[Closed] Is it just me or is this place boring?

What conclusions are we to draw from this?

That you want us to moderate and delete any opinions we disagree with? Yeah, that'll go down well, and encourage lively discussions. I can imaging my inbox now, you wouldn't believe the amount of crap some people send us when we ban them.

Or that you think that the best way of correcting things like prejudice is to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist, rather than debate those views and perhaps have them realigned during the discourse, educate a few people.

How am I doing?

[i]*heads off to delete all the football and cricket threads*[/i]

I cant believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this crap. 🙄

Fine, Cougar.

Fear, fear is the key. People where I live fear the Roms because when they arrive the things they fear start happening. Prejudice is based on fear and when there are good reasons to be afraid I'm not going to criticise people for being prejudiced. Some [url= http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/09/28/01016-20120928ARTFIG00751-marseille-ils-ont-chasse-des-roms-et-s-en-expliquent.php/0?cmtpage=10 ]take matters into their own hands[/url] when attempts at a pact with the Roms fail.

Fear influences peoples habits and thus the economy, it only takes a few pick pockets to cut tourist revenues. My own choices include not owning a vehicle that the local Roms will view as a free source of spare parts or an easy sale somewhere abroad. That means I'll never buy another new van of the type they favour. I don't go to local village festivals because the Roms go and trouble follows - a police officer's son was killed in a local village a couple of years back by a traveler from the local camp. I can't shelter in churches anymore because the house of God is now invariably locked because of this [url= http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/region/la-surete-du-nord-interpelle-une-vingtaine-de-roms-pour-jna0b0n1111561 ]400 police needed to recover stolen religious objects[/url]

This is just the stuff that amazes me about the mods, the racism / prejudice that is being spouted here is beyond debate, yet the mods let it roll

I agree with Cougar, driving people's prejudiced, offensive (to some) views underground achieves nothing other than justifying the "PC gone mad" line. Better to have it in the open and a free debate. I'm surprised (in a good way) at the common sense line the mods have taken on this thread, and to be honest, I'm also surprised (in a good way) with the way the debate has been conducted on all sides (so far).

I'd rather racism was out in the open so I can challenge it than lurking in dark corners, festering away.

We used to have an expression as kids, "sticks and stones may break our bones but names can never hurt us".

The point I was trying to make, was that there should be no harm in using terms such as 'Pikey' to josh with each other in ironic banter without getting banned for it.

i.e. suggesting for instance that say Hora was being a bit 'pikey' in some humorous situation.

This came about because of the original suggestion that the forum was becoming boring precisely in the way that this thread has developed, in that the PC brigade weigh in with their 'offended sensibilities' and go into long diatribes as to how name calling is racist in virtually any circumstance.

I've made my position, I have no respect whatsoever for the 'Travelling Community' and reserve the right to call them names and if that means that under law I should now be locked up then so be it, just as well I am anonymous.

So that must also mean calling Scots Jocks, Irish Paddy, Welsh Taffy, and every other light humoured name calling falls within exactly the same categorisation, so if the mods were ever to let them get their way, then the place would be very boring, then no-one would come then the problem would be over.

You need different opinions to create discussion, but it's a sad day when folk are banned for them at the hue and cry of others, what happened to Nigel Farage in Scotland yesterday an exact example of lack of tolerance actually verging on racism if you think about it.

I wonder if it's because this place has a high percentage of Scottish posters, are they more intolerant than Southerners I wonder, are we Southerners more casually racist without realising it, who knows, but it does make the place interesting just as long as it is allowed to continue and one group prevented from dominating as they appear to be at the moment.

I've said enough on the subject and will try and bow out now before I do actually 'offend' anyone for real.

This has all become very negative. What it needs are some positive, uplifting stories about traveling folk, to debunk the myths and expose this racism (fascism? or is that too far?) for what it is! Finally!

Has anyone got any links, or can just recount some positive personal experiences about them helping old ladies across the road, rescuing kittens from trees? Or their many charitable works in the wider community.

Has anyone got any links, or can just recount some positive personal experiences about them helping old ladies across the road

Johnny Depp. Chocolat. Nuff said.

