I have a question regarding online etiquette. A debate on another forum started on certain terms that may, or may not be considered racial slurs.
I've been called an "Uncle Tom". A mod on the forum decided the term wasn't a slur, and let it stand. I wasn't totally insulted by it, but at the same time letting it stand just doesn't sit well. It does have racial connotations, but is by far not the worst out there.
No, I won't call out the forum by name, as dakka mods have stated we shouldn't do that here.
Olthannon wrote: Pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context. Are you black? Were you acting like the White Man is going to save the black race?
Then they were probably right. If not then probably not.
Mixed Hispanic. Technically I was called a Brown Uncle Tom. Accused of being a Potato (brown outside, white inside).
Is your position that it's fine to use racial slurs just as long as they're not explicitly directed to a verified member of the race in question then?
Because, to my understanding, use of the term "Uncle Tom" is pretty specific. Which is why I said right at the first part of my post there "pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context".
What Cuda is asking in his OP was basically "is the mod fair to decide the term wasn't a slur". I'd say by itself it's not, personally. But again it depends on context. It's certainly disparaging, but not very offensive.
Could you not have picked this up yourself rather than expecting the explicit?
Olthannon wrote: Pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context. Are you black? Were you acting like the White Man is going to save the black race?
Then they were probably right. If not then probably not.
Mixed Hispanic. Technically I was called a Brown Uncle Tom. Accused of being a Potato (brown outside, white inside).
Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race. That's not to say you're wrong for how you feel about all of this either.
Again there might be plenty more behind this that we don't know about so I can't offer much. I would say the mod should be saying that personal attack should be better moderated. But I don't know anything about the forum so don't know their rules.
Mods are people and come from different backgrounds and experiences. Individual mods will make different judgement calls on different situations which is why any good moderation for a site runs with a varied team; the idea being that the different experiences (and timezones) helps to provide a more comprehensive covering where slurs that one might overlook might get picked up on by another.
There are a lot of insults out there and many of them can sound pretty innocent, especially when typed out and lacking any body language or other connections. Eg to me "uncle tom" means utterly nothing. It's not a phrase or insult I've come across in my life and thus its not something I'd ever pick up on as a "serious" insult.
If the insult concerns you the best thing is to privately contact a moderator (on that site of course) regarding the matter to discuss it with them.
Also remember most moderators are totally untrained in the role they play. So sometimes you get mods that are really good and some that are really just terrible in their role.
Is it an insult? Yes
Does it have racial connotations? Also yes.
Is it a racial insult? Maybe?
The drive behind calling someone an “Uncle Tom” is not a slight against the color of their skin or their heritage. It implies that you are a traitor to your people, siding against them with the oppressors/The Man/etc. It’s an attack against how you act, not who you are.
It’s very defiantly a personal attack, and I’d assume a Rule 1 violation if used here. But while it racially-adjacent, I’d not classify it as a slur
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race.
I don't see how calling someone a traitor to their people is not a racial slur. It's basically saying "you're not one of us," and the person using it is claiming ultimate and absolute authority over everyone else who happens to share their ethnicity.
Terms like "Uncle Tom" are designed to enforce thought conformity within a community rather than engage specific ideas.
Frankly, I cannot image a more bigoted notion than the idea that everyone with the same skin color or language has to think exactly the same.
Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race.
I don't see how calling someone a traitor to their people is not a racial slur. It's basically saying "you're not one of us," and the person using it is claiming ultimate and absolute authority over everyone else who happens to share their ethnicity.
Terms like "Uncle Tom" are designed to enforce thought conformity within a community rather than engage specific ideas.
Frankly, I cannot image a more bigoted notion than the idea that everyone with the same skin color or language has to think exactly the same.
Thanks, that was my point when being called that. There are worse things to be called, but still. It's one of those "I'm not a "real" member of our culture" just because I disagree with certain stereotype political views and cultural norms. You'd be surprised how many people of Latin decent look down on non-Catholic Latinos.
Ah the good old Religion-culture-race combination. Colloqually known as a part of the Kulturkampf phenomenon.
don't worry doesn't even need race to be in working order for insulting intent, considering what we lot had with the "kulturkampf", it's anyways easy for low blows against an individual that disagrees with your way of life or (political or otherwise) oppinions. Basically it's adopt my view or be silent or else face repression.
Generally doesn't work out with or without race in it, because living realities are rather subjective and if there is one thing people dislike it's when they are told what to do and think especially on what they believe/ is their hometurf.
Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.
Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.
Yeah, and the argument that it doesn't count as racist so long as it's an internal discussion within a race entirely misses the point. Being shut down and coerced based on ethnicity is always wrong, regardless of who the enforcers are.
Getting back to moderation, I don't think sites should tolerate people who use personal insults (such as race or ethnicity) to stop a discussion. If you want to discredit someone's arguments, it should be specific to the topic, such as: "Yeah, but you never even played the game, so how can you tell us it's bad?"
I'm fairly sure I know which forum you are referring to, and given the echo chamber and dogpiling that takes place there, it doesn't surprise me on their hypocrisy of how they act as badly as the ones they purport to condemn.
But yeah, within the context that was given, definitely an insult at the very least and a way to dismiss your argument by focusing on irrelevant details and implying you're a fake minority by not towing to the narrative of how you're supposed to act.
Agree.
You have every right to assess how it was applied to you and how much offense to take. It's incredibly cruel to enforce compliance and uniformity by questioning someone's racial identity and trustworthiness.
I'm about an white as they come and I work, Church, and for 14 years lived in an African American inner city neighborhood. If I was stupid enough to have called someone that, I could reasonably expect a response ranging from a stern rebuke to a face punch.
It was not a term lightly applied by my neighbors either.
I'd call that a racial slur based on the fact it's a slur that is dependent on your race and bundles you into a group in a derogatory way.
I can see why some people might disagree though, as it's not solely an insult based on your race, but has the added thing of a perceived behaviour + race.
All that said, I try to talk a philosophical approach to racist language... most people in most the world for most of history have been horribly racist, and most the world today still is horribly racist. The western world these days is probably the least racist it's ever been (not saying it can't still improve). So I try and not get too bent out of shape when someone calls me something. Obviously it's still an insult against me, but I try not to see it as any additional insult on top of anything else. They might as well be insulting my weight, or my intelligence, or something sexual, or my family, or whatever, it's all the same gak to me. I'm a half/half person, but I won't pretend that it's placed any specific burden on my life (other than infrequently being on the receiving end of racial slurs), I imagine if someone has had a rougher background caused by their race maybe they'd (rightly) feel different to me.
Hard to tell, but I'd err on the side of not trying to find extra things to be offended by. Would calling someone a Brutus or a Trojan Horse (similar metaphore) imply anti-roman or anti-hellenic sentiments and an attempt to attack someone's percieved Italian/Greek ancestry?
Uncle Tom is a racial slur. And as you’ve explained it, intended as such by the person in question.
And that’s enough. It’s not for others to tell you not to take offence. They’re not you.
Now. If that term, or another racial slur was used without the person really knowing what it meant? It’s still solely your right to determine if it was offensive. The only difference is whether you feel it’s a teachable moment for that person.
Example. Many many years ago on Dakka there was a discussion on the origin of such slurs. And it was pretty educational. I remember posting that I found a particular one (euphemistically, let’s use Arboreal Laporidae) amusing, because it just sounded ridiculous. Frazz then explained the origin, and that was that. I’ve never used or referred to that term until today.
But even if it is a teachable moment, it’s not a requirement for you to undertake that burden. If offence is caused, you are not obliged to explain that to the person causing the offence.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd call that a racial slur based on the fact it's a slur that is dependent on your race and bundles you into a group in a derogatory way.
I can see why some people might disagree though, as it's not solely an insult based on your race, but has the added thing of a perceived behaviour + race.
