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

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.