[img] [/img]

Now stop being racist everyone!

heads off to delete all the football and cricket threads

in that the PC brigade weigh in with their 'offended sensibilities'

very other light humoured name calling

perhaps i can send you to a gang area of america and we laugh as you light heartedly use the n word to them

Cheers Camo. I felt positive it couldn't [i]all [/i] be this cliched nonsense about their propensity for breaking into sheds, fly-tipping, ripping off old ladies for shoddy tarmacking, robbing peoples vans or curling one off in the middle of public footpaths.

There's always 2 sides eh?

Yes, Binners, it's true - factual evidence also of guitar riffing on quiet French rivers whilst wooing a Binoche. Well-rounded coverage of the traveller community, that.

i.e. suggesting for instance that say Hora was being a bit 'pikey' in some humorous situation.

You're deliberately not getting it, and you still haven't explained how using "pikey" pejoratively is any different to using any other racial epithet. I'm assuming that you wouldn't think it was acceptable to accuse hora of "acting like a ****", would you? Could you explain why you think there is a difference? As I've posted a number of times now, you're assertion that being a member of the Irish traveller community is a "lifestyle choice" is absurd and factually wrong.

This came about because of the original suggestion that the forum was becoming boring precisely in the way that this thread has developed, in that the PC brigade weigh in with their 'offended sensibilities' and go into long diatribes as to how name calling is racist in virtually any circumstance.

So, you complain that you might not be able to post something that others might find offensive, but you don't think people should be able to post a contrary view and challenge you when you are allowed to? That seems a bit contradictory.

You need different opinions to create discussion, but it's a sad day when folk are banned for them at the hue and cry of others

You seem to be looking for a problem that doesn't exist. You've posted a number of things that some of us disagree with. Those posts are still there. You are still here. The people who object to what you have said have stated their objections. It's a debate. No one seems to have been banned. As far as I'm aware no posts have been removed (and if any were going to be, my Shakoor Rana one would probably be higher up the list than any of your "pikey" comments). Not sure what the problem seems to be, unless you were hoping to get banned so you could consider yourself a martyr to political correctness?

Junkyard - lazarus

I will chip in for the taxi fare..

Would you be so kind?

Thanks, 70 quid should do it, I wonder if you could send it, Cougar will have the address just as soon as he's finished cleaning the bike he's going to send me...

I'll let you know how I get on, honest guv, could do your drive as well whilst i"m at it, I've got some tarmac left over from another job...

I've worked with quite a few traveller kids at the community centre where I work and they've been perfectly friendly and polite and haven't nicked anything. Unlike some of the other kids.

Yup, we live in a bourgeois part of town with a model primary school. The authorities thought it the ideal place to send the children from traveling families. The families took an active interest in the school including a gypsy music concert at the school fête. I bought their CD as I'll support any way they have of making money legally.

It was great for my son's education too. He learned never to leave his jacket unattended or it would disappear, only to lend things to kids that gave them back. To bring things home rather than leave them in his desk. That cheap stuuf is less likely to be nicked than nice stuff.

It gave me the opportunity to get to know the headmistress too. I had to remind her of French law and that fining all the kids when school property was stolen was illegal.

edlong - Member
Could you explain why you think there is a difference?

Because the term **** as well as being the description of an oil paint pigment, was an extremely unpleasant word to describe black people, black people will always be black, colour cannot be changed, being a 'Traveller' is a lifestyle choice and something not immediately apparent about a person, nobody has to be a Traveller, black folk have no choice, neither do short people, but that doesn't stop them being called dwarves though does it?

I miss Jamie
and TSY

They were proper funny blokes with good taste in music and good bicycle riders (Well TSY is, Jamie probably.)

Can't imagine for the life of me what they could have done to offend anyone so far as getting banned for it.