All that said, I try to talk a philosophical approach to racist language... most people in most the world for most of history have been horribly racist, and most the world today still is horribly racist. The western world these days is probably the least racist it's ever been (not saying it can't still improve). So I try and not get too bent out of shape when someone calls me something. Obviously it's still an insult against me, but I try not to see it as any additional insult on top of anything else. They might as well be insulting my weight, or my intelligence, or something sexual, or my family, or whatever, it's all the same gak to me. I'm a half/half person, but I won't pretend that it's placed any specific burden on my life (other than infrequently being on the receiving end of racial slurs), I imagine if someone has had a rougher background caused by their race maybe they'd (rightly) feel different to me.
I sometimes feel that slurs really depend on the intent of the user as well. Note to the mods, I am about to "technically" get around the language filter here, but it won't be used as a slur.
Some slurs are commonly used to describe other non-slurs. Big example is the slang British term for a cigarette. If I heard the term used in that context, it would never faze me, and I don't think anyone else should either. Another one is the R-word for mentally disabled people. In a car discussion here on dakka I found out that I couldn't say I ret arded my timing on the ignition without the language filter changing it to "Slowed". Not a slur in that context. Have I on occasion used it to describe a foolish person? Yes, and I'm trying to limit myself on that. It's a bit of a relic of an 80's upbringing. Would I ever call a disabled person that? Heck no.
I just googled "Uncle Tom", and every hit was describing it as a [generally race-related] slur, or links to the book.
Google searches are skewed to the user doing the search, but there were no links that did not suggest such. I have never heard the term used, and would not know to use it, so I cannot see how the mod could have suggested it was not a slur.
IMHO - There is no doubt that "Uncle Tom" used in any context is a racial slur. It *literally* is based on race - no matter how the term is used now. I dont think it matters who says it or what race its meant for.
Who ever posted that is using it as a deliberate trigger.
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.
Yeah, and the argument that it doesn't count as racist so long as it's an internal discussion within a race entirely misses the point. Being shut down and coerced based on ethnicity is always wrong, regardless of who the enforcers are.
This.
One of the litmus tests long failed that has been at the start of the slippery slope of cultural adversity, is the internal versus external application of the same lingo.
The best single example of this is the N-word, which is automatically either a sign of racial integrity or a hate speech slur based entirely on the ethnicity of the speaker and regardless of the context.
Stop for a moment and think deeply on what that means.
If your language divides you, society will never heal. This is why we have worse racial integration now than we did when we had genuine state barriers to integration.
State barrier can be overcome by civil rights, doctrinal barriers overcome civil rights.
The solution is awareness. I do not expect or ask for, to use the same example, a change of usage of the N-word, but an open acknowledgement on a societal level of the disparity is actually enough to repair the damage
That way you can talk around it, and have genuine mutual dialogue and respect, rather than constant egg shell walking and overreach.
What we can apply to this one word case can be applied to wokeness and diversity in general.
This goes far beyond one word and is a symptom of the effect on the dialectic as a whole, currently there is a doctrinal breach that works to undermine society on a personal level, national and increasingly global level.
The above quote hits on the problem squarely and frankly subconsciously. Focus on the italicised connection: There should not be 'enforcers' of speech in liberal society, the causal mention of the presence of enforcers in the quote says a lot frankly. It is a casual resignation of essential civil liberty, a sign that not only has such liberty passed away but its loss has been accepted.
Doctrinal enforcement is a self appointed powerbase reliant on fear based compliance and the power rush of accusation, it wont go away because the enforcers grow fat on it. It is a heady drug of power and leads only to further and more open abuse. It is proving to be de facto more powerful than the British Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States both.
To understand this you need to recognise that wokeness and associated doctrines are a lever enriching and empowering some at the expense of society as a whole. The solution is to have a level forum for dialogue to which cancel culture is strongly repelled. I will leave further specifics off the thread due to Dakka current policy on politics, but you should be able to see more clearly from here. Most of these problems are resolvable, but it is in the interests of some not only to fail to resolve them but to double down. That should be rooted out, and the time window to do that is fading quickly.
In times past on Dakka I was explaining this, and other things woke two decades before woke became a word, and accurately predicting the effects to come; including the existential threat it is to western democracy. I was largely laughed at, and sometimes censored, both here and elsewhere, but I was not wrong.
I sometimes feel that slurs really depend on the intent of the user as well. Note to the mods, I am about to "technically" get around the language filter here, but it won't be used as a slur.
Some slurs are commonly used to describe other non-slurs. Big example is the slang British term for a cigarette. If I heard the term used in that context, it would never faze me, and I don't think anyone else should either. Another one is the R-word for mentally disabled people. In a car discussion here on dakka I found out that I couldn't say I ret arded my timing on the ignition without the language filter changing it to "Slowed". Not a slur in that context. Have I on occasion used it to describe a foolish person? Yes, and I'm trying to limit myself on that. It's a bit of a relic of an 80's upbringing. Would I ever call a disabled person that? Heck no.
Sometimes?
Language on a fundamental level, despite what some may claim, functions on intent and general understanding and that is dependant upon context.
F.e. People dicking around in a COD lobby whilest being toxic with each other may A be a case of cyber bullying, B: bunch of friends / close hobby group gak talking one another.
Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.
Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.
Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.
Argive wrote: Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.
Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.
Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.
Yeeeeep, it's ad hominem palooza, and not even in the early internet days where people were just edgelords and doing the usual anonymous craposting you get (though that does still exist), if you ever stray from whatever mainstream narrative these people believe nowadays, welcome to the jailhouse.
The most annoying part is how they keep shifting the definitions when you ask them to define them, basically to just suit whoever fits who they're targeting at the time and for some cases, really becomes super circular for things that even a grade school kid could answer.
Argive wrote: Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.
Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.
Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.
Yeeeeep, it's ad hominem palooza, and not even in the early internet days where people were just edgelords and doing the usual anonymous craposting you get (though that does still exist), if you ever stray from whatever mainstream narrative these people believe nowadays, welcome to the jailhouse.
The most annoying part is how they keep shifting the definitions when you ask them to define them, basically to just suit whoever fits who they're targeting at the time and for some cases, really becomes super circular for things that even a grade school kid could answer.
Definition shifting is a huge thing, and sometimes laughable if it didn't have so-many bobbleheads nodding in agreement. Here is a summary of a conversation I once had:
Them: Criticizing (insert Middle East country) is racist.
Me: No one is above honest criticism.
Them: It's Islamophobia, and that's racist.
Me: It's not about Islam, and Islamophobia is bad, but it's technically not "racist". Discriminatory, yes. Racist, no.
Them: Prejudice against any culture is racist. You can't discriminate against what someone is born into.
Me: Within the last three pages you have disparaged Christians, people in rural communities, and children born into well-off families. They were all born into these circumstances.
THem: REEEEEEE!!!!
Orlanth wrote: If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/
I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow
Orlanth wrote: If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/
I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow
Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.
cuda1179 wrote: Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.
In the 1990s there was a play called "Corpus Christi" that was about how Jesus and Judas were gay lovers. Christian groups sent protest notes, some picketers showed up, but the show went on and everyone cheered the stunning and brave production company.
In the Aughts, same play opened, but Muslims pointed out that Jesus is also considered a prophet in Islam and that it was therefore blasphemy. The show was canceled.
Orlanth wrote: If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/
I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow
Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.
Thank you cuda.
I could give numerous examples of extreme grievances and persecution but wont forsake of forum rules.
Sorry you will have to find your own examples. I wrote one out, but had to think better and deleted it.
What I can say is this:
If you criticise Christianity, you are edgy and cool, or 'stunning and brave', if you criticise other religions to the same degree you are condemned, in many well documented cases in the UK you will be arrested.
Meanwhile if Christians criticise what they dislike they are widely told to bluntly shut up and be more 'tolerant', if certain other religions have criticisms they are listened to with timid silence, and that includes by certain secular pressure groups that are openly confrontational to everyone else. Incidentally the religion in question doesn't need to have a reputation for summary beheadings to gain that respect, though I believe in same cases it is a factor.
You will witness a phenomena that encompasses far more than Christianity though, but Christians are the easiest to define victims of the new societal balance.
