Aye, being mixed race most insults as an adult are very much like water off a ducks back.
There's very little that holds any meaning, speaks more to the character of individual, it's why I said I'm not opposed to a bit of character assassination, because sometimes that's all you've got as some people are clearly incapable of reasonable discussion or are simply mentally compromised so good faith discourse is pointless.
But, if they're open then I find name calling doesn't work. Having had to have a fair few discussions with peers & juniotlrs over the years about such topics it's been an education.
Brexit, the LGBTQ community and race have all been flashpoints in my career that I've had to deal with for context.
Your point reminds me of when the Army tried that with the 'snowflake' moniker in a recruiting campaign, didn't land well at all. Probably more to do with it being quite a bland concept.
Not saying they don’t get and shouldn’t get pushback, but attacking the person changes nothing
I'd agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it's always OK to punch a Nazi.
I’d agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it’s always OK to punch a Nazo
Mate, I would have allowed a mounted cavalry charge on those ****s at the cenotaph.
Brexit, the LGBTQ community and race have all been flashpoints in my career that I’ve had to deal with for context
A couple of years as a families and welfare officer* was an eye opener for me. Some of the soldiers in our unit were from very broken backgrounds and all those issues (less Brexit, which hadn't happened) were factors. My successor had to support one of the first transgender SNCOs through the process at a time (early 2000s) when there was precious little support or understanding.
*Part time, because I was also squadron 2IC, acting OC, Ops officer, MTO, USO etc, etc. Soon after I left there was a reorg and all those jobs got properly staffed. Thankfully.
I’d agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it’s always OK to punch a Nazi.
I reckon it depends in the context. Over the years I have on occasions had a reasonable amount of interaction with NF/BNP members, including working alongside them.
Two things in particularly have struck me. Firstly how very far from stupid many of them are, and secondly how much progress you can make by actually engaging with them. Challenging them really isn't that difficult and many of their false conclusions are based on very real and genuine grievances.
Although I would like to think that I would be willing to do a lot more than punch them should the circumstances require it.
Aye, welfare SNCO for a bit as well, so I hear you. Brexit stirred up all sorts of shit, it forced very biased politics down the necks of 18-20 year olds and absolutely played on their existing biases.
One platoon commander really struggled as the class divide was huge and he just couldn't relate to the troops and some of their positions when we had to deal with fallout.
My advice was simple, play a straight bat, no titles, just line the actions/words/behaviour alongside the values and standards and service test.
One platoon commander really struggled as the class divide was huge.
Being an ex ranker LE officer was great in that regard. You could relate to the troops and also educate the Ruperts!
I reckon it depends in the context. Over the years I have on occasions had a reasonable amount of interaction with NF/BNP members, including working alongside them.
I think the only time I've genuinely been enraged by those sorts was not long after burying three of our own, couple of us nipped into the local Tesco in rig for breakfast and in the doorway/entry bit was some blokes fundraising for one of those low rent charities that 'supports' veterans.
Trying to give us his pitch, to which we replied no thanks, he then made a comment 'of course you won't, you prefer to look after your own kind' which I took to be directed at me and to Wanj (a mate) who is Kenyan.
Lost my shit with them, rather embarrassingly, whilst in rig. I wanted to ****ing tear them apart.
Kinda wish I did as it turned out the charity was a scam and they were members of the EDL.
Still got me a talking to from the boss and a couple of weekend duties which was fair.
Being an ex ranker LE officer was great in that regard. You could relate to the troops and also educate the Ruperts!
Yeah, I'd have killed for an LE but you know how it is unless you're in HQ you get the young un's, his replacement was better, working class but had good parents and mentors and encouraged at school. Related much better to the troops which made life considerably easier.
I've often wondered about all those various 'veteran' charities you see set up at supermarket doors (excepting the two obvious ones) and whether any of the cash actually makes it where it should.
It's often the percentage that varies. And I'm sure that's the same with many charities whatever the cause.
But I'm only familiar with my niche area, there are some wholesome people that work in that space, but also some chancers.
Always worth a Google, if it's not clear or apparent how they allocate their resources then avoid is my advice.
Some may also not be charities, they could be CIC so can play the system that way.