(Probably out of context with where this thread has gone, but it looked pretty boring from what I could see)

Jimmers isn't baned DezzieBee 🙁

He just doesn't love us no more.

being a 'Traveller' is a lifestyle choice

No. No it isn't. I've already explained this a number of times and quoted case law on it. Being born into a travelling family, part of a travelling community, one that is ostracised by pretty much all of the rest of our society is not a lifestyle choice, it is their ethnic origin. People who are born into Irish traveller families but end up living in houses will, in my experience, still identify as Irish Traveller when asked their ethnicity, same as a Polish, ****stani or Ethiopian immigrants will still identify as such regardless of whether they've married into a white, English household.

Changing their lifestyle / living arrangements does not change who they are, or where they came from. You just might not notice that they are Irish Traveller stock if you don't see them living in a caravan / fighting in pub / stealing / whatever other behaviour reinforces your prejudices.

Skin pigmentation is but one indicator of ethnic difference.

Irish is an ethnicity, irish traveller is not. It's not necessarily a lifestyle choice, but it's certainly not an ethnicity.

The law disagrees wrecker.

So, whitegoodman - previous forum name please.

But some of the travelers in My Big Fat Gypsey Wedding lived in caaaaaaaahncil Haaaaaaaaaaarses. What do we have to call them then? We can't call them chavs, even though there were a lot of tracky bottoms and gold sovereign rings in evidence, as that's even more offensive. Householders perhaps? People?

And some of them seemed to live in Strangeways, periodically. What do we call them then? They definitely weren't doing any traveling then

Its all [b]SO[/b] confusing

[i]Jimmers isn't banned DezzieBee

He just doesn't love us no more[/i]

Cheers for that. Can't say I blame him 🙂

What's racist and what's not. Now [i]that's[/i] boring!

The law disagrees wrecker.

wrecker, I think you're confusing ethnicity and nationality there mate.

To be fair, there are plenty of debates in more serious fora than this around defining ethnicity, but Wikipedia's got it pretty close to a working definition I'm happy with:

Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality. Ethnicity can, but does not have to, include common ancestry, appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions, or other cultural factor. Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups.

In my view (and the law agrees with me on this), Irish Travellers qualify. You will also find that most ethnic monitoring (e.g. those forms you tick a box on when you apply for a job) will include Irish Traveller as an option.

When I've taught in schools it's true that even second and third generation immigrant kids still identify themselves as Indian, Algerian or whatever, Edlong. Some had also gone "western" in attitudes and language and fitted in no problem. Some, however, spoke amongst themselves in their second language, evolved within their ethnic group and had a more confrontational attitude towards me. BTW if ever you teach kids that speak another language the first words of that language you hear and learn are the insults.

colour cannot be changed, being a [s]'Traveller'[/s]gay is a lifestyle choice and something not immediately apparent about a person, nobody has to be a [s]Traveller[/s]gayer,

Goes of to start thread on this feeling free to get the abuse out as it is a lifestyle choice 🙄

Gypsy is legally a race they cannot stop being a gypsy you know this because people keep telling you this

binners

They're still Irish travellers, if they live in a house, just as you can live in England and still be African. It's their identity, not merely a description of their habitation arrangements. I can appreciate how that's not intuitive from the words, though.

Some had also gone "western" in attitudes and language and fitted in no problem.

What sort iof cultural supremacy is this you are approving of ? the ones who become like you are ok?

Some, however, spoke amongst themselves in their second language, evolved within their ethnic group

You are in France arent you speaking to British folk about Britain ..can you not assimilate or something - Oh the irony

BTW if ever you teach kids that speak another language the first words of that language you hear and learn are the insults.

it was not the first words I learnt

Did you have a bad teacher, too?

😉

In that case 'travelers' is a rubbish name, and they should have thought it through more thoroughly before settling on it. This wouldn't have happened if they'd employed some management consultants, or even the odd focus group. Its just lazy!

No, not just you Kevkevs, this place IS boring.

Calling them 'people' binners? What a bizarre concept. 🙂

Did you have a bad teacher, too?

Some, however, spoke amongst themselves in their second language, evolved within their ethnic group and had a more confrontational attitude towards me

Was it ONLY the immigrant kids that were confrontational towards their teachers?

