Forum menu
m suggesting that your slight awkwardness about what to call a black person isn't really a big deal
I don't disagree, in the grand scheme of things. But then, I never said it was.
the current 'PC gone mad' situation is largely a great improvement on the past.
Well. Thinking about what you're saying (and thinking about what you're thinking) is a good thing. Getting legged up unintentionally because you've accidentally used a word that's taboo this week doesn't help anyone.
To be fair using the 'wrong' word can be easily remedied
Naif: Anyway so this coloured guy comes up to me...
Pauline: Don't say coloured, it's no longer acceptable. You should say Pink
Naif: Really? I didn't know that.
Naif: Anyway so this Pink guy comes up to me..
Pauline:That's better, now shall we go and have sex?
She must really struggle with every day life if this outrages her that much.
Either that or she lacks the intellect to express herself.
Great FAIL in that Daily Fail article right at the start:
The Dambusters dog N****r will be renamed Digger
Somewhat amusing self-censoring...
To be fair using the 'wrong' word can be easily remedied
If only that were true.
Naif: Anyway so this coloured guy comes up to me...
Pauline: Don't say coloured, it's no longer acceptable. You should say Pink
Naif: Really? I didn't know that.
Naif: Anyway so this Pink guy comes up to me..
Jennifer: Pink? You can't say 'pink,' we prefer the term 'melanin challenged'
Naif: Oh, er, right. So, this melanin challenged guy...
Dave: Melanin challenged? What the hell are you on about?
Naif: Well, er, differently pigmented?
Dave: Why didn't you say so? We say 'coloured' these days. Racist.
Naif: Oh FFS.
Vaguely amusing examples aside, the problem with all this (and I'll grant you, it's a relatively small problem) is that it makes communication difficult. What's acceptable today isn't acceptable tomorrow because the goalposts keep moving, and for those of us who don't want to cause unintentional offence we end up walking on eggshells whenever we say anything.
The way I understand it 'coloured' may cause offense because it gives the impression the white is the starting point for everyone else to be compared to.
Haven't phrased that very well but I haven't had a cup of tea yet 😥
Well. Thinking about what you're saying (and thinking about what you're thinking) is a good thing.
Is this not the whole point of so called PC? It seems you agree with it at heart.
Getting legged up unintentionally because you've accidentally used a word that's taboo this week doesn't help anyone.
But then you seem to find it a bit tricky when a handful of words barely anyone uses happen to change in usage. These kind of changes tend to happen over decades, rather than days.
The way I understand it 'coloured' may cause offense because it gives the impression the white is the starting point for everyone else to be compared to.
But if a black person refers to a white person as 'white' it could just as equally be argued that they are using black as the starting point for everyone else to be compared to.
Come on guys. Can we all not, like....y,know.... get along. Like...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
mastiles_fanylion - Member"The way I understand it 'coloured' may cause offense because it gives the impression the white is the starting point for everyone else to be compared to."
But if a black person refers to a white person as 'white' it could just as equally be argued that they are using black as the starting point for everyone else to be compared to.
No, that would be 'uncoloured'
The way I understand it 'coloured' may cause offense because it gives the impression the white is the starting point for everyone else to be compared to
Oh, that's a stretch. The starting point, assuming that's even relevant, would presumably be the colour of the speaker, not the 'superior colour.' Would I be offended if a darker-skinned gentleman referred to me as 'colourless'? Probably not but (sorry to keep banging the same drum) it depends on context and intent. Calling me a hatstand could be an insult if it's delivered in a particular manner.
But then you seem to find it a bit tricky when a handful of words barely anyone uses happen to change in usage. These kind of changes tend to happen over decades, rather than days.
So you're saying the preferred terms are (sorry) black and white? I don't agree. I was chastised for saying "black" and told to say "coloured" instead. So I did, and someone else told me off for saying "coloured" so I used "brown" instead, and got told off again for being facetious. "Asian" seems safe, but confuses Americans who think I mean Chinese. ****stani is less ambiguous, but coming from a white man it sounds a little too close to someone who really wants to say "****" instead, and in any case is inappropriate to describe those who were born in this country and are British. So now we're into things like "person of ****stani descent" which is a bit like saying "person with Y chromosome" when you mean "man."