What else I can just about say is this:
Ask yourself why. If you look closely enough you will see the connections. You will if you look far enough find gross imbalances between different population groups that violate any protocols on equality; and those imbalances have state sanction.
It isn't hidden, you don't need to delve into 'conspiracy' to find it. Two and a half decades ago it was when I first saw this, but it isn't now.
If you look, you will find. If you do look and are honest about what you find you will likely red pill yourself, so be forewarned.
cuda1179 wrote: Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.
In the 1990s there was a play called "Corpus Christi" that was about how Jesus and Judas were gay lovers. Christian groups sent protest notes, some picketers showed up, but the show went on and everyone cheered the stunning and brave production company.
In the Aughts, same play opened, but Muslims pointed out that Jesus is also considered a prophet in Islam and that it was therefore blasphemy. The show was canceled.
Draw your own conclusions.
Didn't see this as I responded to posts as I saw them.
Yep, Stunning and brave meme again.
This has happened twice with two different artists: depicting urination on the face of a crucified Christ as 'art'. One was a music video in the early 90s the other was more recent a sculpture called 'pisschrist'.
After church protests were milked for lulz both were stopped by non-Christian religious intervention.
Orlanth wrote: If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/
I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow
Since when did discussing religion become okay on this forum?
I would prefer to talk around religion and politics under the current policy.
We can handle this without crossing the line, mostly.
The core issues do need to be discussed as they have passed through political and relgious and into social commentary.
The fact that any one of us can be cancelled at any time in this current age is an issue that has a political root, but is a social day to day that can be experienced by anyone, including Dakka members without having to be part of any religious sect or political group.
This makes the discussion healthy and frankly necessary.
Even now most people don't understand wokeness, and yet it applies to our daily lives.
How to survive cancel culture or baseless accusation 101 is pretty much a necessity now, and an understanding of how society has suddenly got gak and why may be helpful even to someone who has no interest in religion or politics and only wants to play wargames.
Even you are only one contrived misunderstanding away from censure and lasting trouble.
A recent long-winded debate kept doing circles. It boiled down to one side saying "Bad actions are bad actions, regardless of context," and the other side saying "Bad actions aren't bad if the victim deserved it."
I just find it all to easy, and convenient, when people label the other side of an argument as just evil enough to deserve cruelty.
In my own peculiar way, as a Scot living in England I’m a minority. Granted it’s the sort of minority nobody can tell unless I open my gob.
And there are slurs about Scots, many of which I’ve been on the receiving end of.
Context is King here. If it’s a fellow Scot or a close friend? I’m fine with it. That to me is just banter.
Anyone else uses those terms? And I’ll be calling them out on it. One doesn’t have to intend offence for offence to be caused.
Consider the apology vs the non-apology.
Actual apology? I’m sorry I offended you.
Non-apology? I’m sorry if you took offence.
The first is apologising for using the offending term or phrase. The second is putting the blame on the offended.
But importantly, whether or not I take offence? Those terms remain racist at all times. No other Scot is required to not take offence just because I didn’t. And what they let fly creates no obligation on me to follow suit.
Just…get your head round that and you’re most of the way there. And the safest play? Just don’t use them. At all. Expunge them from your lexicon. If you have an issue with someone, use your Big Person Words and express your sentiment in a more articulate way.
As for some of the comments? You may not consider yourself to be racist. But, get this right, it’s wild…..that doesn’t stop certain words and phrases being racist. So, if you use a racist term? What are other folk meant to do or think? You may cite Freedom of Speech, but I’ll point out that has never meant Freedom from Consequence.
Consider what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such language. Because it’s never an isolated thing. Me? Whilst the minority I belong to has it pretty cushy (again, unless I open my mouth, no one is going to know), when we moved to England I was on the receiving end of racist and demeaning language day in, day out. That’s….wearing on one’s tolerance. So I won’t even think of asking your forgiveness if it’s made me quite touchy on certain things, because I don’t have to justify offence received to the person giving the offence, however unintended.
I never imagined you with a Scottish accent when reading your posts in my head doc!
Personally I think demanding an apology for something someone did not mean or intended just to assert moral superiority, deserves a non apology.
Its also worth pointing out that the world is a big place where ones regions majority will be another's regions minority culturally, ethnically and racially.
So unless we all agree that ANY kind of slurs of any kind are unacceptable in a global forum then you will end up with the sort of situation OP has originally outlined. And this will mean stifling communication regardless of familiarity. Which is a bit sad IMO.
If someone genuinely or plausibly didn’t know it was a racist term? That’s a teachable moment, and not something to flame them for.
I’m not going to offer any criteria there, because it’s so highly subjective. But if you genuinely didn’t know the term was offensive, then surely there’s no issue in simply apologising, and being a little wiser in your choice of words.
The written word is of course tricky to judge, but context can be gleaned from the overall conversation. But at the end of the day, if OP found cause for offence? It’s not for anyone else to say they shouldn’t have.
I think a good example of unintentional racism was in an episode of Survivor. A White man mentioned something about his Black teammate's du-rag (He was wearing the tribe's buff on his head). Apparently the du-rag fashion has certain racial, cultural, and gang affiliations that even I was unaware of. The two patched it up pretty quickly, but I had no idea that term would offend anyone.
I would point out that referring to a given religion as a privileged or oppressed class as an example in a conversation like this is not generally useful because it is so based on the culture in which one finds itself. Often that culture changes depending on what country, state, or even town one enters.
In the USA for example there are areas where "what church do you go to?" is a common question when you meet someone and there are areas where revealing that one is a regular church-goer might make you somewhat suspect amongst your peers. You just can't generalize about it.
All this to say, I don't think a wider discussion esteem of religion is useful to this discussion and is likely to get the thread closed.
cuda1179 wrote: I think a good example of unintentional racism was in an episode of Survivor. A White man mentioned something about his Black teammate's du-rag (He was wearing the tribe's buff on his head). Apparently the du-rag fashion has certain racial, cultural, and gang affiliations that even I was unaware of. The two patched it up pretty quickly, but I had no idea that term would offend anyone.
This is a good example.
Issue caused by well meaning ignorance. From the description, both had their Big Boy Pants on, and sorted it out amicably. And the guy who’s words caused the offence is now a wiser man for it. Not exactly “no har, no foul” given the issue, but all sorted to both party’s seemingly mutual satisfaction.
Another example. Around 9 years ago, my career really took off and I ended up as a Mentor, teaching newbies the ropes. The team I was assigned to? Yeah I was the only white bloke in it. That was a first from me, as the towns I’ve lived in babe been very very white. Now, being a child of the 80’s, and a fan of pop culture, I felt the need to really watch my mouth. For instance, “whatchoo talkin’ ‘bout Willis” to me is just a pop culture reference, applicable when a question is asked in unclear terms. To others in my team? It could be seen as racially insensitive or just outright racist. So, I purposefully avoided such things.
The downside was me having to stop and think, and I came across as standoffish and aloof. I got slaughtered in my first Stop, Start, Continue feedback. I took that criticism on the chin, because it was valid. That lead to an open dialogue with all involved, and everything got better. I loosened up, and my team appreciated why I sometimes took a moment to form my response.
Another work example? During lockdown, I was on the phones taking incoming calls. One “lovely” chap had an issue with his bank. And decided the problem was “The Scotch”. Phrases included “but you know what them Scotch are like. Want it all their own way” and ragging on Scots in general. Now. Having lived in England for well over 30 years, my accent has softened quite a bit, but it’s still there. I calmly explained to this person I myself am a Scot, so if we could put the politics to one side and discuss the actual problem, I’ll see if it’s something we can consider. He. Went. Mental. Wouldn’t shut up. Lumped us all in together, banging on about independence and now he’d disband The Scottish Parliament. I hung up, as we’re allowed to do.
That call genuinely knocked me for six, and genuinely upset me. Many of my colleagues get that on a daily basis, either due to gender, race, religion etc (often more than one). For me it was One Call Out Of Thousands I’ve Fielded In 10 Years. And it still gets you.
