing black people as 'coulored' or my favorite 'jamaican'. How the fark do they assume they're Jamaican? Have the seen their passport!?

Ultimately, we don't need to be attacked by the PC croud and end up being afraid to talk so why not just use common sense and courtesy? I work with the most diverse range of people imaginable as a lawyer but never ever presume anything. It's always more acceptable to just ask, it also shows that you're actually interested in the heratige and culture as opposed to just pidgeon holing the person. Surprisingly, people are never offended when you don't know something but have a genuine interest, they're always offended when you just presume.

I started making a similar point on DDD's other ethnicity thread. Ethnicity is a pretty subjective and nebulous concept, as it tries to combine a person's genetic and cultural heritage. These are only fairly loosely related and in some circumstances not at all. There are some Irish ancestors in my family about 5 or 6 generations back, but I don't consider myself remotely Irish. As you say, best to just ask.

rbleightonbuzzard

Was the 'bloke' who hates the Freemasons riding a bike?

notsoblue

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

It's always more acceptable to just ask, it also shows that you're actually interested in the heratige and culture as opposed to just pidgeon holing the person. Surprisingly, people are never offended when you don't know something but have a genuine interest, they're always offended when you just presume.

+1 This is a great point.

PBo

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12710576

Spen666 wrote:

Hmmm
Mick McCarthy - Paddy
Jim Beglin - Paddy
Mark Lawrenson - Paddy


And the Paddies were playing? This was I presume on British TV, so why have we got foreign has beens rather than English or even British has beens on?

Don't be watching ITV Spen, you may have to readjust your set when that Marcel Desailly is on.

Nah, can't be Spen's window - the sign says blacks, not coloureds......

This whole thing about someone being offended etc.....

Clearly, someone somewhere, could be offended by just about anything! Obviously, at that individual level they might just be a nutter, and realistically the rest of us should be free to carry on using whatever offends them - it really is their problem.

However language has all sorts of contexts and complex factors associated with words. If, over time, society in general terms a phrase offensive, then so be it. Language evolves - all of it, not just the controversial stuff - and saying "in my day...blah blah..." doesn't cut it.

Now, there is no vote on this stuff, no committee deciding this stuff - such is the nature of language evolution - and I can't tell you when it happened, but I'm pretty damn sure that the tipping point with coloured - and paddy for that matter - happened some time ago. It was not a decison by Brent council or some such....

I'd hazard a guess that entries for the above two in the Oxford or Chambers or the like would describe them as pejorative or offensive or suchlike. And they are not decision makers, just respected bodies trying to reflect societies usage - which they do with academic methodologies, not by putting their finger in the air, or phoning the "loony PC Brigade" hot line for a ruling....

Anyone got access to a recent Oxford?