Obscenity democracy

[Charlie Reams]

I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?

I'm not sure about legal action ensuing, but how about "Frog" and "Wop"? Both are used against white people and both are clearly derogatory and intended to be so (I consider this last to be of the essence: thoughtless language ought not to be a hanging offence). Perhaps the difference is that the insultees are not usually present.

And they don't refer to the whole white race. I think on MTV they censor the word "cracker", but I think that's just to keep the "omg affirmative action" brigade happy, because it's really not very offensive.

[Chris Corby]

...because 'paki' is used as a derogatory term, not just for people of Pakistani origin, but for any non-white in this country. One can hear it regularly in playgrounds, football stadia, shopping centres and on public transport the length and breadth of this sceptred isle

You have made my point. Who decided it was derogatory? How can it be when all it is just the first four letters of their nationality? I don't agree that West Indians are routinely abused by racists calling them "Paki" as you suggest, neither do I agree that 'Frogs' is offensive to white people, unless we are talking about the French, who probably have got that name because of their propensity to eat them. Australians call us 'Limeys' - is that offensive? We call Americans 'Yanks', the list goes on and on........... just like me

[Ben Hunter]

...because 'paki' is used as a derogatory term, not just for people of Pakistani origin, but for any non-white in this country. One can hear it regularly in playgrounds, football stadia, shopping centres and on public transport the length and breadth of this sceptred isle

You have made my point. Who decided it was derogatory? How can it be when all it is just the first four letters of their nationality? I don't agree that West Indians are routinely abused by racists calling them "Paki" as you suggest, neither do I agree that 'Frogs' is offensive to white people, unless we are talking about the French, who probably have got that name because of their propensity to eat them. Australians call us 'Limeys' - is that offensive? We call Americans 'Yanks', the list goes on and on........... just like me

It doesn't matter that 'paki' is short for 'Pakistani'. Lots of words have multiple meanings, and one of the ways in which the word 'paki' is used is to offend Pakistanis. It's not like one day a young British man innocently called a Pakistani a 'paki' and the Pakistani just decided to be offended for the hell of it. The word carries a lot of historical weight: it was used in newspapers in the '60s to describe Pakistanis in a dismissive and disrespectful manner, and the public picked up on it and used it against Pakistani immigrants in conjunction with threatening behaviour and physical attacks. Sure, among friends the word 'paki' shouldn't and doesn't really offend (e.g. among the idiotic Prince Harry and his friends), but in the parts of Britain where racial tension still exists in a big way, the word 'Paki' is just as offensive now as it was then.

[Charlie Reams]

...because 'paki' is used as a derogatory term, not just for people of Pakistani origin, but for any non-white in this country. One can hear it regularly in playgrounds, football stadia, shopping centres and on public transport the length and breadth of this sceptred isle

You have made my point. Who decided it was derogatory? How can it be when all it is just the first four letters of their nationality? I don't agree that West Indians are routinely abused by racists calling them "Paki" as you suggest, neither do I agree that 'Frogs' is offensive to white people, unless we are talking about the French, who probably have got that name because of their propensity to eat them. Australians call us 'Limeys' - is that offensive? We call Americans 'Yanks', the list goes on and on........... just like me

Like anyway word, it acquired a meaning when people started using it with that meaning. If I shout "you fucking turtle" while throwing rocks at you then you'll soon conclude that the word turtle is offensive, even if you never use it that way yourself. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that calling someone a Paki (even if they are indeed from Pakistan) is not generally intended to be insulting.

However, in the particular case of Prince Harry, I think he was using it only in the way that I might call Raccoon a poofter - it's just a bit of banter and, importantly, I know him well enough to know he's not offended by it. That doesn't make it okay for me to call anyone else a poofter and proclaim innocence.

[George Jenkins]

I don't understand why cunt has the status it has, either. Those who hate it often argue that it's a sign of misogyny, as you're equating a wonderful part of the female anatomy with insult and abuse... but that could apply to tons of swearwords, and anyway dicks are beautiful too. Still I avoid using it as a term of abuse, cos for some it's the ultimate insult, and they would assume I was trying to cause deep offence, when I wasn't.

The legendary Richard Whiteley was proud to be a Dick...

I have seen the word Cunt described in (I believe) the Oxford Dictionary, as a small orifice, so it is not really a swearing word. Unfortunately it can't be used in polite society, unless of course, you like to give polite ladies an attack of the vapours.

[Chris Corby]

However, in the particular case of Prince Harry, I think he was using it only in the way that I might call Raccoon a poofter - it's just a bit of banter and, importantly, I know him well enough to know he's not offended by it.

Christ, Charlie knows Prince Harry! You heard it here first.

My take on the Prince Harry thing was that, as far as I know, the 'Pakistani' lad was never asked about it. If he was he could have said one of two things really,
(i) I never minded being called a 'paki' by Harry - I used to call him a ginger tosser all the time.............
or
(ii) I used to hate it when he called me that. But I couldn't say anything as after all, he is third in line to the throne.....

Which one would he have gone for?

[Gavin Chipper]

And they don't refer to the whole white race.

Is there even such a thing? People talk about these "races" but they're ill-defined at best.

Edit - When someone makes some rude remark about people of a country where most people are non-white, then it's often called racist. When the remark is made about people from a country where most of the people are white and someone calls it racist, someone will often say "They're not a race!" So it seems we have our definition of race - the people from a particular country where most of the people aren't white. Genius!

[George Jenkins]

My daughter attended a staff meeting, and the subject was racism. After a long discussion about the evils of racism, they were asked "any questions?". My daughter asked, " What about the racism practiced by the blacks against the whites?. She told me that the only answer she got was dead silence.