There’s no justifying it. Ever. There’s no valid apologist position. Racists are awful people, who’s opinions and actions impact people.
If you’ve caused offence? Especially if it was innocently done? Just apologise and try to learn from it. Don’t try to share the blame by claiming “they’re being over sensitive”. Don’t make comparisons to something someone else once said to you or someone you know. Your words. Your foul. Your harm. Just….apologise, learn and move on.
LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .
A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.
British Dictionary, as suits my geographic dialect. No match to Cuda’s claim. But dictionary definitions aren’t enough. And so? I will keep their definition in mind and use other phrases in future.
Also, I'm not really wrapping my head around anti Scot racism. That's like me hating Texans. I guess prejudice is a generation phenomenon that takes time and effort to stamp out.
Just the other week, I had my best mate over for a cuppa, and he was bemoaning that his kids, who live in Wales, have to learn Welsh in school.
To you, I and indeed him, it feels like a wasted effort. But, for those Welsh born and bred it’s an indelible part of their culture. A language which like Scots and Irish Gaelic, was once declared illegal.
Now other than the name of a couple of TV shows from when I was wee, and even then I couldn’t tell you what they translate to English, I don’t know a lick of Scots Gaelic. Never have, never will.
But making it a compulsory lesson? I do get that. I just can’t properly explain it. It’s one of those cultural pride things. A way for a nation to ensure its own peculiar identity survives through the years. And given as I said there were concerted efforts to remove it? An act of cultural defiance.
I cannot and will not attempt to justify it. It simply…is. Like something genetically encoded. It’s part and parcel of cultural identity. And so, at least to my mind, doesn’t require justification to anyone not of that culture.
Learning Welsh in Wales is similar (though with deeper significance) to having to learn Square Dancing (the state dance) in Illinois. It's a location based cultural/historical artifact you'll probably never need but whether for preservation or just to widen the horizons of an outsider, there's nothing wrong with kids doing a bit of that sort of learning for its own sake.
The relationship between Scots-as-underclass and Scots-as-exporters-of-Empire is fraught enough (see, Engineering, history of) before you even get near our fascinating history within the Union for special pleading.
Slainte (now you know a lick of the Gaidlig, Doc )
Orlanth wrote: I would prefer to talk around religion and politics under the current policy.
We can handle this without crossing the line, mostly.
The core issues do need to be discussed as they have passed through political and relgious and into social commentary.
The fact that any one of us can be cancelled at any time in this current age is an issue that has a political root, but is a social day to day that can be experienced by anyone, including Dakka members without having to be part of any religious sect or political group.
This makes the discussion healthy and frankly necessary.
Even now most people don't understand wokeness, and yet it applies to our daily lives.
How to survive cancel culture or baseless accusation 101 is pretty much a necessity now, and an understanding of how society has suddenly got gak and why may be helpful even to someone who has no interest in religion or politics and only wants to play wargames.
Even you are only one contrived misunderstanding away from censure and lasting trouble.
Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.
TL/DR: Avoid the sewers and you won't run into sewage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Also, I'm not really wrapping my head around anti Scot racism. That's like me hating Texans. I guess prejudice is a generation phenomenon that takes time and effort to stamp out.
Ah... there are people in America who really really hate Texans, because of the way Texas state politics is operating. Not exactly racial, but certainly political/cultural.
cuda1179 wrote: LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .
A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.
Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.
cuda1179 wrote: LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .
A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.
Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.
There's a few sayings that in recent years have been labelled as whatever-ist because of a perceived origin that wasn't correct.
Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.
TL/DR: Avoid the sewers and you won't run into sewage.
.
I'm with you there. I have facebook for just a couple reasons. 1. To be notified of high school reunions. 2. I have a lot of niche hobbies that are hard to find interested people when you live in an urban area, and I live in the rural Midwest. Without facebook groups I'd never find a Warhammer game, battlebots competition, rare aquarium fishery, etc. I have about 30 friends, half of whom are only for my reunion needs.
I have no need to post pictures of a mediocre meal from a diner along a freeway.
cuda1179 wrote: LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .
A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.
Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.
There's a few sayings that in recent years have been labelled as whatever-ist because of a perceived origin that wasn't correct.
Like the terms "Balls-out" or "Balls to the Wall" were deemed toxic masculinity because people thought it had to do with testicles. Balls-out is a reference to centrifugal speed limiters on steam engines. Balls to the Wall refers to throttles on aircraft.
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
To the specific question, I think Uncle Tom is pretty much always an insult, but it's not necessarily an ethnic slur. The speaker does matter. I'd be inclined to edit that if it were me moderating a forum, but I would be seeking the perspectives of POC to help if both the speaker and target are of an ethnicity I am not. I don't think I'm an appropriate arbiter of culturally-specific language used between persons of ethnicities I'm not a part of.
cuda1179 wrote: LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .
.
Great example. I think this illustrates perfectly what we have been discussing.
In this case I would 100% disagree with this statement. Just because you say so does not mean it is so.
Just because it may mean ant-woman in your sphere of culture will not apply in other areas of the Anglo sphere.
Spoiler:
rag
in British English
(ræɡ IPA Pronunciation Guide)
VERB
Word forms: rags, ragging or ragged
(transitive)
1. to draw attention facetiously and persistently to the shortcomings or alleged shortcomings of (a person)
2. British
to play rough practical jokes on
NOUN
3. British
a boisterous practical joke, esp one on a fellow student
4. (in British universities)
a. a period, usually a week, in which various events are organized to raise money for charity, including a procession of decorated floats and tableaux
b. (as modifier)
rag day
So is the expectation that now I or others who use the term commonly, must curtail my speech and not use a perfectly valid term in case I offend someone? (Even though the word is absolutely not offensive)
We kind of fall back into the trap of subjective feelings trump reality, legality or intention and this has been where we have been at for the last 10 or so years and its down right absurd..
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?
Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?
Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.
My point was if you change the "Christian" bit to any other religion/culture you would get the same result.. For example, if im in a country that is 99% catholic/christian all national holidays will revolve around that.
Just like if you were in a 99% Muslim country your holidays will revolve around that and not the 1%. I don't really see an issue. It is what it is and that's how countries operate and have always been operating. Every country will base its doings on what the majority of people do or have been doing
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?
Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.
My point was if you change the "Christian" bit to any other religion/culture you would get the same result.. For example, if im in a country that is 99% catholic/christian all national holidays will revolve around that.
Just like if you were in a 99% Muslim country your holidays will revolve around that and not the 1%. I don't really see an issue. It is what it is and that's how countries operate and have always been operating. Every country will base its doings on what the majority of people do or have been doing
I'm not sure you are quite responding to my position, here? I don't say it's a bizarre thing, or even a bad thing, that territories naturally privilege dominant cultural habits, only that they do. Orlanth states Christian is not a privileged category today. I'm only saying that it is in majority Christian countries, precisely because that's the cultural background most familiar to the majority.
We can probably leave it there? It's a bit of a digression, though I do think idiosyncratic cultural framings of particular motifs are relevabt to the question!
IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.
Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.
But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?
Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.
My point was if you change the "Christian" bit to any other religion/culture you would get the same result.. For example, if im in a country that is 99% catholic/christian all national holidays will revolve around that.
Just like if you were in a 99% Muslim country your holidays will revolve around that and not the 1%. I don't really see an issue. It is what it is and that's how countries operate and have always been operating. Every country will base its doings on what the majority of people do or have been doing
Anyone that's ever wanted quick shipping out of China will feel the pain when it overlaps with Chinese New Year, so yes, it definitely happens.
nfe wrote: Orlanth states Christian is not a privileged category today. I'm only saying that it is in majority Christian countries, precisely because that's the cultural background most familiar to the majority.
We can probably leave it there? It's a bit of a digression, though I do think idiosyncratic cultural framings of particular motifs are relevant to the question!
I do not care about public holidays too much, but essential liberties. Such as the right to non-participation and the right to voice complaint which are both increasingly reserved for non-Christians.
And yes a Jew should be able to book Yom Kippur off mandatory meeting or not. In fact in the UK there is provision for that.