Calling someone a coconut is definitely a dick move
By whose standards? It's not a term I use personally, but I understand why it is used. It's meant to be insulting, but to make the subject consider their actions, which could potentially have negative impact on people of similar culture/ethnicity.
By my standards I guess. Throwing around insults never helps dialogue IMO
By whose standards? It’s not a term I use personally, but I understand why it is used
Isn't it an insult which implies a person of one skin tone displays the traits of another which are deemed to be undesirable? Isn't implying the characteristics of another skin colour are undesirable racist?
This is a question not a statement. These things are complicated aren't they!
True. But sometimes you just have call a **** a ****. Because they're a **** and someone should tell them in case they weren't aware.
😁
By my standards I guess. Throwing around insults never helps dialogue IMO
But what qualifies you as a an individual, to judge? And what about the context in which such a term might be used?
Isn’t it an insult which implies a person of one skin tone displays the traits of another which are deemed to be undesirable? Isn’t implying the characteristics of another skin colour are undesirable racist?
No, if the term is being used by one person of colour towards another, especially of similar ethnicity and culture. Because there's no structure of 'power' behind it.
True. But sometimes you just have call a * a *. Because they’re a **** and someone should tell them in case they weren’t aware.
Exactly.
I'm giving my opinion, surely that makes me completely qualified. I'm not out here telling people not to use it or that it should be banned.
Context is important though. I say things to my friends that I'd never dream of saying to stranger or someone I didn't know well.
Moreover,
In seriousness, it's cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought "I know, this will change their mind?" No, it's for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
In fact, it's not important for the target of your ire to hear your insult. Have you never been driving and hinted that another driver may be well practised in the art of onanism or had carnal knowledge of their maternal parent? Why do it? They can't hear you. But it gets it out of your system. When I first started driving I promised myself I wouldn't succumb to road rage, net result is I was getting out of the car at the end of a journey absolutely incandescent; today someone cuts me up or whatever, I go "argh, you stupid fuc- " etc and it's done, thrown away, dealt with and I can enjoy the rest of my journey.
In seriousness, it’s cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought “I know, this will change their mind?” No, it’s for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
Which is a point I was making way up there. Tiresome when people insist on claiming the moral high ground as if they're an agent for change when they're simply getting their anger and frustration off their chest.
Both are fair, but don't lie to yourself about why you're doing it.
I’m giving my opinion, surely that makes me completely qualified.
Not really, not on its own. With wider context, possibly, but that's not apparent here. Qualification depends on knowledge, experience and personal identity. IE; a person of colour can be qualified to comment on whether or not a term such as 'coconut' is appropriate within the context of criticism of another or similar identity, but others may not be. Take the 'N word' for example. Much has been discussed regarding the use of such a term, but ultimately, only those who are the subject of such a term, get to decide on its appropriateness.
The less firey ‘Uncle Tom’ which is a very pejorative US term, no?
Sure, but again; context. That's not a term I've heard used here in the UK for a very long time, I have to say, and personally, it's not one for me to comment on as I'm not Black/of African origin. As a result of this discussion, I'm reminded of the term 'Bounty bar', which was popular when I was young. Similar meaning.
In seriousness, it’s cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought “I know, this will change their mind?” No, it’s for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
I disagree. For the very reason you yourself stated earlier. If someone needs challenging, then that challenge should in theory be done in a respectful and as unconfrontational manner as possible, but the world isn't perfect. Sometimes, people need calling out.
Thread diversion there brownperson; unnecessary as skin colour, ethnicity and racial origins are not the subject of the thread
So to take your example, I as a white guy cant have any opinion on the 'N word'? I'm not disagreeing just making sure I understand you
skin colour, ethnicity and racial origins are not the subject of the thread
Gammon is certainly about skin colour.
But in any case, conversations often meander. Let this one take its course. If it’s boring, it'll wither. If it's against forum rules, mods will act.
We can still mention Mark Francois' height? Yes? I wouldn't if it wasn't for his yearning to be seen as a regular military man, and his amazing belief in his own importance. Don't know why the combination is funny. And for others it isn't. There's just something about him.
Not in the same context as brownperson's comments.