The silence came from the shock of hearing someone refer to 'the blacks' and 'the whites'. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point out the comparative scale of the problems, and the history of imperialism and slavery that makes any perceived racism against whites if not justifiable, the certainly understandable. Being that we still live in an institutionally racist society (check the recent revelations about the metropolitan police force) and most non-whites that I've known have been victims of verbal abuse on the streets on a weekly if not daily basis, any racist act perpetrated against white people really is a drop in the ocean. And I'm sure the Daily Mail would pay them handsomely to print their story.

I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?

No. Because of the comparative societal and historical position of white people.

Prince Harry recently made a private video whereby he referred to his Pakistani comrade as a "Paki" and it caused a right old stink? Why? Who decreed that shortening one's nationality to the first four letters was offensive? If so, why am I not offended when I am referred to as a 'Brit'?

...because 'paki' is used as a derogatory term, not just for people of Pakistani origin, but for any non-white in this country. One can hear it regularly in playgrounds, football stadia, shopping centres and on public transport the length and breadth of this sceptred isle

When I posted that article I forgot to add the words, "Discrimination against Whites" by order of Government. My Grandson was a skilled part-time Fireman, but had to resign because he was unable to cope with two jobs. When he applied to become a full time Fireman as advertised, his application was rejected on the grounds that he was not an Ethnic immigrant, and therefore did not fulfil the requirement, as designated by the Government, to employ a proportion of the Ethnic minority in Public industry. You have to admire the Government for their kindness to Immigrants, but don't go to work in Parkistan. you will either be shot in the crossfire, or if you have no money, you'll die of starvation in the gutter. (do they have gutters). A word of the meaning of "Wog". The gentry whom ran India etc in the days of the Empire, coined the word Wog, or in other words, Wily Oriental Gentlmen, in their dealings with the Indian population.

[Gavin Chipper]

[When he applied to become a full time Fireman as advertised, his application was rejected on the grounds that he was not an Ethnic immigrant, and therefore did not fulfil the requirement, as designated by the Government, to employ a proportion of the Ethnic minority in Public industry.

That's not legal is it?

[George Jenkins]

I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?

I'm not sure about legal action ensuing, but how about "Frog" and "Wop"? Both are used against white people and both are clearly derogatory and intended to be so (I consider this last to be of the essence: thoughtless language ought not to be a hanging offence). Perhaps the difference is that the insultees are not usually present.

I don't know about Wop, but I have always understood that the French are known to eat edible frogs. (or their legs), therefor; frogs. the same as English sailors having to drink lime juice, to prevent scurvy. they were named Limies by the Americans since the war of indipendance. you may all know this already, but because I believe that History lessons are doctored in case Ethnic minorities are offended; you may not know it

[George Jenkins]

[When he applied to become a full time Fireman as advertised, his application was rejected on the grounds that he was not an Ethnic immigrant, and therefore did not fulfil the requirement, as designated by the Government, to employ a proportion of the Ethnic minority in Public industry.

That's not legal is it?

Yes it is; and my grandson would have been a full time Fireman if it wasn't. He was good at his job and well liked in the station. I forgot to say that his friend, another part timer, and whom was still active in the Fire service was successful, but had his appointment cancelled for the same reason, and he is still a part timer.

[Martin Gardner]

However, in the particular case of Prince Harry, I think he was using it only in the way that I might call Raccoon a poofter - it's just a bit of banter and, importantly, I know him well enough to know he's not offended by it. That doesn't make it okay for me to call anyone else a poofter and proclaim innocence.

Yeah it was a term of affection (IMO), seemingly "offense words" can have specific meanings between specific individuals. My step-dad is black and I've certainly made a few 'black' jokes to him, but ffs I've known him more than ten years now, we sort of have a little code all of our own now.

[Kevin Thurlow]

George makes a valuable point - the whole "equality" industry is based on discrimination. According to its adherents, you have to treat non-white people better than white people or you have to treat women better than men. If you take an honest approach you treat people equally. We had a Union questionnaire at work some years ago, and one question was, "Have you been the victim of sexual discrimination?" I said, "Yes" as our boss believed women should be "encouraged", so he wrote a minute (which fell into my hands - won't say how) saying that the sub-managers should recommend the women for promotion, and mark the men down, even though that did not accurately reflect the talents of the individuals concerned. When the union published the results of the survey, they said nobody had complained of sexual discrimination...

I have heard Pakistani cricket fans talking about the Paki team... The origin of the term of abuse "wog" is unclear, it may have been taken from the name "golliwog" or "wily oriental gentleman" or something else. The term "sambo" probably came from an old book called, "Little Black Sambo", a children's story. You cannot blame the toy or the story for misuse later, when times have changed. The London Borough of Newham has banned the public display of Christmas Trees in case it offends the large (60 % of the population) immigrant community there! I am pleased to say I have a Hindu friend who demands a Christmas tree and decorations every year. You cannot display the national flag now in case it upsets somebody - sorry, something is seriously wrong here.

Suppose we follow the "logic" to extremes - Anyone called Adolf should be executed in case they behave like Adolf Hitler.

Racism is wrong, whichever way it is pointed - and I would hope that everyone on this forum would be able to understand that. I sympathised with a female collegaue (of West Indian descent) after someone had allegedly upset her, and she replied "I have no interest in the opinions of people with that colour."

George makes another valuable point - history is being rewritten to suit a particular political viewpoint.

[Charlie Reams]

And they don't refer to the whole white race.

Is there even such a thing? People talk about these "races" but they're ill-defined at best.