However blatant anti-Christian discrimination is very much a thing in the UK, and is a noted factor in many other western countries. It has now gone so far that quoting the Bible in public is no longer a defended activity, you can be arrested for that, but quoting the Koran is.
nfe wrote: Orlanth states Christian is not a privileged category today. I'm only saying that it is in majority Christian countries, precisely because that's the cultural background most familiar to the majority.
We can probably leave it there? It's a bit of a digression, though I do think idiosyncratic cultural framings of particular motifs are relevant to the question!
I do not care about public holidays too much, but essential liberties. Such as the right to non-participation and the right to voice complaint which are both increasingly reserved for non-Christians.
And yes a Jew should be able to book Yom Kippur off mandatory meeting or not. In fact in the UK there is provision for that.
However blatant anti-Christian discrimination is very much a thing in the UK, and is a noted factor in many other western countries. It has now gone so far that quoting the Bible in public is no longer a defended activity, you can be arrested for that, but quoting the Koran is.
Certainly, if you strictly limit what you mean by 'privileged' then it's easy to construct an argument for why particulat demographics are or are not privileged. Being the cultural default is always a privileged position, though.
The rest of the post requires a lot of substantiation to debate and, alas, is a guaranteed thread lock.
cuda1179 wrote: Also, I'm not really wrapping my head around anti Scot racism. That's like me hating Texans. I guess prejudice is a generation phenomenon that takes time and effort to stamp out.
predominantly "protestant" country. Minority underground catholics. Irish imigration. Diffrent economic set-up, long standing prolonged state of warfare between the earlier iterations of said nations within a nation nowadays.
If you do the math that means a lot of bad blood.
It wasn't much and isn't much diffrent here, albeit with a higher % of catholic swiss and by extentsion not nearly as bullyable as in germany or scotland. And still it wasn't until recently 2001 that catholics regained full religious freedom.
Jews otoh still can't practice kosher butchering locally, because federal law prohibits it being put in place by "protestant-liberals" in the 19th century. Problem is there were about +30% catholics in this country in the rural regions that couldn't give anymore feths about a law that comes from a state that discriminates them so why should they get bothered by federal law. Also import wasn't prohibitable so of course that law doesn't work.
(unless you want to force the swiss jews to eat lower quality import meat i guess though to be fair if there is demand there's someone that will produce)
To this day the resentiments between protestant-liberal Kantons and Catholic-Conservatives are there. Sometimes that boils over in politics, when certain Kantons do and claim certain things, or when people from certain Kantons show up on a off day due to faith, or commit mass tourism for weekend skiing and block the more or less only road i got to get out of my valley and completely fill up my trains... .
And with that come a lot of slurs, stereotypes and of course "fights". Otoh nowadays that has mostly cooled off to the occaisional joke at the other group and has become a bit of a hobby in swiss humor to stereotype one another.
Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.
That might work if you do nothing important in your life, don't have any responsibilities and don't have anything worth taking.
If on the other hand you do, you might come into contact with equity movements who demand privileged access, and if you deny that then a target is placed upon you.
Also silence is at best a short term solution in a culture of changing goalposts and narratives.
Compliance is not safety either, the woke is a monster that can and will devour its own.
nfe wrote: Orlanth states Christian is not a privileged category today. I'm only saying that it is in majority Christian countries, precisely because that's the cultural background most familiar to the majority.
We can probably leave it there? It's a bit of a digression, though I do think idiosyncratic cultural framings of particular motifs are relevant to the question!
I do not care about public holidays too much, but essential liberties. Such as the right to non-participation and the right to voice complaint which are both increasingly reserved for non-Christians.
And yes a Jew should be able to book Yom Kippur off mandatory meeting or not. In fact in the UK there is provision for that.
However blatant anti-Christian discrimination is very much a thing in the UK, and is a noted factor in many other western countries. It has now gone so far that quoting the Bible in public is no longer a defended activity, you can be arrested for that, but quoting the Koran is.
Certainly, if you strictly limit what you mean by 'privileged' then it's easy to construct an argument for why particulat demographics are or are not privileged. Being the cultural default is always a privileged position, though.
The rest of the post requires a lot of substantiation to debate and, alas, is a guaranteed thread lock.
No I am unstrictly limiting privilege to actual privilege.
I am constructing nothing.
The cultural default is not necessarily a privileged position, if you think otherwise you are not paying attention. the equity movement is real and discriminatory and the characteristics of your purported privilege and the defacto characteristics of equity based oppression.
Meanwhile you make out the vacuous tokens such as the specific dates of public holidays matter in the face of demonstratable and real state and society backed discrimination.
What does it matter if you can celebrate St Georges day, not that is is a public holiday anyhow, when if you apply for a job at the BBC you can be openly declined due to the colour of your skin.
English might be the majority in England, but it is NOT the privileged characteristic, as state institutions can and will discriminate against you.
Christians are in the same category, except that there isn't even any veneer of a political majority for Christianity and has not been such for a considerable time. The sole consideration towards Christianity in the UK is that shops are closed on Easter Sunday, the last vestige of Sunday trading laws. Christmas is excluded as at a national level it is a secular and commercial rather than a religious holiday. However there are many things Christians cannot do in the UK which other religions can.
There is a lot that Grotsnik has written here that is indicative of not only changing culture but changing levels of tolerance/intolerance and expectations of others. What Grotsnik writes is obviously well intended and from his point of view rational but displays the increasing irrationality of the current milieu. I mean him no harm.
What he says though is very disheartening as it is an example of a core rot in the relationship between England and Scotland, and a wider example of the damage of the new culture, that goes beyond the current political issues, though I believe it may well be connected.
In my own peculiar way, as a Scot living in England I’m a minority. Granted it’s the sort of minority nobody can tell unless I open my gob.
And there are slurs about Scots, many of which I’ve been on the receiving end of.
Context is King here. If it’s a fellow Scot or a close friend? I’m fine with it. That to me is just banter.
Anyone else uses those terms? And I’ll be calling them out on it. One doesn’t have to intend offence for offence to be caused.
Here we have the rational disconnect of whether one needs to be of a certain people group in order to make comment or raise fun on certain matters.
As a background note on UK interactions, the peoples of the British Isles have long had a lot to say about other subcultures on the islands. And for many generations that was fair banter. You make comments about Scots as an Englishmen, the Scots make comments about you. No one got triggered. The same applied to the Welsh and to a much more limited extent to the Irish, though with active bloodshed until only very recently the latter could not normally be assumed.
It is important to note here that the reason why the English, Welsh and Scots were able to bond despite having a long troubled history and with the very strong cultural dynamics of all three nations was because of the ability to make banter. This was never a characteristic between the various subcultures of Irish society. Consequently while there is as much bad blood between England and Scotland as there was between the British and the Irish the former was able to fade. The latter never had.
The only part of mainland Great Britain where the common culture never bonded was Glasgow, where attitudes from darker times proliferated into the current age and are still here today. In Glasgow the main two factions cannot joke at each others expense and never have. the result is a blood history of deep divide.
My warning to Mad Doc Grotsnik, is why would he desire to take such an enormous cultural leap backward?.
Now, and really only in the last few years has this no longer been so. To make Scots jokes while not being a Scot. Hatecrime! Apologise now!
Again we have a society divided by woke expectations.
If the sentiments highlighted above are to proliferate it will not result in a society of mutual respect. We had that. Instead it will result in a society of mutual hostility, which is what we are getting.
It is telling that a culture of only Scots can banter about Scots is occurring at the same time as a heatening up of actual anti English racism in Scotland.
As a Scot outside Scotland Mad Doc Grotsnik might encounter some racism, there are and always were idiots, I am genuinely sorry for that, no Scot should be unwelcome in England, and I am myself offended to hear if this is not so.
I know plenty of Scots in England and English in Scotland, for the former not much has changed that I know about, but as we see from the quote the expectations of some have changed.
I see Mad Doc Grotsniks upset at hearing Englishmen trying to join in with Scottish banter as their and your forefathers did and are now being excluded from; and match that against the vitriolic and open hatred of the English people suffered by English people in Scotland.
