Racism And The Cumberbatch Conundrum

[Soulman]

I'm not sure what we've disagreed upon in this thread.

But let me be clearer, you've proved your ignorance by claiming that the word 'Paki' isn't a racist slur, which it is.

So Pole, Brit, Czech, Scot, Argie etc are also "racist slurs" because they are all shortened versions of the countrymen.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Wrong. We are discussing speach codes, not laws. Social or political agendas.



Some are not, i have yet to see you provide any data to suggest a significant amount of coloureds are upset by the term. Why dont you prove it?

Disagreeing with speech codes is not insulting people unless you are claiming some divine religious truth, get a grip dullard. I told you not to try to project conto me smallfry, I claimed no such thing.





OK I wont igore it I will address it. What is your source for this claim? Statistics? Proove it.



LOL same thing dipshit. Its not a moral argument its a political one over speech codes remember? When you moralise it is when you become enbibed with a type of inappropiate preistliness IOW a sanctimonious wanker.







What laws?




Oh here we go, "all the lurkers support me". Why not post a poll and see then at least you can claim you have provided EVIDENCE. you know what that is?

Oh and slipped up slightly with the spastic reference. A minor point bu then this for me is a debate, it appears to be a vanity project for you. I dont mind beig wrong so lets see some more EVIDENCE.

A few points here.

Speech codes are enshrined in law, fairly obviously, i thought that whats this thread was about. I think you're losing it a bit now.

You have asked me again for data, i'm not going to link you one page as i don't think you'll read it. If you care about data, google is your friend it is absolutely full of this. Why don't you research it for yourself - maybe you'll appear a little less 'sheltered'.
But suffice to say, lets make this clear, you are arguing that a significant number of black people don't find the the identity 'coloured' offensive. You know the year is 2015 right?

You seem to be speaking from a political standpoint, and have made the mistake that i'm coming from one too, most of my points have been from a moral or sociological point of view. I would however still be interested in hearing why you believe that there is a political agenda behind this, and what that agenda hopes to achieve? To me these laws/speech codes have their basis in the science of sociology and are designed to protect vulnerable and the historically oppressed from the ignorant.

To be clear, you have been insulting to people with cerebral palsy and their families by calling them idiots.

Respect to you for admitting you slipped up with your ignorance on 'spastics'. Now and this is important, why did you slip up? Could it be because their name was abused as an insult? Bit of an argument for speech codes don't ya think?

Go on, go and google 'coloured' - educate yourself if you can, if you haven't listen to the evidence for the last 50 years, me linking a page isn't going to help now is it?

 

[Soulman]

I'm not sure what we've disagreed upon in this thread.

But let me be clearer, you've proved your ignorance by claiming that the word 'Paki' isn't a racist slur, which it is.

Let me also be clear that i believe that your continuous xenophobic bile, particularly your anti-muslim posts around the time of Charlie Hebdo do have roots in a mental health issue for you, i think it's also likely that this poor attitude of yours in some part is attributed to your upbringing.

Do you really think your anti-muslim posts (at that time) were responsible or appropriate for a decent human being?

Who are you?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

So Pole, Brit, Czech, Scot, Argie etc are also "racist slurs" because they are all shortened versions of the countrymen.

It's not about shortening names it's about if they are a slur, 'Paki' was and still is used as a slur, 'Brit' isn't.

Here you are snidey again, either that or a complete idiot. However i give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that you are too cowardly to speak directly against those you vilify, pathetic.

 

[The Spanish]

It's not about shortening names it's about if they are a slur, 'Paki' was and still is used as a slur, 'Brit' isn't.

Here you are snidey again, either that or a complete idiot. However i give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that you are too cowardly to speak directly against those you vilify, pathetic.

Gerry Fitt, is a Brit. Brit can certainly be a pejorative.

 

[Soulman]

It's not about shortening names it's about if they are a slur, 'Paki' was and still is used as a slur, 'Brit' isn't.