Edit - When someone makes some rude remark about people of a country where most people are non-white, then it's often called racist. When the remark is made about people from a country where most of the people are white and someone calls it racist, someone will often say "They're not a race!" So it seems we have our definition of race - the people from a particular country where most of the people aren't white. Genius!

Yeah, I actually toyed with not writing that because I really don't believe in this idea of "race"; genetically speaking, there's about as much variation within a given race (especially the white one) as between them, which suggests a very weak definition. But I couldn't really think of a better way to put it, so I just defined it in the terms that someone using a word like "cracker" probably would.

[George Jenkins]

Stuart, I don't know why you think that the words Black or white shocked the people at my daughter's meeting. The subject was racism and discrimination against Ethnic minorities. All she did was to reverse the order of discrimination, but the Managers and bosses weren't prepared for that alteration to the agenda. They were just tongue-tied, and they just hadn't rehearsed that side of the argument. (I know about Bosses Stuart, I've been told to "fuck off" out of their Offices enough times when they thought they were going to reprimand me for something that I had, or hadn't done.The Bastards never got the best of me)

Also, your argument that Ethnic groups shouldn't be blamed for attacking us with suicide bombs etc, because of our Imperial past. I must divide our Nation into classes. I am comfortable Lower class, and I speak for that class. It wasn't my class that amassed great wealth in India, and hanged an Indian Prince as a terrorist when he tried to defend his own Land. It wasn't my class that hanged children for stealing a loaf of bread, when we had the richest Empire that the World has ever known. It wasn't my class that bombed and killed thousands of people in Vietnam, and it
wasn't my class that killed millions of trees with Agent Orange, and which caused thousands of deformed children. It wasn't my class that destroyed Baghdad and killed more thousands of people because civilisation was going to be destroyed by phantom nuclear weapons, manufactured in the minds of nutters. (very rich nutters, and not of my class)
It is my class that is being blown to pieces by immigrants in revenge for the actions of the chinless wonders whom can't be got at, and my class are easy targets in underground trains etc.
I believe that is the reason why there is so much uneasiness about the scale of immigration in this Country and Anti-immigration.
Reflect on this. In the 1600's the Pilgrim fathers landed in America. By 1900, the native Americans had been herded into reservations, and the invaders took over the Country. think of tiny little England, and most of eastern Europe. They all know that England is a "kind" Country, with plenty of "benefits"

[Charlie Reams]

Stuart, I don't know why you think that the words Black or white shocked the people at my daughter's meeting.

Stuart was just referring to your use of the terms "the blacks" and "the whites", which is considered fairly regressive these days but was probably not a big deal at the time.

Also, your argument that Ethnic groups shouldn't be blamed for attacking us with suicide bombs etc, because of our Imperial past. I must divide our Nation into classes. I am comfortable Lower class, and I speak for that class. It wasn't my class that amassed great wealth in India, and hanged an Indian Prince as a terrorist when he tried to defend his own Land. It wasn't my class that hanged children for stealing a loaf of bread, when we had the richest Empire that the World has ever known. It wasn't my class that bombed and killed thousands of people in Vietnam, and it
wasn't my class that killed millions of trees with Agent Orange, and which caused thousands of deformed children. It wasn't my class that destroyed Baghdad and killed more thousands of people because civilisation was going to be destroyed by phantom nuclear weapons, manufactured in the minds of nutters. (very rich nutters, and not of my class)
It is my class that is being blown to pieces by immigrants in revenge for the actions of the chinless wonders whom can't be got at, and my class are easy targets in underground trains etc.
I believe that is the reason why there is so much uneasiness about the scale of immigration in this Country and Anti-immigration.
Reflect on this. In the 1600's the Pilgrim fathers landed in America. By 1900, the native Americans had been herded into reservations, and the invaders took over the Country. think of tiny little England, and most of eastern Europe. They all know that England is a "kind" Country, with plenty of "benefits"

Bollocks.

[John Bosley]

... Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.

...unless they come form Scunthorpe !

As for filters and that sort of thing, you can end up with your recipe for meringue being banned because you were instructing cooks to 'whip it hard until stiff'.

As for attitudes of the younger (or older) royalty about race, it seems from yesterday's Guardian as if Queen Charlotte (wife of George III) was of mixed race - and they are all descended from her line. So what. The more mixed we are the better it will be.

[Martin Gardner]

Yes total bollocks, sorry. It's a bit like saying I'm university educated and middle class so I am partly to blame for the bankers the recklessly brought about the credit crunch. We're all individuals, and Charlie's point is good too, people genes come from loads of different places and the UK in particular has been invaded a lot of times, so we've all got Roman, Scandinavian, French, African whatever blood in our veins. My step-dad who's got really dark skin, one of his grandad's was a white man. I'm happy to say reading this forum and generally being at uni, today's "younger generation" is a lot more tolerant of just about everything than former generations. That's not a stab at anyone because like I said, we're all individuals.

[Martin Gardner]

Admittedly talking about race on a forum like this is always highly dangerous, so if this gets locked or deleted I won't complain. There was that American lecturer that said that black people had a lower average IQ over a large sample than white people do. I don't think that is that ridiculous. On the other hand, which are the better athletes? Nice time the 100m Olympic Final takes place, count the number of white people in it. And my personal favourite example is that black players were not allowed to compete in Major League Baseball until 1947 when the infamous Jackie Robinson took the field. Pretty much since then, an enormous amount of the Hall of Fame inductees have been black. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente. Need I go on?

