Isis Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 6 hours ago, SeanF said: Purely from an evidential point of view, if someone has had children by a member of the opposite sex, that's likely to count against their claim to be suffering persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation. They could be bisexual, or their sexual orientation may have changed, but the likelihood is that they're heterosexuals who are trying it on. Wow. I'm not even sure where to begin with unpicking this impressive display of privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Maltaran said: Tory MP has the whip suspended for being a racist http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40555639 That is an utterly bizarre expression to hear from somebody in the UK. The most offensive word is of course both taboo and widely used in the US, but I've never heard it used with "in the woodpile" here. I guess this is something that is specific to the UK since the article ends with: Quote In 2008, Conservative peer and party spokesman Lord Dixon-Smith apologised for using the same phrase in the House of Lords, saying that it was not appropriate and that he had "left his brains behind". The peer was not dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I've never heard that expression before - I neither know nor want to know what it even means. Her excuse that it was unintentional just makes it worse; that's just part of her lexicon, she just threw it out conversationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 The BBC article says it was a phrase used by a number of 'leading novelists' in the 20th century so presumably it's been picked up from their books. Can't say I've ever heard anyone use the term before though nor can I believe any politician was stupid enough to use the n word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I once heard someone use it on daytime Radio 2 and he didn't even understand the controversy, I really can't wrap my head around how anyone can live so insulated from the rest of society to have just completely missed 50 odd years of development against racism. Using the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Being stupid enough to use the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Being that out of touch with the general public to use the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Geoff Hurst used the expression back in 1990, with a black man sitting next to him: (See around the 1 minute mark). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Even ignoring the highly likely cases of closeted homosexual people, the amount of bi-erasure going on in these comments is breathtaking. Just because someone has had a relationship with another person capable of bearing children does not mean that both parties are straight and free from discrimination. And those comments can only be made by someone ignorant of the kinds of tests that were applied in declaring people to be straight, or by someone utterly uncaring and trying to pretend otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 11, 2017 Author Share Posted July 11, 2017 12 hours ago, DaveSumm said: I once heard someone use it on daytime Radio 2 and he didn't even understand the controversy, I really can't wrap my head around how anyone can live so insulated from the rest of society to have just completely missed 50 odd years of development against racism. Using the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Being stupid enough to use the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Being that out of touch with the general public to use the phrase: unfit to be an MP. Her mistake was not to use a racist term that also has a ring of quaint 1930s upper-class buffoonery to it, which would have been quite OK and possibly seen her appointed to a senior role in government. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 53 minutes ago, mormont said: Her mistake was not to use a racist term that also has a ring of quaint 1930s upper-class buffoonery to it, which would have been quite OK and possibly seen her appointed to a senior role in government. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race Hardly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 11, 2017 Author Share Posted July 11, 2017 35 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Hardly the same. Same word? No. Same level of racism? Without a scintilla, shadow, trace, hint, molecule, smidgen, or crumb of doubt, 100% yes. The watermelon comment really cinches the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Hardly the same. "Piccannines" was used in Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. Johnson knew exactly what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Yes and it was in a context of an article about Tony Blair travelling abroad in the manner of an imperial head of state, the use of the words being far more satirical than if you take them at face value. Much different to this latest outburst using the N word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 11, 2017 Author Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Yes and it was in a context of an article about Tony Blair travelling abroad in the manner of an imperial head of state, the use of the words being far more satirical than if you take them at face value. Much different to this latest outburst using the N word. Tripe. I apologise in advance for the use of these words even in quotation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3571742/If-Blairs-so-good-at-running-the-Congo-let-him-stay-there.html Quote What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness. They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird. The target of the satire is Blair, not the people of the Commonwealth. Nothing is added to that by these word choices, and the point could easily have been made (and better) without them. The imagery is vile and racist, simple as that. Nor is it a one-off. Johnson has form for this sort of thing. As editor in the Spectator, he published disgusting racist content. As Mayor of London, he described Barack Obama as a 'Kenyan President' with an 'ancestral dislike of Britain'. Here's his summary of the challenges facing Africa: Quote The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. More? Quote For 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing This is a man whose head is full of racist stock imagery, whose go-to metaphors and similes are simply racist and who has made a habit out of unthinkingly chundering them in public. He is every bit as bad as Ms Morris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I don't like Boris , but it's clear you hate him and want another stick to beat him with. Those words are obviously used to illustrate the nature of his opinion of Blair, they are words that are almost never used by the public and you'd be lucky to find a single person who would understand that they were supposed to be offended by them. ( I'm sure you'd make them aware that they need to be offended) I think really just illustrates a sense