You don't even have to be in Scotland, being English and having an internet connection is enough to get exposed to the vitriol. Remember I am not talking about shared banter, stuff you might find funny if mentioned by someone from an approved ethnicity, but hatred and racial blame openly and angrily applied to current topics with tacit approval of national leadership.
Consider the apology vs the non-apology.
Actual apology? I’m sorry I offended you.
Non-apology? I’m sorry if you took offence.
.
The non apology is frankly the correct outcome. When a century old culture of banter between subgroups in the UK has been replaced by a culture of accusation and expectation of servile soft-treading nothing good can come from it.
I would far rather double down and say and believe I am sorry someone took offence.
What I am most sorry about is the terminal decline in national group relations within the cultures of the British Isles.
Allowing for what is at stake. Either a culture of mutual respect by actual tolerance, or a sectarian future where to say the wrong thing to the wrong person causes a triggered response.
One of the reasons behind the general good relations in the past between the English and Scots, is because the banter would proliferate both ways with no offence taken. There is a lot of blood in the history between these two nations, and the correct solution, long practiced, was to celebrate the mutual history together. Here we had strength of diversity by matching our history and culture both together and in separation. It worked well enough to survive two World Wars and conquer a third of the planet.
Any Englishmen worth his salt, with a personality unblemished by avocados and soy, will take well comments of Robert the Bruce and jokes about English mannerisms with good cheer and will respond in kind if they know enough about British history. A worthy Scot will in turn not get triggered. This would occur no matter who started the particular round of banter.
I like the Scots and love Scotland, I hate what wokeness has done to them and us.
In some case where woke has not soiled our culture this is still not only acceptable but expected. A good example of these holdouts is the military, whether healthy banter is long part of the shared culture. If a Scots Guardman meets a Coldstream Guardsman, and does NOT within a reasonable time period accuse the latter of being a 'sheepshagger' then the Coldstreamer will quickly question whether the person they are talking to is an imposter.
Note to those who serve. I am not a soldier, but come from a service family. If you serve in HM Armed Forces and think my comments untrue, call me out on them.
If you’ve caused offence? Especially if it was innocently done? Just apologise and try to learn from it. Don’t try to share the blame by claiming “they’re being over sensitive”. Don’t make comparisons to something someone else once said to you or someone you know. Your words. Your foul. Your harm. Just….apologise, learn and move on.
This is quite sad really. I see from the above quote someone who is deeply impacted by the new culture and wants to help people adjust to not causing offence. I take that at face value and respect Grotsnik more than this post might appear.
The problem is the wording of apologise and retract is part of the woke milieu and the above sentiments are more normally wielded as a weapon and not a tool of cultural education.
Wokeness is a power structure, with distinct stages.
1. First there is a generated right to take offence.
- In this case a right to no longer accept Scottish jokes from non Scottish persons, a dissolution of the common unifying culture of the British peoples that we considered ourselves part of a unifying whole celebrating our differing national characteristics.
2. Which is linked to a forced degeneration of the national characteristic.
- Being a Scot was not and frankly should never be a touchy subject. Scots are not snowflakes. Scots are tough folk that can take a joke and have your back. The English should be expected to be no different, sadly woke has damaged my people too.
3. It makes social interactions more difficult by intent.
- I cannot add a specific here example as I have no been long enough exposed to this particular issue.
4. To which a solution is presented of a new rising caste of cultural zampolits who can tell us all how to live.
- This Grotsniks is doing subconsciously and gently, and I believe with good intent based on what he was fed. But there is very little essential difference between needing to be told by those in the know not to offend a Scot than there is a a need to hire Anita Sarkeesian in order to know how not to offend minorities in video games development.
Grotsnik is making a 'helpful' social comment based on the new culture he has been poisoned with. Others spread the poison and expect to manufacture a powerbase out of it.
I gave one defunct example of the latter, there are far worse examples out there.
Wokeness is poison. It enters through the school and university system under the cloak of the worthy goal increased understanding and respect in equality.
- It brings anything but equality.
- It claims tolerance while empowering the right to take offence.
- It magnified any offence taken and remedy demanded taken out of all proportion to any perceived wrong.
- It brings intolerance where there previously was little or none and breaks down pre-existing societal bridges.
- It thins any barriers to perceived wrongs to the extent that is can be come difficult not to breach them in daily life.
- It generates a new false intelligensia to tell the non woke how to behave correctly in the new milieu. Many of these new enlightened teachers are well meaning and frankly deluded individuals who never see through the original mantra of wokeness and are genuine believers in equality and tolerance. Others are hardened opportunists, bigots and grifters who abuse the concepts of equality to bring accusation and division and grow powerful on the back of their power to censure and condemn.
Nothing good comes from wokeness. It turns a multitude of nice people into intolerant dogmatists, without them knowing what they have become. It empowers a few deeply evil people into demagogues of woke who take advantage of the former category and will callously use and discard them.
Wokeness is an existential threat to western society.
Sorry for the blunt message. This is tough love for decent people overtaken by 2+2=5.
I guarantee you offence has always been taken. But it’s not always been acceptable to call it out.
Just go back a few years in terms of telly, and what was shown on screen. Casual racism, sexism and homophobia.
Oh, and thank you so, so much for telling me, an Actual Scot On Account I Was Born In Scotland what a Scot actually is.
Do you not see how that is inherently insulting? That because I object to my nationality being the butt of a joke or denigrated, I’m somehow Not Actually Scottish Because Scots Are Tough? Particularly when I took pains to ensure my comments, frames of references and experiences solely apply to me? That at no point have I said “therefore no Scot should simply laugh it off” etc?
In fact, if you’d care to read what I said, not what you think I said, I’ve been clear and consistent that what might be insulting or upsetting to one person, doesn’t beholden the next to follow suit? And that just because the next isn’t fussed, it doesn’t mean the first was being overly sensitive?
First I am not triggered by fair reply, so please carry on.
A healthy disagreement with my commentary is to be expected.
Oh and I clarified a lot of what I wrote and place indicators that might not be there when you first read the thread.
I think the stakes are a lot higher than whether you feel upset by people making Scots jokes.
Now to specifics.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I guarantee you offence has always been taken. But it’s not always been acceptable to call it out.
I am not and never have been talking about genuine racism against Scots. You are not expected to tolerate that. I am talking about the example you gave, of banter. Banter which in your eyes you would not be offended by if the speaker was Scottish.
Here you betray a dynamic where offence is taken because of the ethnicity of the speaker, not because of the words that come out of their mouths.
Just go back a few years in terms of telly, and what was shown on screen. Casual racism, sexism and homophobia.
Newspeak. Casual <noun> is just part of the learned response of decreasing cultural tolerances made from woke.
Comedy from the 1970's was not offensive in the 1970's. Cultures do shift over time, but it is historically inaccurate and politically suspect to impose current dogmas on prior cultures.
You have been taught to apply a cultural trend of today and imposing it on prior generations that had thicker skins and healthier societal attitudes.
It is a false cultural appropriation to generate a narrative of offence and to create discord where there was not any of note.
You have decided that to benefit your feefees you wish to undo a social bond between two ancient nations both with good cause to be proud of their histories and return to the fore hair trigger sensibilities that wiser generations have left buried in the past.
We had a system, it worked. He had unity via good cheer and mutual respect based on a healthy banter.
Do you recognise the price you are expecting to be paid to cater to your sensitivities.
Orlanth, there is a difference between friendly banter and what mad doc described in his phone call exemple.
I take from a flatlander only so much "thick ignorant mountainpeasant" often coupled with supposed ammounts of xenophobia just because i happen to be more conservative before i will voice my discontent, espcially since there are some bills still open.
Now it is another thing if it is in person and i can see mimic and gestures so as to get the context required to qualify it as banter or actual insult, but on phone or written form and by an unknown person which then is doubling down after mad doc pointing it out ?