[Charlie Reams]

Admittedly talking about race on a forum like this is always highly dangerous, so if this gets locked or deleted I won't complain. There was that American lecturer that said that black people had a lower average IQ over a large sample than white people do. I don't think that is that ridiculous. On the other hand, which are the better athletes? Nice time the 100m Olympic Final takes place, count the number of white people in it. And my personal favourite example is that black players were not allowed to compete in Major League Baseball until 1947 when the infamous Jackie Robinson took the field. Pretty much since then, an enormous amount of the Hall of Fame inductees have been black. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente. Need I go on?

I think the reason that people tend to take offence at claims like "white people have higher average IQ than black people" (which is objectively true, apparently) is that it is often used to imply that white people are smarter than black people, which is dangerous for two reasons:

1) IQ tests were defined exclusively by white people, so it's not obvious that the tests are good measures of general intelligence, just like it an intelligence test designed by Chinese psychologists would not necessarily be a good metric for Western ideas of intelligence.

2) even if it were true that an average white person were cleverer than an average black person, this fact would probably be used to discriminate against black people on an individual basis, which is obviously bollocks.

One could make the reverse argument for sports stars: maybe black people tend to excel at sport because they have (or had) fewer opportunities to be successful in more conventional careers. This may or may not be true, but it certainly is true that black people do have some biological differences which might be advantageous in sport.

So the point is, meritocracy is great and everything else is just gay.

[Matt Morrison]

So the point is, meritocracy is great and everything else is just gay.

Apart from heterocracy.

[George Jenkins]

Admittedly talking about race on a forum like this is always highly dangerous, so if this gets locked or deleted I won't complain. There was that American lecturer that said that black people had a lower average IQ over a large sample than white people do. I don't think that is that ridiculous. On the other hand, which are the better athletes? Nice time the 100m Olympic Final takes place, count the number of white people in it. And my personal favourite example is that black players were not allowed to compete in Major League Baseball until 1947 when the infamous Jackie Robinson took the field. Pretty much since then, an enormous amount of the Hall of Fame inductees have been black. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente. Need I go on?

Martin, I honestly don't know whether my comments on history, caused these comments that I am reading. If it was, then it is a denial of truth and and history. My comments about class was an example of whom were going to suffer from the revenge attacks of people, whom had been bombed and killed over the years, by order of religious nutters in America and poodles in this Country. the first reason was to stop the advance of Communism in Korea. the next was to stop Communism in Vietnam. it failed of course, but do you know what is the most common advertisment in Vietnam. COCOA COLA. The next big one was Iraq, because they were going to annialate us with nuclear weapons. When that was proved a lie, it was changed to the need for a Regime change. but we all know the real reason. Oil.

As for University Students whom think they are a target for my "Class" comments. The class that I am referring to are the workers of all levels, the ones whom fill underground trains etc. I am not just referring to the cloth cap, pint of beer and a fag kind of worker,

My point was that the people whom deal in bombing and murder can't be touched by revenge killers. but they can get you and be labeled "Terrorists".
Also, class distinction is alive and well. A certain Lord was imprisoned for the crime of (I believe), of Perjury. He can sit in the lords voting on things that effect me.
Another lord, Sir Lester Piggot, a working class lad and famous jockey was done for tax evasion. his title was stripped, and he is now plain mister. we can't have jumped up working class people breaking the law, can we.

The reason that I posted the original article about "Terrorists" was that I read in these pages that they couldn't be blamed for blowing us up. All I did was to explain why they do it and whom was responsible.
By all means block or delete my article. it won't effect me, and I will not be offended. that is what Hitler did, when he burnt the books written by interlectuals and Jews. So I will be in good company

[George Jenkins]

Admittedly talking about race on a forum like this is always highly dangerous, so if this gets locked or deleted I won't complain. There was that American lecturer that said that black people had a lower average IQ over a large sample than white people do. I don't think that is that ridiculous. On the other hand, which are the better athletes? Nice time the 100m Olympic Final takes place, count the number of white people in it. And my personal favourite example is that black players were not allowed to compete in Major League Baseball until 1947 when the infamous Jackie Robinson took the field. Pretty much since then, an enormous amount of the Hall of Fame inductees have been black. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente. Need I go on?

Martin, I honestly don't know whether my comments on history, caused these comments that I am reading. If it was, then it is a denial of truth and and history. My comments about class was an example of whom were going to suffer from the revenge attacks of people, whom had been bombed and killed over the years, by order of religious nutters in America and poodles in this Country. the first reason was to stop the advance of Communism in Korea. the next was to stop Communism in Vietnam. it failed of course, but do you know what is the most common advertisment in Vietnam. COCOA COLA. The next big one was Iraq, because they were going to annialate us with nuclear weapons. When that was proved a lie, it was changed to the need for a Regime change. but we all know the real reason. Oil.

As for University Students whom think they are a target for my "Class" comments. The class that I am referring to are the workers of all levels, the ones whom fill underground trains etc. I am not just referring to the cloth cap, pint of beer and a fag kind of worker,

My point was that the people whom deal in bombing and murder can't be touched by revenge killers. but they can get you and be labeled "Terrorists".
Also, class distinction is alive and well. A certain Lord was imprisoned for the crime of (I believe), of Perjury. He can sit in the lords voting on things that effect me.
Another lord, Sir Lester Piggot, a working class lad and famous jockey was done for tax evasion. his title was stripped, and he is now plain mister. we can't have jumped up working class people breaking the law, can we.

The reason that I posted the original article about "Terrorists" was that I read in these pages that they couldn't be blamed for blowing us up. All I did was to explain why they do it and whom was responsible.
By all means block or delete my article. it won't effect me, and I will not be offended. that is what Hitler did, when he burnt the books written by interlectuals and Jews. So I will be in good company

I'm sorry lads, I forgot to mention my comments about the Country being taken over by Asians.
I was only repeating what a bearded Muslim told us on a televsion programme. He said that this Country will soon be a Muslim Country. Surely, If I repeat what he said, that wouldn't make me a Racist, would it?