of terror of the use of words, of causing offence and doing whatever you can to characterise public figures you don't like with the racist brush in order to attack them. Boris is a dick and I don't like him one bit, but his words are often used as humour.l, it doesn't make him a racist, as much as you'd love him to be. I guess you'd be happy to have him and prince Phillip burned at the stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 13 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I don't like Boris , but it's clear you hate him and want another stick to beat him with. I have a long record of pointing out that his gormless upper-class twit act doesn't mean he's harmless, but no, don't hate him. I just look at the facts. The facts speak for themselves here. 13 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Those words are obviously used to illustrate the nature of his opinion of Blair No, they're not. Those words have nothing to do with his opinion of Blair. They're simply a backdrop image for the notion of Blair escaping his domestic troubles by visiting a place where the locals will be happy to see him. What relevance does it have to his opinion of Blair that his selected image is an appalling racist caricature? You are completely unable to say, because there is none. I note you have no response to the numerous other cited examples of Johnson expressing or condoning racist language. 13 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: they are words that are almost never used by the public and you'd be lucky to find a single person who would understand that they were supposed to be offended by them. ( I'm sure you'd make them aware that they need to be offended) Of course they need to be offended. Archaic or not, the word is an appallingly racist term. Are you saying you're not offended by it? That seems to me to make my point very well: racism is accepted by Conservatives if you express it like you're a relic from the 1950s. (A similar point applies to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has somehow been adopted as the new Johnson recently: he has that isn't-he-just-quaint cult following, ignoring the fact that his political views and voting record are callous and horrible. Giving your kids stupid Latin names doesn't make you harmless.) 13 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I guess you'd be happy to have him and prince Phillip burned at the stake. No idea where that comes from. Bizarre. No, I don't want people burned at the stake for being racist. I just want them to stop being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 23 minutes ago, mormont said: I have a long record of pointing out that his gormless upper-class twit act doesn't mean he's harmless, but no, don't hate him. I just look at the facts. The facts speak for themselves here. I certainly don't think he's harmless, his role in Brexit was appalling and he is a deviously ambitious climber like most politicians. However I don't believe him to be racist in the way you are painting him. I think there is a hell of a difference between using antiquainted words that might harken back to the victorian imperial times to illustrate a point, and being racist. Hell, I think there is a big difference between accidentally using a phrase or a word which could be considered offensive and actually being racist. Intent and context are everything, but you like many don't care about context because of the mad rush to label everyone and control language. 28 minutes ago, mormont said: I note you have no response to the numerous other cited examples of Johnson expressing or condoning racist language. I didn't mention them because I don't consider them to be particularly racist or offensive. If Johnson has opinions on the British Empires effect on the world then he is entitled to them, it also doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. I also have very little problem with his other comment, which was clearly humourous. 35 minutes ago, mormont said: Of course they need to be offended. Archaic or not, the word is an appallingly racist term. Are you saying you're not offended by it? That seems to me to make my point very well: racism is accepted by Conservatives if you express it like you're a relic from the 1950s. Well then, is a word a offensive if nobody is offended by it? Go down the high street and ask the general public if they've even heard of the word and you'd be lucky to find even one. No I'm not offended by it, because I'm not offended by language or people using words. I'm offended by intent and action. I'm far more offended by those who seek to jump down peoples throats for saying a word that they deem to have offended them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I certainly don't think he's harmless, his role in Brexit was appalling and he is a deviously ambitious climber like most politicians. However I don't believe him to be racist in the way you are painting him. Well, everyone's entitled to their view but this is one of those cases where it doesn't really depend on whether you believe it. It's a fact that he has repeatedly used racist language and imagery, and printed the views of racists. His record on this is a disgrace. 2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I think there is a hell of a difference between using antiquainted words that might harken back to the victorian imperial times to illustrate a point, and being racist. Not when that word was and is unambiguously racist, no. 2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Hell, I think there is a big difference between accidentally using a phrase or a word which could be considered offensive and actually being racist. Intent and context are everything, but you like many don't care about context because of the mad rush to label everyone and control language. Again, if there's some relevant context here that excuses this, you seem unable to say what it might be, and I am completely unable to imagine what it might be, so let's assume that there isn't. The idea that this was 'accidental' we can also rule out as just ridiculous. 2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I didn't mention them because I don't consider them to be particularly racist or offensive. That's very sad, but it doesn't make the things he said any less racist or offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, mormont said: That's very sad, but it doesn't make the things he said any less racist or offensive. No. YOU find it racist and offensive. That doesn't make it so for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 6 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: No. YOU find it racist and offensive. That doesn't make it so for everyone. No, it doesn't: but the fact that not everyone finds something to be racist and offensive, doesn't mean that it is not in fact racist and offensive. There is no slur, however vile, that some asshole won't be willing to say isn't racist. Does that mean nothing is racist? No. It means those people are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.