I cannot believe how people are trying to argue about prejudice from a position of prejudice.. it's staggering. Get a grip people, some properly disgraceful attitudes on display.

But some of the travelers in My Big Fat Gypsey Wedding lived in caaaaaaaahncil Haaaaaaaaaaarses.

And one of them (in the episode I watched) had a regular job and didn't want his customers to know he was a traveller.

edlong - Member
being a 'Traveller' is a lifestyle choice
No. No it isn't. I've already explained this a number of times and quoted case law on it. Being born into a travelling family, part of a travelling community, one that is ostracised by pretty much all of the rest of our society is not a lifestyle choice, it is their ethnic origin. People who are born into Irish traveller families but end up living in houses will, in my experience, still identify as Irish Traveller when asked their ethnicity

In your experience? What is that then, you go round asking them do you? Nobody asked me, part of my family were Romany a while back I don't identify myself as a traveller. Travellers that 'go to brick' their expression not mine, cease to be 'Travellers' they're in the community, pay council tax, have their bins collected, their waste disposed of in a sanitary fashion rather than leaving it by the side of the road or in someone elses garden, it's also wrong to label all Travellers Irish, that is a sweeping generalisation, if you lived where I live you'd realise, but you don't, my town is full of gypsies from all over Europe.

The law as it currently stands was varied by people like you, bleeding heart liberals who don't happen to have a yard full of them living next door, London Metrosexuals, Cherie Blair and the like, they're gone now and you wonder why bloody UKIP is on the rise..

I have to go, it'll be Goodwin next and I have work to do..

there should be no harm in using terms such as 'Pikey' to josh with each other in ironic banter without getting banned for it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

There [i]should[/i] be no harm in using those terms. Unfortunately, society would dictate that there is. So like it or not, if you use those terms people are probably going to interpret it as prejudice, because they're generally intended to be pejorative when used. Try and use "****" or "faggot" ironically and see how far you get.

The one that always staggers me is "****". It's a contraction of a country, the same as Pole or Scot. If ever there was a word that should be safe to use, it's that. But it isn't, its usage has been corrupted by rampant 80s racism.

Words are funny things. To my mind, intent is far more important than language. Compare, as a random example, "wow, that shirt is a bit gay" and "you're gay and all your lot should be round up and shot." The former arguably [i]could [/i]be viewed as homophobic, but it really isn't; in that context it's implying that your choice of attire is perhaps a little effeminate, there's no malice intended. The latter, well, should speak for itself.

I try and take this approach in moderation (and I'm speaking purely personally here rather than as representative of the team). I've seen this thrown back to us as "inconsistency" - people complaining that others get away with stuff they've had warnings or bans for - but I try to look at context and intent rather than blindly pulling the trigger every time someone says a controversial word.

Not that I'm saying this now gives you all carte blanche to call each other names "ironically" or otherwise push the boundaries and take the proverbial; this is just my opinion, not policy.

Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality. Ethnicity can, but does not have to, include common ancestry, appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions, or other cultural factor. Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups.

The law as it currently stands was varied by people like you, bleeding heart liberals who don't happen to have a yard full of them living next door, London Metrosexuals, Cherie Blair and the like, they're gone now and you wonder why bloody UKIP is on the rise

Wow, you really know a lot about people, don't you? I'm impressed with your understanding of the subtle nuances of human society.

Look, there are a great many lawless traveller people. That's not in dispute. So stop going on about it.

Your big problem however is prejudice - that is, treating certain groups of people all the same. You've done it to the travellers, and you've done it to us too i.e . those arguing against you. It's brainless and pathetic.

Just for balance, I should point out that lots of crimes and burglaries are commited by non-traveller folk.

In your experience? What is that then, you go round asking them do you? Nobody asked me, part of my family were Romany a while back I don't identify myself as a traveller. Travellers that 'go to brick' their expression not mine, cease to be 'Travellers' they're in the community, pay council tax, have their bins collected, their waste disposed of in a sanitary fashion rather than leaving it by the side of the road or in someone elses garden, it's also wrong to label all Travellers Irish, that is a sweeping generalisation, if you lived where I live you'd realise, but you don't, my town is full of gypsies from all over Europe.