Thing is though, there is a massive grey area, in which such criticism has, despite the insulting nature, justifyable critical meaning and value at a societal level, and that is where i agree with your point, people nowadays get far too easily insulted and can far to easily use that to shut down a conversation.
Not Online!!! wrote: Orlanth, there is a difference between friendly banter and what mad doc described in his phone call exemple.
I don't know anything about Mad Doc Grotsnik's phone call messages. I am replying to a specific quote to which an expected reply and commitment to take offence was signalled in addition to an expected outcome from the person who spoke.
As referenced here:
And there are slurs about Scots, many of which I’ve been on the receiving end of.
Context is King here. If it’s a fellow Scot or a close friend? I’m fine with it. That to me is just banter.
Anyone else uses those terms?...
I must reiterate here that Mad Doc Grotsnik was saying was a well meaning comment intended to help prevent offending him and people in his peer circle.
I think we can highlight the issue if we recognise here that the word slur and banter are used interchangeably for the same activity based on race of the person whose lips are moving.
To which is added a protocol of expected action and examples of wrong action.
If you’ve caused offence? Especially if it was innocently done? Just apologise and try to learn from it. Don’t try to share the blame by claiming “they’re being over sensitive”. Don’t make comparisons to something someone else once said to you or someone you know. Your words. Your foul. Your harm. Just….apologise, learn and move on.
Please note that the apology and moving on, may and likely is a single event, to be politely forgot by a decent and honourable man.
However this generates sinister echoes. Essentially the correct response to finding out you are the wrong race while saying something that would be perfectly acceptable if you were a different race is to humbly apologise and recognise the deep wrong you are doing.
We have come across this particular pattern of doctrine before. The Bourgoisie/Kulaks/non-BAME/White Privileged/Jews must reflect on the distress caused by their presence and must revaluate their position in respectful homage to their 'victims'.
Even if it is so there is now a cultural dynamic of two imposed roles of educator and person who needed correcting. There is an consequential power shift in the social dynamic, this person needed correcting of their wrong think, so the educator is now in a morally superior position and is by extension more righteous. While this is not normally a dynamic of honest social correction, it is an inevitable dynamic when in terms of social correction based on politically imposed doctrine as is the case here.
That would be bad enough as a subconsciously perpetuated power dynamic. The person who happened to be the wrong race while saying a joke that would be acceptable if they were of the right race will remember that they required correction long after the punchline has faded.
More often the re-education is on ongoing process and the educator finds something else to correct. With the ever moving goalposts of wokeness this dynamic is easy to generate. In fact it is proving all but inevitable.
This is an example not of any moral failing on Mad Doc Grotsmnik's part, but on the subconscious power dynamics of woke itself. It samples and unintended caricature of the mental process behind re-education camps, and totalitarian indoctrination in general. While those particular horrors are not on the horizon in western society the power structures behind them are in place and growing and an essential component within the devisive philopsophy of woke that emerges even in well meaning cases.
If this is in any way unclear let me very brefly give a part veiled example from recent social history. If you were to you ask yourself which 'Lives Matter', and if you consider that the answer is anyone or everyones, because that seems the most ethical and logical answer; then ask why such a reply can and has been openly toted as a hate crime.
Now it is another thing if it is in person and i can see mimic and gestures so as to get the context required to qualify it as banter or actual insult, but on phone or written form and by an unknown person which then is doubling down after mad doc pointing it out ?
I know nothing about that either.
Whatever is or was spoken, if it was not offensive if the speaker happened to be Scottish, then it should not rationally be offensive if the speaker happened to be not-Scottish.
This principle applies regardless of the combo of commentator and purportedly approved race.
I would get particularly vocal in opposing received teaching that it was unacceptable for non-English people to make comments on or jokes about English people. Because as an person who opposes woke indoctrination I must oppose an imposed cultural narrative of behaviour inflicted upon the people group to which I do belong.
Be careful in dissecting what I am saying here. I do not say that only English people should attribute said characteristics, wokeness is to be opposed at every turn. Instead I have a vested interest in opposing woke poison on my native culture as it is to cultures with which we have an established cultural bond of interaction.
It is not my place to apply that elsewhere.
As it so happens this particular set of affairs is unlikely to happen because the woke narrative towards English is that as a purportedly 'dominant' culture it is fair game for ridicule. Scots (in this example) are enabled to be intolerant by wokeness as the resulting devisiveness is supporting woke agenda*. There is no benefit to the woke of bolstering English pride, so the English of themselves are not a protected group in this way.
Outside the UK you can apply similar patterns where a purportedly dominant culture is being excluded from expectation to take offence and does not have the social enablement to do so. While this applies at a cultural level the protected and non protected people groups clearly follow lines of which people groups wokeists want to empower and which they want to disenfranchise.
Wokeness is at its core several dynamics working simultaneously. A macro scale power structure shift with aim to benefit specific political clans, a regional scale tier hierarchy based on racial or social characteristics with a deliberately uneven access to rights and benefits based on group characteristics, and on a local level a cultural isolation process carried out at an individual basis by a forced regression of the protocols of human interaction.
*Forgive me if I am unable to quantify what the characteristics are of the political group behind woke as the would cross the boundary into territory forbidden by forum rules. You will have to work that out yourself.
Rather than going around the houses about whether emic and etic uses of terms can be justifiably read totally differently (which they obviously can) could we just jump to 'is it ok for white people to use the N word?' and get it out the way?
Wokeness is an existential threat to western society.
Sorry for the blunt message. This is tough love for decent people overtaken by 2+2=5.
I wasn't going to do any more replies to this thread because I don't agree with a lot of it but, that's took the piss quite frankly. I'm not saying this with any vehemence because who has the time and energy. I could write a long reply to a lot of the things in this thread, particular about what MDG and Cuda brought up about the UK and our society. But I'll keep this brief.
Here's an equally blunt message, anyone who harps on about wokeness is an idiot. Wokeness isn't a thing, it's used by an absurd whinging commentariat who rely on controversy to make their money. People who fall for it are idiots. Every single thing you wrote there Orlanth makes it clear you have fallen hook line and sinker for it. And you won't like the fact I've said that because people don't like the fact that they have been duped. The whole point of this thread is about cultural systems put in place that pit people against one another.
You know what the genuine difference is now?
People have been insulting, racist, homophobic, sexist in the past and gotten away with it because they had absolute power and no consequences for their actions. Those people still largely control the media and governments in the West.
Now people on the receiving end have the opportunity to call out the offensive things that people say. These things have always been hurtful and offensive and the people saying it know that. The problem is now they are receiving some well deserved reprimand. They try to pretend that the people rightly complaining are weak, unpatriotic, easily offended. But nobody pisses their pants quite like these people. Nothing is unpatriotic quite like inciting hatred on their fellow country folk.
This is about balancing the scales and people with power and money don't like that. So they've spent a long time making it seem that the people responding with criticism are wrong.
If I were you in the spirit of the holidays, do some reading outside your norm. I'm not here to tell you what you should and shouldn't do but I'd advise it for the betterment of yourself. Happy holidays.
nfe wrote: Rather than going around the houses about whether emic and etic uses of terms can be justifiably read totally differently (which they obviously can) could we just jump to 'is it ok for white people to use the N word?' and get it out the way?
I started with that on my first post on this thread.
That issue was a clear highlight of the coming societal destruction of the United States, which now two decades later is actually happening as predicted and why.
Please note that I do NOT blame the African American community of said destruction, this is a clearly visible symptom, not the cause.
nfe wrote: Rather than going around the houses about whether emic and etic uses of terms can be justifiably read totally differently (which they obviously can) could we just jump to 'is it ok for white people to use the N word?' and get it out the way?
I started with that on my first post on this thread.
That issue was a clear highlight of the coming societal destruction of the United States, which now two decades later is actually happening as predicted and why.
Please note that I do NOT blame the African American community of said destruction, this is a clearly visible symptom, not the cause.
You wrote a bunch of words about it in your second post, but don't address the above question insofar as I see. You do say that you wouldn't ask for or expect a change in usage, but do you think people who are not black should be able to use the n word and it be read the same as when black people do? You seem to rail against the premise that emic and etic uses are different.
