Jump to content

Black Lives Matter


2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

... used to be used more as a term of affection once upon a time. Why else would Guy Gibson have given his dog that name? My father called himself one of them in a postcard home once, after he had become extremely suntanned, and I had a toy "golly". Why has anything and everything got to be turned racist nowadays?

Those "terms of affection" weren't aimed at black people were they?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

People in general need to wake up to the fact that everyone is the same under the skin. 

 

I often find myself looking and admiring someone with a lovely dark skin tone, I don’t feel that’s racist just because I can see a difference in colour but that’s sometimes how your made to feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you got that impression from? Being non-racist isn't the same as being colourblind. If they are saying you should pretend someone isn't black that's sort of passive racism, because its kind of saying "let's ignore their ethnicity" like it's a negative.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, monasqueen said:

Nigg** used to be used more as a term of affection once upon a time. Why else would Guy Gibson have given his dog that name? My father called himself one of them in a postcard home once, after he had become extremely suntanned, and I had a toy "golly". Why has anything and everything got to be turned racist nowadays?

I once worked with someone who had a lovely South Wales Valleys accent, who would go away somewhere hot for a holiday so that he could suntan the palms of his hands and the soles of his feet.

People in general need to wake up to the fact that everyone is the same under the skin. 

 

 

Is "calling black people n*gger isn't racist" really the hill you're choosing to die on?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Declan said:

I don't know where you got that impression from? Being non-racist isn't the same as being colourblind. If they are saying you should pretend someone isn't black that's sort of passive racism, because its kind of saying "let's ignore their ethnicity" like it's a negative.  

Oh I completely agree, unfortunately I think sometimes people try hard in an effort not to be racist that as you’ve said it becomes unintended passive racism.

Unfortunately in a world where you can identify as whatever you feel like it does cause people to walk on egg shells.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Oh I completely agree, unfortunately I think sometimes people try hard in an effort not to be racist that as you’ve said it becomes unintended passive racism.

Unfortunately in a world where you can identify as whatever you feel like it does cause people to walk on egg shells.

I don't think there's any need to walk on eggshells. Any reasonable person (which on the whole is a large part of the population) will judge people based on their intent. Accidentally misgender someone? Whatever, say sorry and correct yourself. Intentionally misgendering people? Kinda lame. Same applies to pretty much everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's down to education?

I was taught, many, many years ago that no matter what someone looks like, the point is that they are human beings, and they should be treated as such.

I have been called quite a few things in the past, a lot of them not very nice. It can be hard to try and remember that "Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me". The harder the abuse, the harder I got.

It would be better for everybody concerned if humans treated other humans with humanity.

What is happening now is that certain sectors are rabble rousing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, monasqueen said:

Perhaps it's down to education?

I was taught, many, many years ago that no matter what someone looks like, the point is that they are human beings, and they should be treated as such.

I have been called quite a few things in the past, a lot of them not very nice. It can be hard to try and remember that "Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me". The harder the abuse, the harder I got.

It would be better for everybody concerned if humans treated other humans with humanity.

What is happening now is that certain sectors are rabble rousing.

This post was going kinda well until you used the last sentence to imply that it's just non-whites being soft and making a fuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, HeliX said:

This post was going kinda well until you used the last sentence to imply that it's just non-whites being soft and making a fuss.

That's not what was said though HeliX, you are doing what a lot of people seem to be doing, looking for racist intent when there is none! This is why there is such a fuss at present, there are organisations and individuals who are perpetuating division, as it's not in their interests to see unity.

I have several black friends and acquaintances and I never even notice their skin colour when talking to them. I think that generally goes for most of the UK population? Some may say that this in itself is racist as I am not acknowledging their race! See what I mean?

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/14/time-end-toxic-narrative-britain-racist-country/

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

That's not what was said though HeliX, you are doing what a lot of people seem to be doing, looking for racist intent when there is none! This is why there is such a fuss at present, there are organisations and individuals who are perpetuating division, as it's not in their interests to see unity.

Perhaps I'm judging too harshly, but their post before that one was arguing for the n-word not being racist so...

Highlighting inequality requires you to define the different groups - you could argue that's an act of division, but until there is parity then it's pretty much essential to have groupings of people. I've mentioned it before, but I'd love a world where someone's identity had nothing to do with politics, but I don't think we're anywhere near it yet.

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I have several black friends and acquaintances and I never even notice their skin colour when talking to them. I think that generally goes for most of the UK population? Some may say that this in itself is racist as I am not acknowledging their race! See what I mean?

There's two conflicting points here - not treating people differently due to their race is good. Not acknowledging that their race causes them to suffer discrimination in many parts of society is bad.

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Not subbed to the Telegraph, but presumably this makes the case that acknowledging that society still has a long way to go to achieve equality of treatment between the races is somehow bad for black people because it'll make them not try? I don't buy it I'm afraid - maybe at a very individual level for a vanishingly small number of people, but for the rest it's a good thing to both identify and attempt to rectify discrimination.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I have several black friends and acquaintances and I never even notice their skin colour when talking to them. I think that generally goes for most of the UK population? Some may say that this in itself is racist as I am not acknowledging their race! See what I mean?

 

You are acknowledging their race when you say you have black friends. 

I'm not sure why someone would be keep noticing their friend's skin colour when talking to them. (Who would do that but racists?) 

The issue about not acknowledging someone's race is when people use euphemisms or try to avoid mentioning it like there's something taboo. (A bit like Cissie Braithwaite (Les Dawson) mouthing details of unmentionable body parts to her friend.)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barlow said:

Beckham lost England two world cups and received similar treatment including burning effigies. He soon became the undisputed golden boy of English football.

Football and their fans are generally fickle and fick as fuck, as is the press and media.

Beckham didn't lose England two world cups.  You clearly know fuck all about football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Beckham didn't lose England two world cups.  You clearly know fuck all about football.

I wondered who the (excuse my language) fuckwit would be who would react to that.

When you have two team competing at World Cup it doesn't take much to tip the balance.

Such as causing 10 men to play against 11. (Petulence)

Or schoolboyishly skipping over a ball anticipating it was going out for a throw-in, and thus allowing the opposing team to easily take possession and score a goal as a result.

Did you do any effigy burning (or similar) Terry?
In any case, I'll give you the extreme benefit of the doubt and call it one World Cup. The point I was making stands.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Barlow said:

I wondered who the (excuse my language) fuckwit would be who would react to that.

When you have two team competing at World Cup it doesn't take much to tip the balance.

Such as causing 10 men to play against 11. (Petulence)

Or schoolboyishly skipping over a ball anticipating it was going out for a throw-in, and thus allowing the opposing team to easily take possession and score a goal as a result.

Did you do any effigy burning (or similar) Terry?
In any case, I'll give you the extreme benefit of the doubt and call it one World Cup. The point I was making stands.


 

It's an utter bollocks point.

England lost because they were not good enough.  End of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It's an utter bollocks point.

England lost because they were not good enough.  End of.

So did England lose on Sunday because three penalties were missed/saved or because they were not good enough?

Or are they one and the same thing?

Edited by The Voice of Reason
Splling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...