Here you are snidey again, either that or a complete idiot. However i give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that you are too cowardly to speak directly against those you vilify, pathetic.

Your opinion, which are backed up by insulting. Obviously you find it hard to debate and result to personal attacks.....now that is pathetic. Try responding with a bit of evidence instead of your pompous, insulting and personal attacks when your opinion is challenged.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Gerry Fitt, is a Brit. Brit can certainly be a pejorative.

Must admit i don't know a great deal about this guy.
Good point though. This is an unusual situation, he was 'outed' from his ethnic group - the Catholic Irish - for being part of the British government?

Perhaps in Ireland if great swathes of british were treated in a prejudicial manner they'd need to have a speech code about 'brit'.

It does highlight an interesting point though, that because in Northern Ireland the 'british' were in control. The traditionally subjugated group, indigenous catholics, used the racial background of their 'oppressors' as a pejorative. There's something about who has the power in the relationship here when we put it into context of speech codes though.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Obviously you find it hard to debate and result to personal attacks.....

Only with you darling. x

 

[The Spanish]

Must admit i don't know a great deal about this guy.
Good point though. This is an unusual situation, he was 'outed' from his ethnic group - the Catholic Irish - for being part of the British government?

Perhaps in Ireland if great swathes of british were treated in a prejudicial manner they'd need to have a speech code about 'brit'.

It does highlight an interesting point though, that because in Northern Ireland the 'british' were in control. The traditionally subjugated group, indigenous catholics, used the racial background of their 'oppressors' as a pejorative. There's something about who has the power in the relationship here when we put it into context of speech codes though.

It's not necessarily about power, ironically it is often about passive aggressive demonstrations of power from those perceived or self identified to be less powerful.

I know plenty of Sikh punjabis from what is now Pakistan who relocated after partition who use the term pejoratively, even though they are less powerful in that context (no right of return, perception is of them as the victimised).

Brit as a pejorative is not unusual. I have spent a large part of my working life in singapore where Brit or ang mo is a loaded term, or in the Philippines where cano is the generic term for an English speaking westerner, and it's never bothered me in the slightest. This is not to say I don't understand the connotations of the p word in the UK, believe me, But globally it's nonsense, it's a very parochial debate based on the uks coping mechanisms with mass immigration. It's not globally definitive.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

It's not necessarily about power, ironically it is often about passive aggressive demonstrations of power from those perceived or self identified to be less powerful.

I know plenty of Sikh punjabis from what is now Pakistan who relocated after partition who use the term pejoratively, even though they are less powerful in that context (no right of return, perception is of them as the victimised).

What do you mean by passive aggressive? Peaceful Demo's?

Yes you're probably right about the power, from a moral point of view, it doesn't matter. Although the instinct is often to give those that have been oppressed more of a leeway, it is a double standard.

 

[The Spanish]

What do you mean by passive aggressive? Peaceful Demo's?

Yes you're probably right about the power, from a moral point of view, it doesn't matter. Although the instinct is often to give those that have been oppressed more of a leeway, it is a double standard.

morality is not a level playing field. For example the Sikhs who use the p word have been arguably equally oppressed by the significant Republic of India Punjab Hindu population post partition that they were propelled towards, you are looking for moral equivalents that don't exist in real life.

 

[brighton fella]

Your responses have been about disliking the people that put these laws in place. Nothing about the people that these laws are designed to protect.

In this thread you have shown your ignorance by claiming that black people aren't offended by the term 'coloured' and you have unwittingly proved the speech laws necessary by your ironic ignorance about 'spastics' - you thought and presumably still do that they are not mentally capable. You have insulted people with cerebral palsy and their families for not having the same viewpoint as you. You have also shown wilful ignorance on these subjects, claiming that the only way you'd know if the term 'coloured' is deemed offensive is if someone 'like me' told you.