The law as it currently stands was varied by people like you, bleeding heart liberals who don't happen to have a yard full of them living next door, London Metrosexuals, Cherie Blair and the like, they're gone now and you wonder why bloody UKIP is on the rise..

Okay, I never said all travellers were Irish, it's the example I'm choosing to use. If you're going to suggest that there are other ethnic origins of gypsies / travellers who face discrimination, prejudice and ostracisation from "mainstream" society then you won't find me disagreeing with you. Were you to point out that many of these communities (as well as plenty of non-traveller communities) choose to keep themselves separate from 'mainstream' society, then I'd agree with you on that too.

BTW, if you're going to speculate, inaccurately, about me personally, about where I live, the circumstances in which I come into contact with traveller communities or my political affiliations then I'll continue to ignore it.

Just for balance, I should point out that lots of crimes and burglaries are commited by non-traveller folk.

Any evidence to support that Molly? It sounds like a sweeping generalisation! 😉

BTW, if you're going to speculate, inaccurately, about me personally, about where I live, the circumstances in which I come into contact with traveller communities or my political affiliations then I'll continue to ignore it.

You sound French to me. And probably a bloody communist. Am I right?

Crikey, looks like we've truly found the sore point here with this topic!

The one that always staggers me is "****". It's a contraction of a country, the same as Pole or Scot. If ever there was a word that should be safe to use, it's that. But it isn't, its usage has been corrupted by rampant 80s racism.

**** was never just a contraction it was always an insult - whether it can be reclaimed like queen or gay is not for white middle class folk to decide IMHO.

The former arguably could be viewed as homophobic, but it really isn't; in that context it's implying that your choice of attire is perhaps a little effeminate,

Obviously attitudes are homophobic and I accept that most folk who say it are not homophobic but I dont see how you can argue it is not used negatively tbh.

I have a problem with people using the word 'no'.

To me, the connotations of its insertion into a sentence are almost exclusively negative. We should have something more balanced, and inclusive which doesn't alienate some of the more marginalised sections of our society

I've started a campaign for its use to be stopped. My local MP has got right behind it, and is proposing that its use within public sector buildings from now on could be deemed a hate crime

The word gay is rarely used as a positive expression - can you cite one?

I regularly hear it used as a positive, negative and factual expression. But then, not all of my friends are straight.

Words are funny things. To my mind, intent is far more important than language. Compare, as a random example, "wow, that shirt is a bit gay" and "you're gay and all your lot should be round up and shot." The former arguably could be viewed as homophobic, but it really isn't; in that context it's implying that your choice of attire is perhaps a little effeminate, there's no malice intended. The latter, well, should speak for itself.

Maybe think a bit deeper about that first example? Your description of gayness as applied to a shirt is around it being "effeminate". So by using that term, you are ascribing effeminacy as a characteristic of homosexuality. Can you see how gay people might not be too happy about that (especially the great number of gay people who do not act in a "camp" manner)?

By using "gay" as an insult, even to a shirt, you are saying that gayness is a bad thing, aren't you?

Unless of course, in that context, you are using it as a compliment (e.g. to mean [camp voice]"That shirt is FABULOUS"[/camp voice] which of course you might be).

Yes, intent is very important, but being unintentially racist, homophobic etc. is still what it is, and the impact doesn't necessarily reduce (although I accept that it might) with the lack of intent.

If you were gay, and you heard a friend insult another friend by describing their shirt as "gay", I reckon you might still be upset, regardless of whether that was intended.

As an aside, there are those who argue that the term "effeminate" is offensive itself, as it ascribes certain characteristics to a whole gender. Just thought I'd float it so the "anti-PC brigade" can have some more fun.

The mods were right to leave this quite offensive thread open. It's helped me learn things.
Mainly, that whitegoodman, is a racist ****.
everydays a school day. 😀

This is satire isn't it edlong? Just checking.

Its pretty good. Are you trying out some material for a character you've got in mind, for a sitcom you're writing?