As an aside, I do wonder how many of these 'non-PC' terms actually cause offence, and how many are down to the jerking knees of middle-class white people.
We're in danger of getting as PC as some parts of the US, where saying Oriental is racially offensive (the poor Americans, bless 'em, don't know the term is very widely use by the orientals in the orient). You can't call oriental races yellow skinned because they aren't yellow. Americans haven't figured out that whites aren't white either, and the vast majority of blacks aren't anywhere near black.
The way I understand it 'coloured' may cause offense because it gives the impression the white is the starting point
But if a black person refers to a white person as 'white' it could just as equally be argued that they are using black as the starting point for everyone else to be compared to.
No, that would be 'uncoloured'
Oh for goodness sake, can't we agree that people with African heritage should be called "dark" ? ......it seems pleasant enough.
When I was a kid one of my mate's Irish mother would always use the term "my country cousins" to describe dark skinned people, which was nice.
Black is the preferred term.
EG National Black Police Association, Music of Black Origin, Black History Month
"Asian" seems safe, but confuses Americans who think I mean Chinese. ****stani is less ambiguous, but coming from a white man it sounds a little too close to someone who really wants to say "****" instead, and in any case is inappropriate to describe those who were born in this country and are British. So now we're into things like "person of ****stani descent" which is a bit like saying "person with Y chromosome" when you mean "man."
South Asian.
can't we agree that people with African heritage should be called "dark"
Are you channelling Alf Garnet?
Black is the preferred term.
Asian / Indian / ****stani people aren't black any more than they're white. People of afro-caribbean descent are black. I suppose they all look alike though, eh?
South Asian.
We're going to need their postcodes next. Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea!
Are you Alf Garnet?
Why.........have you got something against West Ham Jewish supporters ?
one of my mate's Irish mother would always use the term "my country cousins" to describe dark skinned people, which was nice.
Country cousins? Last ones down from the trees? Eh? EH? Racist.
(-:
Why.........have you got something against West Ham Jewish supporters ?
I thought the Jewish didn't like ham irrespective of its geographical bias?
[url= http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/06/12/dam-busters-dog-renamed-****face-for-movie-remake/ ]THE FINAL WORD[/url]
That last link 404's (probably due to STW's filters).
Here's a [url= http://tinyurl.com/6kjhws4 ]TinyURL[/url] link instead. (NSFW warning, contains words that some people may find offensive.)
Whoopsie.
Cheers Cougar.
Country cousins? Last ones down from the trees? Eh? EH? Racist.
Last ones down from the trees ? .........what nasty thoughts you have Cougar 🙁
I think "country cousins" is a lovely term, in conjures up the image of someone a bit different but still part of your family. It's folksy, pleasant, and harmless.
They're not really my thoughts (of course), I'm simply highlighting that it's very easy to see offence where none is intended.
I do think it sounds a bit condescending though, TBH. Those rural hicks, as opposed to us civilised folks. But in context, who knows.
"Black is the preferred term."Asian / Indian / ****stani people aren't black any more than they're white. People of afro-caribbean descent are black. I suppose they all look alike though, eh?
If there's something every debate needs it's someone being deliberately obtuse. Today that's you, congrats.
"South Asian."We're going to need their postcodes next. Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea!
Well the way I figure it is how people define themselves, maybe they should defer to you in future?
If there's something every debate needs it's someone being deliberately obtuse. Today that's you, congrats.
Hey thanks! And, well done to you for noticing the blindly bloody obvious and ignoring the rest of the paragraph (you know, the bit where the actual point was). Have a biscuit.
What I was getting at, in case you missed it, is that you can't just group all non-white people together as "black." There's a large ethnic diversity that you've just thrown into one big pot there.
Well the way I figure it is how people define themselves, maybe they should defer to you in future?