Let me tell you now, that a significant number of black people find the identity 'coloured' as offensive. I have little doubt you will ignore this and carry on spouting paranoid bile about some mythical people that put these laws in place that you don't like. Thats ok, you're free not to like them, but don't take it out on vulnerable sections of society that speech laws are there to protect.

I don't think i have the moral high ground, but i do know that you have the moral low ground. Stop digging would be my advice.

I am still interested in your thoughts about what political agenda you think lies behind these laws? I have a feeling you'll say something utterly ridiculous, which will give many on this board another good laugh, but i am open minded that these laws do promote something other than protection for vulnerable and historically oppressed sections of society. Let me know if you have anything or is it just more wild and unsubstantiated opinion?

these laws you bang on about have really done some good haven't they
far from it being a divided society

 

[brighton fella]

It's not about shortening names it's about if they are a slur, 'Paki' was and still is used as a slur, 'Brit' isn't.

Here you are snidey again, either that or a complete idiot. However i give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that you are too cowardly to speak directly against those you vilify, pathetic.

and what gives you the right to determine what a slur is.
I'd lay a good bet that you aint even an ethnic yourself... so what is your problem.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

these laws you bang on about have really done some good haven't they
far from it being a divided society

I'm just saying why they are there, some seem to be ignorant of their purpose, thinking there is a political agenda behind them (perhaps there is, enlighten me).

There is in human nature, our brain physiology, a mechanism to categorise things/information quickly. When in complex society, this over simplification leads to all kinds of bigotry and dehumanising of people. There are two ways out of this, the hard way - education, the easy way, laws/speech codes.

This particular government has set one segment of society against another, all the while they've funnelled the wealth that came into this country through immigration upwards rather than spending it on the infrastructure that we desperately need.

I may be wrong but i'm rather cynical about it. I don't think it's a right wing agenda, i just think cameron and clegg have been terrible for this country and our society in many ways. I'm not saying boneless miliband will be any better either, i'm not making a political point, but when you look at how the wealthy have got wealthier under times of 'austerity', and that divisions in society, whether it be blaming disabled/unemployed/immigrants/muslims, have got wider which the present government has encouraged. You got to see something stinks and it aint the french (joke).

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

and what gives you the right to determine what a slur is.
I'd lay a good bet that you aint even an ethnic yourself... so what is your problem.

I don't claim the right.

Google it and educate yourself.

 

[Buzzer]

Let me also be clear that i believe that your continuous xenophobic bile, particularly your anti-muslim posts around the time of Charlie Hebdo do have roots in a mental health issue for you, i think it's also likely that this poor attitude of yours in some part is attributed to your upbringing.

Seeing as it's amateur psychology hour, I think your persistent ad hominem attacks on Soulman and your general posting style gives massive hints that you worry that people don't think you're as clever as you would like them to see you and that in real-life you're not half as cocksure of yourself. The mental health issues slur just because someone disagrees with your views was a pretty disgusting thing to say, and you've done it repeatedly but now to mention someone's upbringing as you've done is a new low.

Seriously, you've got all the traits of an online bully and that is what you are doing right now with posts such as the one above. You're being a bully, a troll, whatever you want to call it. Take your own advice and be a decent human being, stick with the subject matter and lay off the snide attempts at humiliating people on here, eh?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

... but now to mention someone's upbringing as you've done is a new low.

I've done it before.

Anyway, i thought i'd put you down enough that you weren't talking to me?

 

[Buzzer]

I've done it before.

Anyway, i thought i'd put you down enough that you weren't talking to me?

Put me down? You tried and you failed. Seriously, you're impressing no-one.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Put me down? You tried and you failed. Seriously, you're impressing no-one.

I thought i put you back in your box?

Oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and just rattle your cage a little bit more.

 

[Buzzer]

I thought i put you back in your box?

Oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and just rattle your cage a little bit more.

Please don't confuse my weariness with your general c*ntishness with some sort of intellectual victory.