Is it set in a Council office in a London Borough? Is she an equality and sustainability officer? Will the script revolve around hilarious misunderstandings in, for example, Blind Lesbian Immigrant self-help groups, possibly involving a hard of hearing translator?

I'm not sure what sort of excitment the OP expects from a cycling forum, but there are one or two threads that I've fund very interesting.

As for 'travellers'; my very limited experience of a very small number of them suggests very low educational levels, and widespread lack of skills and abilities that are transferrable to the 'regular' world of work. This, coupled with the alienation and social disaffection, often inevitably leads to criminal behaviour and anti-social activity. I don't think their behaviour has anything to do with their ethnicity or culture, and everything to do with the way their lifestyles (not always a matter of choice) are dysfunctional in the context of 'regular' society.

Almost identical patterns of behaviour are prevalent in many 'regular' non-travelling communities, so criminality and anti-socialism aren't traits confined to travelling people.

Given the recent 'debates' surrounding the influence of culture on the men convicted of grooming and abusing young girls, I notice nothing is ever mentioned about the ethnicity of football hooligans, who are always almost exclusively white. Does this suggest a predisposition towards violence amongst all white men? Is it inherent in white culture and society, to act in an extremely tribalistic and violent manner? Should we assume all white men are violent thugs?

quartz - this no place for intelligent and reasonable argument

sling yer hook clever clogs

To my mind, intent is far more important than language.

Yes, but how are we to know the intent on the internet? We have nothing to go on except the language you use.

And in any case, whitegoodman and Edukator are both making it very clear that their intent is to denigrate entire groups of people based on the actions of members of that group.

Actually - given whitegoodman's username, I'm beginning to suspect it's a carefully constructed troll character. Nicely done, if so.

if you miss elfin then i believe he has a Facebook page dedicated to highlighting how much he doesn't care he was banned.

Yeah, alright, it was a poor example, and I don't really want to get hung up on it (cos it wasn't really the salient point). But a couple of people seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at, so I'll try and explain.

suggesting that gays should be associated with effeminate is not putting homosexuals in a bad light or negative

That isn't what I said. Who said it was negative, or intended as an insult?

Let me reword it. "That shirt looks a bit girly." Am I making a derogatory comment about women now, suggesting that being a girl is somehow bad or undesirable? Turning it on its head, "wow, that blouse looks a bit blokey." Interpolating "gay" to mean effeminate or camp is a lazy stereotype sure, but it's not homophobic.

I regularly hear it used as a positive, negative and factual expression. But then, not all of my friends are straight.

Likewise.

I notice nothing is ever mentioned about the ethnicity of football hooligans, who are always almost exclusively white.

This line of argument falls down when you consider that there are football hooligans outside of the UK who aren't "almost exclusively white"

And all pirates are Somalians.

[img] [/img]

"almost" used with "exclusively" make for a confusing statement don't they?
[img] [/img]

This is satire isn't it edlong? Just checking.

No, seriously, there's an argument out there. It's not that different, if you think about it, from that controversy a week or two back about Tesco (I think it was) having "boys" and "girls" toy ranges.

And all pirates are Somalians.

Because they Yarrrrrrr?

Cougar,

Sorry if you thought I was having a dig at you, I wasn't. I was using your example to illustrate how seemingly innocuous statements can cause offence if you think about the underlying implications of the assumptions they contain.

I wouldn't claim to be "whiter than white" (joke) myself - I apologised at work for referring to the blocked websites as a "black list" - our web filtering arrangements now have a "green list" and a "red list". I didn't mean any offence by implying that something "black" was a bad thing, but it was pointed out that it could have been taken that way, so I modified my language accordingly.

I'd just like to point out that I'm wearing Batman socks today.

Hope this helps.

"This line of argument falls down when you consider that there are football hooligans outside of the UK who aren't "almost exclusively white"

But why are football hooligans in the UK almost exclusively white (using one particular exception does not prove the rule)? Is it something inherent in their ethnicity, as seems to be beings suggested about the criminality of certain travelling groups?