Two things here,
1) I'm not psychic. If all of the Asian communit(y/ies) got together and agreed on a term, then said "well, we've all had a chat, and we'd like to be referred to as Elbonians from now on" then I'd use it happily, deliriously, with a spring in my step and joy in my heart. But it seems that what's acceptable changes from month to month, and I suspect the people instigating the changes are over-paranoid white people.
2) Do people from India, say, actually refer to themselves as "South Asian" when prompted? In my nearly 40 years on this planet, I don't recall ever hearing that used to describe a demographic, either first- or third-hand, ever.
I might come back to this later and set people straight, but then again, I might not.
Pends how I feel really.
Cougar; keep up the good work. You're on top form. And you do it for free! 😆
But it seems that what's acceptable changes from month to month, and I suspect the people instigating the changes are over-paranoid white people.
i)Do the Black Police Association change their name every month?
ii)South Asian Health Foundation, South Asian Bride Magazine, South Asian Cinema Foundatin, Himal Southasian Magazine, loads more if you google 'South Asian'.
I might come back to this later and set people straight
I hope I haven't been presumptuous! I've used it in conversation and haven't been punched/corrected so far...
Lifer, I must confess, my exposure to "South Asian Bride Magazine" has thus far been fairly limited so I can only bow to your superior expertise in this field.
After reading your posts I am, however, confused as to why they don't rename themselves to be "Black Bride Magazine."
Do people from India, say, actually refer to themselves as "South Asian" when prompted?
Probably not. Do you as a Brit refer to yourself as Western European? I suspect, when speaking in English, people from ****stan would, unsurprisingly, call themselves ****stanis. They may even shorten this to "****", same as you might British to "Brit".
You cannot cause offence - the person has to elect to be offended. Admittedly some words may make this choice inherently easier, but it is still the listener's choice: [i]cf[/i]. "slut", "queer", and surprisingly enough, "****".
Now, back to the point in hand, what will they transmit by Morse Code when they breach the Mohne Dam?
You cannot cause offence - the person has to elect to be offended
\o/
what will they transmit by Morse Code when they breach the Mohne Dam?
-.. ..- -.-. -.-
Probably not. Do you as a Brit refer to yourself as Western European? I suspect, when speaking in English, people from ****stan would, unsurprisingly, call themselves ****stanis. They may even shorten this to "****", same as you might British to "Brit".
Oh, we're talking about nationality now?
-.. ..- -.-. -.-
Quack?
Lifer - MemberIf there's something every debate needs it's someone being deliberately obtuse. Today that's you, congrats.
🙄
Do people from India, say, actually refer to themselves as "South Asian" when prompted? In my nearly 40 years on this planet, I don't recall ever hearing that used to describe a demographic, either first- or third-hand, ever
I've used it a lot. Mostly when talking to Americans, because to them Asian means Oriental. They typically call South Asians 'Indian' IME or even worse 'Hindu'
You cannot cause offence - the person has to elect to be offended
RUB BISH!
-.. ..- -.-. -.-
DUCK ????
RUB BISH!
You could call me a *ing * * *wit, with all the malice in the world, but unless I chose to be offended, it would not be offensive to me. So no, not rubbish.
You could call me a *ing * * *wit, with all the malice in the world, but unless I chose to be offended, it would not be offensive to me. So no, not rubbish
This is true, a for this very reason, rape is also a trumped up artificial charge.
Ooh, back of the net with that one, Mung-Bean. I think that put's that argument well and truly to bed. Game over.
🙄
You could call me a *ing * * *wit, with all the malice in the world, but unless I chose to be offended, it would not be offensive to me. So no, not rubbish
That reminds me of my favourite Sean Lock quote.
"I'd rather be told to **** off by someone who meant it, than be told to have a nice day by someone who didn't"
Amen to that 🙂
This 'I choose to be offended' stuff is abdicating responsibility.
for this very reason, rape is also a trumped up artificial charge.
Impeccable logic there Charlie. After all I'm sure most victims aren't really offended by being raped, just some choose to be for some odd reason. It's political correctness gorn mad I tell you. 🙄