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,

right so suggesting that gays should be associated with effeminate is not putting homosexuals in a bad light or negative 😕
The word gay is rarely used as a positive expression – can you cite one?
Now if it meant wow that shirt really suits you and you have superb dress sense then you may have a point but it does not it is an insult however much you wish to call it “banter” it is negative.

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.

“almost” used with “exclusively” make for a confusing statement don’t they?

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..?

They’re very similar to these ones:

Rather than these ones with the built in capes:

‘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.

Personally I think I’d have told them to foxtrot ocsar unless they could find me an actual offended person. That’s not a world I want to live in, spending my entire life crossing out words I can no longer use just in case someone might misunderstand and take offence, until we’re reduced to communication solely in the medium of creative dance.

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)

I can’t see a good reason to not use “red list”.

The native americans might not like it. Best off just calling it the shit list. Hang on, that might offend the BNP 😀

they look a bit….. well you know. 🙂

I can’t see a good reason to not use “red list”.

It’s very insulting to Man U fans, communists and Native Americans.

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.

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

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

Is anyone wearing a cape?

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

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.