[Charlie Reams]

Martin, I honestly don't know whether my comments on history, caused these comments that I am reading. If it was, then it is a denial of truth and and history. My comments about class was an example of whom were going to suffer from the revenge attacks of people, whom had been bombed and killed over the years, by order of religious nutters in America and poodles in this Country. the first reason was to stop the advance of Communism in Korea. the next was to stop Communism in Vietnam. it failed of course, but do you know what is the most common advertisment in Vietnam. COCOA COLA. The next big one was Iraq, because they were going to annialate us with nuclear weapons. When that was proved a lie, it was changed to the need for a Regime change. but we all know the real reason. Oil.

No one was disputing the history. The bollocks was this idea that all non-working class people share some kind of joint responsibility for each other's actions.

My point was that the people whom deal in bombing and murder can't be touched by revenge killers. but they can get you and be labeled "Terrorists".
Also, class distinction is alive and well. A certain Lord was imprisoned for the crime of (I believe), of Perjury. He can sit in the lords voting on things that effect me.
Another lord, Sir Lester Piggot, a working class lad and famous jockey was done for tax evasion. his title was stripped, and he is now plain mister. we can't have jumped up working class people breaking the law, can we.

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, but peerages are different to knighthoods, and you can't be stripped of a peerage. Members of your feared upper class who are convicted of crimes are routinely stripped of knighthoods too. If you want to complain about peerages then go ahead, but at least get your facts straight.

The reason that I posted the original article about "Terrorists" was that I read in these pages that they couldn't be blamed for blowing us up. All I did was to explain why they do it and whom was responsible.
By all means block or delete my article. it won't effect me, and I will not be offended. that is what Hitler did, when he burnt the books written by interlectuals and Jews. So I will be in good company

Umm, I've never suggested that your posts were going to be blocked or deleted.

I'm sorry lads, I forgot to mention my comments about the Country being taken over by Asians.
I was only repeating what a bearded Muslim told us on a televsion programme. He said that this Country will soon be a Muslim Country. Surely, If I repeat what he said, that wouldn't make me a Racist, would it?

Just a few points:
- Asians and Muslims are not the same.
- It's not racist for anyone to say this country will become or is becoming a Muslim country, because Muslims are not a race. However it is just wrong.
- It isn't racist per se to say that this country is being taken over by Asians, although again it'd be wrong. However in my experience it is typically followed up with something actually racist.

[DaveC]

I'm of the opinion that it is very difficult to offend someone, it is only possible for them to make the choice to become offended. Much of how people respond to things is simply a learned response, copied off other people or acting the same as they did last time. They want to be offended it's up to them. Offence caused by racist words is I think also a learned response, but it is probably beyond most people to reject the typical response to them.

Never thought about that how people are suddenly not offended if the vowels are starred out, it makes no sense but is probably also because they've learned not to be.

My top usage slightly naughty words are bollocks and bastard. I tend to filter out anything a bit naughty in front of children because that's almost certainly in line with the parents wishes, it is no for me to say how their kids are to be brought up. Teenagers it is different, they are already familiar with swear words and have them in common usage, so there's nothing to stop the rest of us using them too.

No filtering necessary I say.

A girl on a tour bus once woke me up to call me an arsehole. I went "A small part of me is yes.... you cunt", then went back to sleep.

DC

[George Jenkins]

Dear me lads, I am amazed at the number of misinterpretations that you have made about what I thought was a perfectly simple explanation, of why only a certain SECTION of the population are targeted by the bombers. I thought that I had made it clear, it was because it was easy to do. The bombers can't get into downing street, but it is easy to blow up office girls etc, in trains and crowded places. they can't get at the president of the U.S.A., but they can fly Jets into sky scrapers to kill office workers. My Nephew was on a visit back here when it happened. His computer business was destroyed of course, and all his Staff were killed.

I made a mistake of describing myself as part of a CLASS of people whom were likely to be targeted by revenge attacks. It was nothing to do with a mythical present day class war, and as for blaming middle and upper class contributors to this forum, as being comparable to rogue Bankers, blimey! I didn't know that we had any, and I am impressed. The only people I have mentioned are Blair (with the cheesy grin, and I regret to say that I voted Labour)) and Bush, whom can't string two words together without help. I believe those two are responsible for our present day bombings. I had so many complaints, I can't remember all of them, so apologies for all hackles raised. Was it you Charlie, whom gave me a lecture on Peers and Lords? I didn't know all that, so thank you. It is now 01.53 and now I'm off to bed. Goodnight all.

[Martin Gardner]

Admittedly talking about race on a forum like this is always highly dangerous, so if this gets locked or deleted I won't complain. There was that American lecturer that said that black people had a lower average IQ over a large sample than white people do. I don't think that is that ridiculous. On the other hand, which are the better athletes? Nice time the 100m Olympic Final takes place, count the number of white people in it. And my personal favourite example is that black players were not allowed to compete in Major League Baseball until 1947 when the infamous Jackie Robinson took the field. Pretty much since then, an enormous amount of the Hall of Fame inductees have been black. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente. Need I go on?

I think the reason that people tend to take offence at claims like "white people have higher average IQ than black people" (which is objectively true, apparently) is that it is often used to imply that white people are smarter than black people, which is dangerous for two reasons:

1) IQ tests were defined exclusively by white people, so it's not obvious that the tests are good measures of general intelligence, just like it an intelligence test designed by Chinese psychologists would not necessarily be a good metric for Western ideas of intelligence.

