Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
You might if there were only 10 of you and you all suffered similar problems with how everyone else interacted with you.Pross said:
My annoyance on that front is "a spokeperson for the [insert minority] community". These usually seem to be self-appointed or members of some small collective on the more radical side of said community. I'd be a bit annoyed if someone claimed to be a spokesperson for white, middle-aged Welshmen spouting stuff on my behalf.TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.0 -
rick_chasey said:
You might if there were only 10 of you and you all suffered similar problems with how everyone else interacted with you.Pross said:
My annoyance on that front is "a spokeperson for the [insert minority] community". These usually seem to be self-appointed or members of some small collective on the more radical side of said community. I'd be a bit annoyed if someone claimed to be a spokesperson for white, middle-aged Welshmen spouting stuff on my behalf.TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
Yes, that's an overreach of authority in almost all cases.0 -
I think she's a serial killer as someone always gets murdered at whatever club/event/society his wife is at.Pross said:
Pretty sure there's marriage problems there as his wife seems to be a member of every local club or society she can join, presumably to avoid him.webboo said:
Tom Barnaby.Pross said:
I was thinking the other day whilst watching some detective programme (can't recall which one) that you never see a TV detective who doesn't have a "troubled" personal life in some way.rick_chasey said:Getting quite bored of the "difficult genius" trope, which you see in most dramas, but none more prevalent than in the police procedural or murder mystery, where inevitably the policeman or woman can't handle day-to-day niceties but is tolerated for their ability to do the job.
Usually they are also over-obsessed with whatever we're watching them for, so their side-story of a personal life is always one where it's all falling apart.
How about change it up a little, writers?'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 -
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not blaming him for its invention.First.Aspect said:
He didn't use it or coin it BB.TheBigBean said:
Try this on why BAME has been dropped.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Because he wants to learn to use "people of colour" as it is a term "they" have created. The use of "they" implies a group of people that he is not part of.First.Aspect said:
Well it's not like anyone is suggesting, "hello nice to meet you I can you are a person of colour" to break the ice, is it.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Where do you get the idea that Brian has created the group from?
You've lost me too. I've simply no idea what you're trying to argue. I've neither created a group, nor invented a term. I'm just being respectful of people who have chosen a term with which they are happy.
Maybe you just have a problem with the word 'they' generally, given that it implies either 'not me' or 'not us'. If that's a problem for you, I suggest you take it up with the philosophy department and the OED.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/uk-government-drops-use-of-bame0 -
rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
And as mentioned upthread, the use of 'them' as a term depends on context: of course it can be weaponised and can be used to drive wedges between humans, but so can 'us' (tribalism etc.). Human cognition has evolved to deal with categories and concepts as discrete things, and we can group categories and concepts too - what we want to achieve with our thoughts about those things will influence at what level of grouping/subgrouping we conceptualise in, but you can't erase those groupings because (for whatever reason) you don't like a concept.
And as FA also said upthread, it's also difficult to deal with negative outcomes which certain portions of society suffer without considering them as a disadvantaged group, and trying to work out how that disadvantage has occurred. A woolly 'us' won't cut it.0 -
.
Oh. What did they do wrong then?TheBigBean said:
I'm not blaming him for its invention.First.Aspect said:
He didn't use it or coin it BB.TheBigBean said:
Try this on why BAME has been dropped.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Because he wants to learn to use "people of colour" as it is a term "they" have created. The use of "they" implies a group of people that he is not part of.First.Aspect said:
Well it's not like anyone is suggesting, "hello nice to meet you I can you are a person of colour" to break the ice, is it.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Where do you get the idea that Brian has created the group from?
You've lost me too. I've simply no idea what you're trying to argue. I've neither created a group, nor invented a term. I'm just being respectful of people who have chosen a term with which they are happy.
Maybe you just have a problem with the word 'they' generally, given that it implies either 'not me' or 'not us'. If that's a problem for you, I suggest you take it up with the philosophy department and the OED.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/uk-government-drops-use-of-bame0 -
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.0 -
Windows alt codes being in no particularly logical order, as far as I can see. It would be nice if they had grouped such things as the currencies together, as well as all sorts of obvious groupings, (all the special e characters, etc), so you don't have to scroll up & down looking for what you're after.
It's also annoying that I can't remember the useful ones I tend to use, such as € Ç É œ © etc.
https://www.alt-codes.net/0 -
In case it is useful Alt Gr + e/E = é/É and Alt Gr + 4 = €
0 -
What’s your preferred word to use BB? Or is the argument that the term should never be used because we ought to be blind to race?0
-
é É €
Ooh, thanks, though I need to remember those too now!
It's also annoying that the French AZERTY layout still needs some of those extra characters to be accessed by other means. It's where long press on Android keyboards is superior in some ways.0 -
I'm sure there are others via Alt Gr, but that is all I have used.briantrumpet said:é É €
Ooh, thanks, though I need to remember those too now!