And when it comes to the reputation of Brits abroad, again we see our image tainted by the behaviour of mainly white men (very often travelling football 'fans', 'stag' do's, etc).

Why isn't the ethnicity of such people ever mentioned? As it was with the Oxford sex abusers, or is with travelling communities?

I notice nothing is ever mentioned about the ethnicity of football hooligans, who are always almost exclusively white. Does this suggest a predisposition towards violence amongst all white men?

I'd hazard it suggests a predisposition towards football amongst white men. Unless you compare that statistic against a breakdown of total stadium attendance, it's meaningless.

Arguably though, it's ethnically motivated, if we extend the definition of ethnicity to encompass the tribal devotion to football teams.

but how are we to know the intent on the internet? We have nothing to go on except the language you use.

Now we're getting somewhere. How indeed. It's difficult.

We don't necessarily have "nothing to go on except the language" though; context is key also as I've said, and there's also past history. I know, for example, that if it's not clear from context alone that a post from Binners will almost certainly be playing it for laughs rather than being malicious. In isolation that might not be readily apparent from the language alone.

I would still call it a black list. Honestly that's taking things too far. The term has a long precedent of being used without any hint of racial connotation.

Lots of other things are black too, and lots of things are metaphorically black, because black has loads of other meanings besides race.

Is this an STW stag party dressed up in their finery for a night out on Swindon..?

[img] [/img]

They're very similar to these ones:
[img] ?cb5e28[/img]

Rather than these ones with the built in capes:
[img] [/img]
'Cos they look a bit silly.

Sorry if you thought I was having a dig at you, I wasn't. I was using your example to illustrate how seemingly innocuous statements can cause offence if you think about the underlying implications of the assumptions they contain.

Not at all, 's cool.

In those statements no offence is intended, so if people want to twist what I say into something I very clearly didn't mean in order to take offence to it, good luck to them, they can be offended.

I apologised at work for referring to the blocked websites as a "black list"... it was pointed out that it could have been taken that way, so I modified my language accordingly.

molgrips

I sort of agree with you, but given that "black list" might cause offence while "red list" definitely won't, I can't see a good reason to not use "red list".

what a coincidence..!!

I'm wearing these 8)

[img] [/img]

I can't see a good reason to not use "red list".

they look a bit..... well you know. 🙂

I can't see a good reason to not use "red list".

Please stop it.

Yunki - nice pins, you must be very proud 🙂

I can't see a good reason to not use "red list".

You might offend menstruating women?

That's the manliest thing I've ever seen. They'd look sooooooooo cool with my hot pants and rollerblades

It's a small world I'm wearing these.

[img] [/img]

I'd hazard it suggests a predisposition towards football amongst white men.

But football is played in the Uk by people (male and female) of all ethnicities. Why are hooligans almost always white?

And why don't we ever seem to discuss the ethnicity of said hooligans, as we do with travellers, or particular sex abusers?

Would it be fair to say that football hooliganism is a 'white' problem in this country?

I don't know, would it?

Is anyone wearing a cape?

Binners has to wear the mask in pulic these days, so we might have the full costume between us.

You guys are trying too hard to prove the fact that this place is boring.

Judging by the Chelsea game the other night, its more specific than that. Its perpetrated exclusively by people with tattooed necks. But I can't say that as it'd be both tattooist and neckist

Binners has to wear the mask in public these days, so we might have the full costume between us.

Its my homage to Fernando

[img] [/img]

It'll have to do until I've finished getting his portrait tattooed on my neck

[i]Is anyone wearing a cape?[/i]

Not sure if it qualifies, but I'm wearing this to eat my lunch

[URL= http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/bibbed_zps27dbe23a.jp g" target="_blank">http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/bibbed_zps27dbe23a.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Judging by the Chelsea game the other night, its more specific than that. Its perpetrated exclusively by people with tattooed necks. But I can't say that as it'd be both tattooist and neckist

No it isn't. If you say that all hooligans have tattoo'd necks then that might be true. If you said that everyone with a tattoo'd neck was a hooligan then that would be tattoo'dneckist (and almost certainly untrue). Like saying all "pikeys" steal.