2) even if it were true that an average white person were cleverer than an average black person, this fact would probably be used to discriminate against black people on an individual basis, which is obviously bollocks.

One could make the reverse argument for sports stars: maybe black people tend to excel at sport because they have (or had) fewer opportunities to be successful in more conventional careers. This may or may not be true, but it certainly is true that black people do have some biological differences which might be advantageous in sport.

So the point is, meritocracy is great and everything else is just gay.

I think IQ tests are very narrow and not very helpful anyway. But my instincts tell me that just as women have parental instincts then men don't have, for blatantly obvious reasons, it's at least plausible that African* people are generally better athletes; faster, more endurance, etc. I don't think it's just conditioning.

*As a specific example

[Martin Gardner]

All generalisations are false.

[Ben Wilson]

All generalisations are false.

For the millionth time, stop exaggerating!

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm of the opinion that it is very difficult to offend someone, it is only possible for them to make the choice to become offended. Much of how people respond to things is simply a learned response, copied off other people or acting the same as they did last time. They want to be offended it's up to them.

Reminds me of a Susie Dent discussion a few years ago! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Martin Gardner]

I'm of the opinion that it is very difficult to offend someone, it is only possible for them to make the choice to become offended. Much of how people respond to things is simply a learned response, copied off other people or acting the same as they did last time. They want to be offended it's up to them. Offence caused by racist words is I think also a learned response, but it is probably beyond most people to reject the typical response to them.

I think you're half right, maybe 75%. I think everyone (virtually) has some moral standards, and yeah there are several things I try and bear in mind when I read/hear something. Such as, is the person trying to offend me? Is it worth getting upset about? Sometimes it is, maybe if it's something that goes on at your workplace and the workplace is small enough you can deal with the problem.

But I think that most of the time if you try and take stuff in the spirit it was intended, or just brush it off because it's some wanker who doesn't know what he's talking about, then there's no reason to be upset for more than about 5 seconds.

[Andy Clews]

In the words of the BBC, "Have Your Say." Joseph

I voted for option 2, so I'm in the vast majority. I prefer not to see obscenities or expletives in written communications because they rarely add anything useful to what the poster has to say, and I wouldn't encourage them but nor would I want to stop people from using them. My personal preference is to "keep it clean" when I write, but in verbal communications with friends I will sometimes cuss with the best of them. An internationally-renowned (but now sadly late) professor of biology at my place of employment had a fantastic mind but could swear like a trooper when he wanted to, so swearing doesn't necessarily mean that the user is ignorant or uneducated

[Rosemary Roberts]

This dicsussion has dichotomised itself, as such discussions always do. Obscenity and bigotry seem to me to be in no way related: they are not even two sides of the same coin. I have stated my views on swearing, namely that I approve. I also consider that obscenity and profanity are useful and harmless, but I do object to bigotry. Not that I think the forum should (or could) do anything to suppress it.

All generalisations are false.

Here I think the problem is the point at which a (true or false) generalisation - "women are good at looking after babies" - leads to a (true or false) conclusion - "and therefore there is no point in giving them an education" - which then quite rapidly becomes prejudice - "women cannot understand science" - and then bigotry - "it is wicked to teach girls to read". (Pace Kevin: I'm dragging in sexism here because if I use a racist analogy some fool or government department will jump on me.)

The human race needs generalisation - it's the first mechanism that babies use to learn about the world. We do need to beware of false conclusions and oversimplification, but railing at people who think that blacks are good at sports really doesn't help.

[Charlie Reams]

This dicsussion has dichotomised itself, as such discussions always do. Obscenity and bigotry seem to me to be in no way related: they are not even two sides of the same coin. I have stated my views on swearing, namely that I approve. I also consider that obscenity and profanity are useful and harmless, but I do object to bigotry. Not that I think the forum should (or could) do anything to suppress it.

All generalisations are false.

Here I think the problem is the point at which a (true or false) generalisation - "women are good at looking after babies" - leads to a (true or false) conclusion - "and therefore there is no point in giving them an education" - which then quite rapidly becomes prejudice - "women cannot understand science" - and then bigotry - "it is wicked to teach girls to read". (Pace Kevin: I'm dragging in sexism here because if I use a racist analogy some fool or government department will jump on me.)

The human race needs generalisation - it's the first mechanism that babies use to learn about the world. We do need to beware of false conclusions and oversimplification, but railing at people who think that blacks are good at sports really doesn't help.

Posts like this makes me wish we had a Post Of The Week thing.

[Ben Hunter]

Posts like this makes me wish we had a Post Of The Week thing.

This has been stated a few times. Time to start a post of the week thread...

[Stuart Arnot]

it's at least plausible that African* people are generally better athletes; faster, more endurance, etc. I don't think it's just conditioning.

*As a specific example

I read somewhere that there may be a link between the apparent 'superiority' of African-American and African-Caribbean sportspeople and the slave trade from which they came. The conditions under which they lived made for a high mortality rate, with the outcome that the strongest and most athletic were the most likely to breed. Chinese efforts to produce a thoroughbred Chinese class for athletic success are beginning to bear fruit, and I should imagine that they will come to dominate athletic sports disciplines in this century.

[Martin Gardner]

Well I suppose that generalisations and old wives' tales have some truth in them, which is why they persist. But at the same time you don't want to tar everyone with the same brush - [heavy irony]I'm white, male and British but it doesn't mean I'm racist, sexist and xenophobic.[/heavy irony]

[Kevin Thurlow]

Feel free to bring in sexism as well! And ageism.....