It's also annoying that the French AZERTY layout still needs some of those extra characters to be accessed by other means. It's where long press on Android keyboards is superior in some ways.0 -
I can do é simply by pressing and holding the "e" button and € using Option and "2".TheBigBean said:In case it is useful Alt Gr + e/E = é/É and Alt Gr + 4 = €
Ç, œ and © are all similar. Intrigued that this isn't more common.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
I can do é simply by pressing and holding the "e" button and € using Option and "2".TheBigBean said:In case it is useful Alt Gr + e/E = é/É and Alt Gr + 4 = €
Ç, œ and © are all similar. Intrigued that this isn't more common.
Not on a laptop keyboard... holding a key down just goes eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, which isn't terribly useful unless you're whizzing down a hill with your feet in the air and you're going wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.0 -
I think this is an interesting discussion to have on a forum where one has no real idea of the identity of the person behind the keyboard. My gut reaction to an imaginary white person saying they don't like the phrase PoC is different to an imaginary...well I guess person of colour... saying they don't like the phrase.TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.
0 -
I don't think there should be a term to capture everyone who is not white.rick_chasey said:What’s your preferred word to use BB? Or is the argument that the term should never be used because we ought to be blind to race?
More specific grouping is also less useful on an individual basis.
In an ideal world everyone would be blind to race. That said, people are not, so it can be helpful to look at how different groups perform overall. Although another bugbear of mine is that the groups on ethnicity forms are not particularly suited to the modern world.
For what it is worth, when I was having a chat about my diversification skills and inability to volunteer, the phrase "person of colour" was used by the chair, and so too was "the right sort of muslim" and "Somali or whatever". It was clearly not a job I was suited for.0 -
What are your gut reactions?Jezyboy said:
I think this is an interesting discussion to have on a forum where one has no real idea of the identity of the person behind the keyboard. My gut reaction to an imaginary white person saying they don't like the phrase PoC is different to an imaginary...well I guess person of colour... saying they don't like the phrase.TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.0 -
TheBigBean said:
I don't think there should be a term to capture everyone who is not white.rick_chasey said:What’s your preferred word to use BB? Or is the argument that the term should never be used because we ought to be blind to race?
More specific grouping is also less useful on an individual basis.
In an ideal world everyone would be blind to race. That said, people are not, so it can be helpful to look at how different groups perform overall. Although another bugbear of mine is that the groups on ethnicity forms are not particularly suited to the modern world.
For what it is worth, when I was having a chat about my diversification skills and inability to volunteer, the phrase "person of colour" was used by the chair, and so too was "the right sort of muslim" and "Somali or whatever". It was clearly not a job I was suited for.
The thing is that I can't see denying people who choose to identify as 'people of colour' the option to do so gains anything. I will identify as different things depending on context "white, male, atheist, trumpeter, musician, cyclist, human, British, European" etc depending on whom I'm with and what's being discussed and in what vein. It's merely another option for people to choose from. I don't see it being used in negative or stereotyping contexts.0 -
♦³ ± ì Ÿ ~ ø ²
^ alt something.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinno said:
♦³ ± ì Ÿ ~ ø ²
^ alt something.
No need to swear.0 -
Non Blondes, there was even a band that had a hit in the 90s made up of 4 of them.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.0 -
I'd suggest that because non-white's have been discriminated against for so long - indeed, there's about a century of European literature on why the white man is superior to all others - that there is still a whole host of divisions and problems that occur along those same lines.TheBigBean said:
I don't think there should be a term to capture everyone who is not white.rick_chasey said:What’s your preferred word to use BB? Or is the argument that the term should never be used because we ought to be blind to race?
More specific grouping is also less useful on an individual basis.
In an ideal world everyone would be blind to race. That said, people are not, so it can be helpful to look at how different groups perform overall. Although another bugbear of mine is that the groups on ethnicity forms are not particularly suited to the modern world.
For what it is worth, when I was having a chat about my diversification skills and inability to volunteer, the phrase "person of colour" was used by the chair, and so too was "the right sort of muslim" and "Somali or whatever". It was clearly not a job I was suited for.
Basically we've living with the construct of that past, and so, whether we want it to be or not PoC or not-white is still a dividing line. It's better to be aware of that, so that it can be improved, than to pretend it doesn't exist.
0 -
Not if you pay over the odds for a MacBook. See, it's worth it. 🤣briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
I can do é simply by pressing and holding the "e" button and € using Option and "2".TheBigBean said:In case it is useful Alt Gr + e/E = é/É and Alt Gr + 4 = €
Ç, œ and © are all similar. Intrigued that this isn't more common.
Not on a laptop keyboard... holding a key down just goes eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, which isn't terribly useful unless you're whizzing down a hill with your feet in the air and you're going wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
But it isn’t that specific. It will be a “spokesperson for the Caribbean community”, or Muslim community or LGBTQ+ community. Basically a minority group that covers millions of people with, presumably, a wide range of views or needs that may often conflict.rick_chasey said:
You might if there were only 10 of you and you all suffered similar problems with how everyone else interacted with you.Pross said:
My annoyance on that front is "a spokeperson for the [insert minority] community". These usually seem to be self-appointed or members of some small collective on the more radical side of said community. I'd be a bit annoyed if someone claimed to be a spokesperson for white, middle-aged Welshmen spouting stuff on my behalf.TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.0 -
One has to ask What's Up? in this thread.veronese68 said:
Non Blondes, there was even a band that had a hit in the 90s made up of 4 of them.