Gammon is the skin colour which a white person's changes to when angry😠- sometimes about people of different skin colour or ethnicity.
I'll now go and waste my time on something else.
Oops.. sorry.... wrong thread. I'll leave it here anyway. Might add some photos to try and lighten things up...
So to take your example, I as a white guy cant have any opinion on the ‘N word’?
Have all the opinions you want!
The other race tell us if a term is offensive.
Doesn't mean we have to tolerate racism in absence of subject.
Edit: realise you were probably probing the other person but I'd already committed to responding thusly.
So to take your example, I as a white guy cant have any opinion on the ‘N word’? I’m not disagreeing just making sure I understand you
You can have an opinion on anything you want. It’s just that if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, to have weight in a discussion, then you need to have some kind of qualification. For example; you can have an opinion on the Earth being flat, but that would be without qualification, as anyone who knows anything about reality, would be able to easily disqualify your opinion as being absolute rubbish. With issues such as certain terms and use of language within a particular context, then qualification comes with knowledge, experience and/or identity. This is why I was asking about the appropriateness of the term ‘gammon’ on here, because the demographic of this forum is overwhelmingly white and male. If I want to learn about performative language that affects people of colour, this is not the forum I would personally choose. That does not reflect at all upon the intelligence of anyone on this forum, it just means there will be fewer qualified voices to listen to. But regarding the term ‘gammon’, in my view this has been an excellent forum to find appropriate qualified voices.
Do we know who came up with calling him Penfold in the media because he fits the post so well!?
We prefer Bloater, another MP in the Army reserve who wears his bit part service like a cloak of credibility.
As if I couldn't loathe the bloke enough already, the fact that he squeezes that fat little arse into a uniform manages to draw a little more spite out of me.
If I want to learn about performative language that affects people of colour
That should read 'pejorative', not performative. I can only assume autocorrect sneaked in there whilst I wasn't looking.
Some of the posts are tedious; from my brief post to the sunalk thread - posters attempting to make something out of nothing.
Gammon is the skin colour which a white person’s changes to when angry😠- sometimes about people of different skin colour or ethnicity.
Do non-Caucasian people not get flushed cheeks when really angry?
The other race tell us if a term is offensive.
To be fair, a given member of "the other race" can only provide their own opinion. Whilst this is usually a good yardstick, I've met people of all shades whose opinion is simply ludicrous. Some folk just have a chip on their shoulder - in some cases understandably of course - and will go from zero to outraged when no offence was even present let alone intended.
'Do non-caucasian people not get flushed cheeks when really angry?'
I'm sure they do but the change in skin colour is much less visible due to them being, as you phrase it,
non-caucasaian.
Maybe you have non-caucasian eyes which render such changes visible to you; I don't.
Stop attempting to be be an argumentative/provocative tit; it's a boring facade.
To remind ypu, you're no longer a mod.
Personal insults are always a good sign that you're winning in a disagreement. And quite what my status as "not a moderator" just like you has any bearing on, I have no idea. Or indeed, what difference you think it would make if I still was. I always took great pains to differentiate my "user" posts from my "moderator" posts.
Did you have a point to contribute to the discussion or did you just want to contradict your own argument and then take a cheap shot at me?
Do non-Caucasian people not get flushed cheeks when really angry?
It doesn't matter. You're trying to pretend that the "gammon" insult isn't directed at a specific type of white person, and that's just not what the stereotype is.
You’re trying to pretend that the “gammon” insult isn’t directed at a specific type of white person, and that’s just not what the stereotype is.
Doesn’t matter what ethnicity the person it's aimed at has, if people can't debate without resorting to stereotypes and name calling they are failing to debate. See also having a go at someones height and/or trouser length.
Some of the posts are tedious; from my brief post to the sunalk thread – posters attempting to make something out of nothing.
Mostly this...
We can still mention Mark Francois’ height? Yes? I wouldn’t if it wasn’t for his yearning to be seen as a regular military man, and his amazing belief in his own importance. Don’t know why the combination is funny. And for others it isn’t. There’s just something about him.
I think it’s possibly because he’s a caricature of something,possibly from a load of ‘60s or ‘70s war movies or those little war II comics sort of obsessed with WW2 and how we won it sorts.