The trouble with comparisons is that they don't work 100 % of the time. "Afro-Caribbeans" tend to run faster than "Europeans", "Europeans" tend to swim faster than "Afro-Caribbeans", and men generally play better chess than women. That doesn't mean (e.g) that all men play better chess than all women (although some weak male players think so!) People under the age of 25 tend to assume everyone over the age of 50 is talking rubbish, whereas those over 50 sigh and say, "Oh well, experience will teach these younsters sense one day..."

But I think I have found one place where predictions based on race etc don't work. Politics. You can't predict from the colour, race, age or sex of a politician how corrupt they will be.

[Rosemary Roberts]

But I think I have found one place where predictions based on race etc don't work. Politics. You can't predict from the colour, race, age or sex of a politician how corrupt they will be.

How true. But do they get more corrupt with age? And do they get more sex with corruption?

[Charlie Reams]

People under the age of 25 tend to assume everyone over the age of 50 is talking rubbish, whereas those over 50 sigh and say, "Oh well, experience will teach these younsters sense one day..."

Rubbish.

[Rosemary Roberts]

People under the age of 25 tend to assume everyone over the age of 50 is talking rubbish, whereas those over 50 sigh and say, "Oh well, experience will teach these younsters sense one day..."

Rubbish.

....Sigh...

[David Williams]

I notice the deadline for this poll is approaching. May I just register how appalled I am going to be by the first half dozen posts after 5:15 and demand action from the moderators.

[Kai Laddiman]

I love the appropriateness of the shape of the chart

[Charlie Reams]

People under the age of 25 tend to assume everyone over the age of 50 is talking rubbish, whereas those over 50 sigh and say, "Oh well, experience will teach these younsters sense one day..."

Rubbish.

....Sigh...

I think an element of irony may have been involved.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Rubbish.

....Sigh...

I think an element of irony may have been involved.

Make that two elements.

[Charlie Reams]

Make that two elements.

Two ironies? OMG mass noun plural!

[Martin Gardner]

Feel free to bring in sexism as well! And ageism.....

The trouble with comparisons is that they don't work 100 % of the time. "Afro-Caribbeans" tend to run faster than "Europeans", "Europeans" tend to swim faster than "Afro-Caribbeans", and men generally play better chess than women. That doesn't mean (e.g) that all men play better chess than all women (although some weak male players think so!) People under the age of 25 tend to assume everyone over the age of 50 is talking rubbish, whereas those over 50 sigh and say, "Oh well, experience will teach these younsters sense one day..."

But I think I have found one place where predictions based on race etc don't work. Politics. You can't predict from the colour, race, age or sex of a politician how corrupt they will be.

I did phrase what I said badly. What I should have said is, that generalisations and stereotypes have some truth behind them (usually) but it doesn't make any sense to put those sort of stereotypes in front of getting to know people, observing them and judging them on them and not general rules. Sort of makes me think about poker; ace-king usually beat two-three, but not always! General rules are fine, and have some merit, but they're a very poor substitute for observing what's actually going on.

[Matt Morrison]

generalisations and stereotypes have some truth behind them (usually) but it doesn't make any sense to put those sort of stereotypes in front of getting to know people, observing them and judging them on them and not general rules. Sort of makes me think about poker; ace-king usually beat two-three, but not always! General rules are fine, and have some merit, but they're a very poor substitute for observing what's actually going on.

I think you might have just stumbled upon an absolutely genius analogy of the troubles with stereotyping by referencing poker. Fantastic idea.

[Charlie Reams]

So polling is closed and one option has more than all the others put together. This is the end of the debate.

Next time someone suggests some kind of censorship/filtering system, I will refer them to this topic. Or maybe just tell them to STFU.

[George Jenkins]

But I think I have found one place where predictions based on race etc don't work. Politics. You can't predict from the colour, race, age or sex of a politician how corrupt they will be.

How true. But do they get more corrupt with age? And do they get more sex with corruption?

Of course they do. Think of John Major and another lady M.P. When they talked about family values, I didn't know they were talking about the bedroom.

[George Jenkins]

Make that two elements.

Two ironies? OMG mass noun plural!

Old people know a lot more than young people, Why, only yesterday, I---er, wait a minute, it might come back to me.

[Phil Reynolds]

who decides which collection of randomly-assorted vowels and consonants is any more offensive than the next? Certainly not the Austrians, that's for sure...

The Wikipedia article made me smile; then I followed the link at the end of it to this Ananova piece which made me laugh uncontrollably for about a minute.

[Charlie Reams]

who decides which collection of randomly-assorted vowels and consonants is any more offensive than the next? Certainly not the Austrians, that's for sure...

The Wikipedia article made me smile; then I followed the link at the end of it to this Ananova piece which made me laugh uncontrollably for about a minute.

"F***ing always attracts a lot of attention in the summer months."

Excellent.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Ok, this is a going to be a bit uncomfortable, and truth be told, it's something I'm not particularly keen to write about, but there is a point of principle involved, so here goes.

Cutting straight to the point, I think one of the mods of c4c (Jack Hurst) has made a poor call regarding a censorship issue, and I'd like to draw attention to why I think it was a poor call, and also to the real reasons why (in my opinion) the censorship action was taken.

You may remember a lively debate from around a week ago on the "...and that's ZoomDown" thread about the word PACKIES. It moved on to a wider discussion around the notion of causing offence, and censorship. In one of my replies, I used the word "niggers". A few members of the Plastic Elvis clique then decided to complain about my use of that word, and persuaded one of the mods here to (wrongly imo) censor the word with asterisks.

Is this really a road that's worth going down? The "Obscenity democracy" thread suggests that when the Plastic Elvis crew approached Jack, he should really have told them to STFU and let that be the end of it.

Next time someone suggests some kind of censorship/filtering system, I will refer them to this topic. Or maybe just tell them to STFU.