2 -
Who are “they” and “them” in your example? Is it acceptable here because you used a singular doctor and refugee for comparison? Had there been more than one each of the HK doctors and Somalian refugees and you used whatever the collective nouns are for doctors and refugees respectively, what words in English would you have used instead of “they” and “them”?TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
The white person doesn't have skin in the game, a critical mass of the PoC community have decided that they find the term useful, so possibly it has its place.TheBigBean said:
What are your gut reactions?Jezyboy said:
I think this is an interesting discussion to have on a forum where one has no real idea of the identity of the person behind the keyboard. My gut reaction to an imaginary white person saying they don't like the phrase PoC is different to an imaginary...well I guess person of colour... saying they don't like the phrase.TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.
Whereas if I was to hear an imaginary PoC saying it, I'd be more open to listening to the argument. I think ultimately my position would stay the same, but obviously it's impossible to know what their hypothetical argument is...
My position is that if members of the group want to use it, then that feels fair enough, but I do think your overall points are strong and difficult to dispute.0 -
In terms of skin colour (and other visible characteristics like hair colour and type), they (your two examples) look different from the majority of the UK population and we all make assumptions based on what we can see. It's that basic.TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I’m also wondering why TBB used the terms “Hong Kong doctor” and “Somalian refugee”. I’m assuming it was to create an instant mental picture for us of people of quite different physical characteristics. But AFAIK, neither is a recognised racial grouping. Yet Bean has happily grouped all doctors from Hong Kong as inevitably being of Asian descent, and all Somalians as (presumably) black. Seems to be pretty serious racial stereotyping to me?rjsterry said:
In terms of skin colour (and other visible characteristics like hair colour and type), they (your two examples) look different from the majority of the UK population and we all make assumptions based on what we can see. It's that basic.TheBigBean said:
One last attempt. You are creating a group for people who have something in common e.g. red hair. You are not creating a group, and suggesting they have something in common, solely because they are not white.rjsterry said:
There's a couple of other groups. Redheads. Brunettes. I don't know if there is one for black hair other than black-haired. Like skin colour it is an inherited characteristic and so there's a big overlap with family and cultural groups.TheBigBean said:
What's the name for all people without blonde hair?rjsterry said:
Because people have different colour skin and like it or not, as a species we start with what we can see.TheBigBean said:
Start with the basics. Why do you need to refer to the group you are trying to create?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You are creating a group of people who you consider to not be like you and allowing a member of said group to define the entirety of the group, but this group doesn't really exist and therefore should not be labelled.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Who are "they"?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You don't need to get used to it.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I was with you until you used my pet hate.de_sisti said:People who ask me if I was born in this country.
* Early December, a woman from Jehovah's Witness.
* Last Friday, a bloke with whom I've chatted to (on and off) for over 10 years. We used to work for the same organisation (at different times), whose nationality requirements for employment were once extremely strict (so he should have known better).
Lady said to me; "You speak such good English".
Bloke said; "You speak better than them others"
When I pressed him to tell me who those "others" were, he declined to give an answer
I said it is patronising when white people like him and the previously mentioned woman ask such questions. I said he was out-of-touch with a modern Britain, in the same way as Lady Susan Hussey.
He look very sheepishly at me when I said that to him.
These two people are from a generation where they didn't mix with people of colour, let alone have friends who have a different skin colour to them. They still think that anyone who doesn't have white skin must have been born overseas.
We did this one extensively a while ago. I still find it a strange phrase given 'coloured people' disappeared as an acceptable usage quite some time ago, but realise I just need to get used to it, if that's the preference.
It's not me who's got the choice to make about what label is acceptable to those to whom it applies (well, I can choose one they don't like, but then they won't like it, and why would I want to do that?). There are more important things to annoyed by anyway.... labels are just labels.
'They' are the people choosing labels for themselves.
What's the alternative? No 'groups' of any sort, or have some empowered authority decide labels?
I'm not sure what you object to: having groups (however loosely 'defined') or people choosing their own labels.
Grouping people into various assorted 'thems' also seems to be pretty fundamental to humankind.
What does a Hong Kong doctor have in common with a Somalian refugee? Certainly not language, culture, skin colour, looks or anything at all, and yet some people feel there must be a grouping or name that puts them in the same category as each other. This is particularly ridiculous if both their parents grew up in the country and really the thing that puts them in the same group is that they are British just like the person doing the grouping.
The only other similarity I can see is that they both probably spend their lives answering questions about where they are from. Again, not a great basis for a group in my view.
Just don’t use the word “them” to describe the groupings. Oh wait, he did already.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0