Or does this attitude need to be re-evaluated?


There is NO WORD in the English language (including the dreaded N-word) that is so taboo that in cannot be used in any context. There are countless examples online... If you wanna do a cursory search for the n-word, you will find hundreds of thousands of articles, forum posts, etc. that contain the word. Many of these search results will be from highly reputable publications... I found recent articles form The Irish Times, The Mirror UK, The Guardian UK (to name but a few) that use that word. Mostly in a neutral or academic context... but in some cases, quoting racist taunts (which I found to be a veering close to an inappropriate use of the word). Almost none of the online references are as bland or neutral as the contexts in which that word has been used on C4C... i.e. as simply a word that is valid in the dictionary.

And I say "the contexts in which that word has been used on C4C" because that word HAS been used on C4C... many times! If you were to search the forum for "nigger", you would see plenty of examples of the word being used here (mostly) in neutral contexts. What was it Paul A said to me? Oh yes, it was this: "Eoin, you have embarrassed yourself by writing down words in full that nobody else on this site would ever dream of." Well, here for your delectation, is the C4C N-word glory roll:-

Gavin Chipper
Jon Corby
Dinos Sfyris
Matt Morrison
CF Warran
Charlie Reams
Liam Tiernan
Matthew Green
Paul Hammond
Phil Reynolds

Each of these have used 'the-word-that-must-not-be-named' at least once here in the past (the most recent reference being from the year 2020.)

There is one more thing that bothered me about Jack's choice to censor ONE word from my post... He failed to censor other potentially offensive words in the same post (i.e. FAGGOTS, POOF and PAKI). Why is that? Let's for a moment imagine that these words actually ARE innately offensive to the minority groups involved, regardless of context. Why pick and choose which minority it's ok to offend? There are plenty of gay people in the Countdown community, and a few of Asian ethnicity... but hardly any black people. Is this a case of Jack subconsciously othering black people, because that is what it looks like.

I have been discussing this a lot with people in real life, because I find the whole thing fascinating, and wanted to hear other opinions... including from those who I would consider to be typical SJWs and members of the wokerati (And in the Youth Centre I work in, people with that mindset are abundant!) There are very few who agree that Jack's decision was a good one. We have a v smart girl on work placement with us at the moment. Her name is Angel. Because she's black, I thought she might have an interesting take on all of this. Yeah, she was perplexed that people saw use of the word in that particular context offensive. So much so, she suggested there had to be other motivations behind the censorship. She concluded " I think that was the Plastic Elvises being dicks because they just lost an argument." ...and I tend to agree with that fine analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR - I would like to overrule a decision made by one of the mods last week, by going into one of my posts and editing it to undo the censorship.
Is this ok with TPTB of the forum?

[Marc Meakin]

Just be thankful that you are not part of the Scrabble community, particularly in the US as they are about to remove all slur words from its lexicon.
I can see some merits in doing this to make the game more child friendly but unlike Countdown you am allow any word to remain on the board if its placement can benefit you
The African and Pakistan Scrabble asocciations didn't find slur words offensive, particularly the N word.

But I digress.
It is not the word but how it is used and I have no problem with any word being used

[Fiona T]

Yeah I reported your post. I received a notification that the report was closed. I looked at the post and no action was taken.

My problem wasn't that no action was taken - a decision I was prepared to accept - it was that the moderator had not dropped me a line to say why they thought the post should stand - a link to this very thread would have done the job.

As for "Plastic Elvises being dicks" there was no orchestrated campaign to get your post censored. I seriously have no idea if anyone else reported it.

I had a wee rant to Paul about the lack of courtesy in communicating the thinking behind a moderation decision (having been a forum moderator, I always took the time to communicate moderation decisions to the complainee), just in the manner of letting off steam (the way one does). He said he'd speak to Jack - I said not to - he presumably did and it seems that the decision then got reviewed. I agree that censoring N***** without P*** is daft - both are extremely offensive and have no place.

-----
OK - Have just checked our chat - verbatim - if that's "Plastic Elvises being dicks" then so be it.

me: "I have no problem with him closing it - but a sentence to say why would have been good"

Paul: "I’ll have a word"

me: "nah leave it - the content reflects badly on one person only"

-----

A view I still hold.

[Fiona T]

Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.

Probs worth quoting.

Yeah I've just noticed that the previous posts in this thread are over ten years old. Attitudes can and do change, and most people today accept that those extremely racist terms should be used with extreme caution, or ideally not at all.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.

Probs worth quoting.

Yeah I've just noticed that the previous posts in this thread are over ten years old. Attitudes can and do change, and most people today accept that those extremely racist terms should be used with extreme caution, or ideally not at all.

So you actually are cheerleading for selective censorship on C4C?
Would you like the moderators to introduce a system whereby the N-word is censored to asterisks by default. What other words would you like put on the naughty list. Extreme racist terms = bad. How about extreme homo/transphobic terms, extreme ageist terms, extreme fat-shaming terms, extremely vulgar terms etc.?

I don't think the policy here should be changed to suit Fiona and Paul.

[Fiona T]

As I said I was happy to accept the decision to leave the post uncensored - my annoyance was the lack of communication of the reason for that decision.

But yeah, I'd happily see the n word and p word automatically starred - but that's just my view. If you want to make a case for other offensive terms, then go for it.

[Ian Volante]

What's this plastic Elvises thing? Sounds like a way to discriminate against a bunch of people to me.

As for the N word or otherwise, I'd like to think that generally, people wouldn't use it at all, but that there are probably contexts in which is has validity. And going back to the general tenor of the thread, we as intelligent adults should be able to trust each other to understand where that line is.