Here's an equally blunt message, anyone who harps on about wokeness is an idiot. Wokeness isn't a thing, it's used by an absurd whinging commentariat who rely on controversy to make their money. People who fall for it are idiots. Every single thing you wrote there Orlanth makes it clear you have fallen hook line and sinker for it. And you won't like the fact I've said that because people don't like the fact that they have been duped. The whole point of this thread is about cultural systems put in place that pit people against one another.
Thank you for your input.
Please note that I have avoided calling anyone here on this thread an idiot for holding an opinion contrary to my own.
But you think you must be better than me.
Fair enough, that says a lot, but not about me.
Wokeness most definitely is a thing.
If you think it isn't you need to take a good long look at society. Your bio indicates that you are a UK poster, so i will give you limited UK based examples of serious woke. I will have to talk around the issues in respect to the no politics rule.
1. The saddest example first. Imagine you were a girl you were sexually assaulted and found that you got no access to justice because it was not politically correct to prosecute your abuser due to their racial characteristics.
2. You want to have a career in state owned media, and your career progress is delayed by approximately two to three years because you cannot enter the apprenticeships which access you to the promotions track or give you skills in broadcasting. You are not eligible for equal employment access despite multiple equality laws due to your colour of skin. You will have to establish your career by slower more uncertain means regardless of merit. As the career track has a queue you will be de facto behind people of equal or lower ability who do not share the same racial characteristics and entered state media employment at the same time.
Both these policies are state level and enacted due to wokeness. The former quietly, covered up for an extended period and is only now being resolved. The latter openly and in full view of public scrutiny.
Here's an equally blunt message, anyone who harps on about wokeness is an idiot. Wokeness isn't a thing, it's used by an absurd whinging commentariat who rely on controversy to make their money. People who fall for it are idiots. Every single thing you wrote there Orlanth makes it clear you have fallen hook line and sinker for it. And you won't like the fact I've said that because people don't like the fact that they have been duped. The whole point of this thread is about cultural systems put in place that pit people against one another.
Thank you for your input.
Please note that I have avoided calling anyone here on this thread an idiot for holding an opinion contrary to my own.
But you think you must be better than me.
Fair enough, that says a lot, but not about me.
That's a canny laugh man. I like that you go straight for that as if the implicit part of your post isn't exactly what you've just decried me for.
As to the rest of your post, that's all GB news pass the parcel gak.
I don't think I'm better than anyone, but I pity you for the stuff you've said in this thread, because you're angry at stuff that is pushing you backwards. And I see it all the time and it's just sad. I hope you realise at some point that you've made a mistake but I'm not the one to change your mind.
2. You want to have a career in state owned media, and your career progress is delayed by approximately two to three years because you cannot enter the apprenticeships which access you to the promotions track or give you skills in broadcasting. You are not eligible for equal employment access despite multiple equality laws due to your colour of skin. You will have to establish your career by slower more uncertain means regardless of merit. As the career track has a queue you will be de facto behind people of equal or lower ability who do not share the same racial characteristics and entered state media employment at the same time.
Both these policies are state level and enacted due to wokeness. The former quietly, covered up for an extended period and is only now being resolved. The latter openly and in full view of public scrutiny.
Can you elaborate on the specific BBC mechanisms that you are thinking of. There are definitely many structure that funnel specific people to the top of it, but most of those funnelled people are the rich children of other journalists, public intellectuals, and very often ex-presidents of university conservative societies.
Not to mention implying that racial categories being protected from legal repercussions is apparently due to "woke", completely ignoring centuries where black people and other people of colour had no recourse to the law, able to be assaulted, murdered, raped at will, because they were considered subhuman.
1. The saddest example first. Imagine you were a girl you were sexually assaulted and found that you got no access to justice because it was not politically correct to prosecute your abuser due to their racial characteristics.
Many people of colour, even in living memory, do not need to imagine this. They lived it. Hell, just last year we had a spotlight shone on this with the mass graves of indigenous children at residential schools. The perpetrators of those crimes will never face justice, and they were allowed to commit those acts in the first place due to the privilege of their race compared to that of their victims.
I believe you’re referring to the Rotherham Abuse Scandal in the first claim.
That happened some time ago. Before right wing pundits, suddenly upset that freedom of speech didn’t come with freedom from consequence or reprimand, invented the term Woke.
I see you’ve also failed to include Jimmy Saville and the others on Saville Row following Operation Yewtree. People protected by not just the media, but even the Government and Royal Family. What about Theresa May “whoops a daisy I’ve lost all those dossiers about abuse scandals every last document I don’t know what happened to them”.
It’s not that long ago Regional Accents were banned from BBC Broadcasting. And they still cause upset to this day (‘member folk moaning about a BBC presenter’s accent during the Olympics? Saying she shouldn’t be allowed that job?) amongst the tiny minded.
Positive Discrimination is a sticky one, sure. But you seem to be neatly ignoring the decades of prejudicial hiring practices, where people with The Wrong Sort Of Name lost out on jobs. Not just media jobs. Jobs in general.
And that is a frankly bizarre, unsubstantiated claim that Positive Discrimination only leads to, and I quote…
Orlanth wrote: As the career track has a queue you will be de facto behind people of equal or lower ability who do not share the same racial characteristics and entered state media employment at the same time.
Equal or lower ability getting pushed ahead of whitey, just because that person isn’t black? Citation. Very. Much. Needed. No the Daily Mail is not a viable citation. Nor is any Clarksonesque drivel. Clear, verifiable evidence that the sole reason for career advancement is not ability, but melanin, and that therefore any minority advancing their career isn’t deserving on merit.
2. You want to have a career in state owned media, and your career progress is delayed by approximately two to three years because you cannot enter the apprenticeships which access you to the promotions track or give you skills in broadcasting. You are not eligible for equal employment access despite multiple equality laws due to your colour of skin. You will have to establish your career by slower more uncertain means regardless of merit. As the career track has a queue you will be de facto behind people of equal or lower ability who do not share the same racial characteristics and entered state media employment at the same time.
Both these policies are state level and enacted due to wokeness. The former quietly, covered up for an extended period and is only now being resolved. The latter openly and in full view of public scrutiny.
Can you elaborate on the specific BBC mechanisms that you are thinking of. There are definitely many structure that funnel specific people to the top of it, but most of those funnelled people are the rich children of other journalists, public intellectuals, and very often ex-presidents of university conservative societies.
Ref Jack Whitehall. The least funny “comedian” I’ve ever seen - who’s Mummy and Daddy just happen to work in the industry.
Where’s Orlanth’s stand against the Old Boy Network? That absolutely promotes folk well beyond their ability. Ref Boris “Making Daddy’s Money Work Hard” Johnson and his spectacular failings boosting him to the top job.
nfe wrote: Rather than going around the houses about whether emic and etic uses of terms can be justifiably read totally differently (which they obviously can) could we just jump to 'is it ok for white people to use the N word?' and get it out the way?
I started with that on my first post on this thread.
That issue was a clear highlight of the coming societal destruction of the United States, which now two decades later is actually happening as predicted and why.
Please note that I do NOT blame the African American community of said destruction, this is a clearly visible symptom, not the cause.
You wrote a bunch of words about it in your second post, but don't address the above question insofar as I see. You do say that you wouldn't ask for or expect a change in usage, but do you think people who are not black should be able to use the n word and it be read the same as when black people do? You seem to rail against the premise that emic and etic uses are different.
Fair enough. You want clarity, though the 'bunch of words' had relevant meaning.
Were I to discuss this issue as a point of philosophy face to face, or on camera. I would hope I had the courage not to use the phrase N-word. I hope I would have the courage to use the actual word on media.
I cannot here, mostly because it would not be processed and it is likely the context would be entirely ignored.
However if we cannot resolve or highlight and issue by its actual name as a philosophical commentary, and it is likely we cannot if not black, then it highlights the societal disconnect
It is one thing for language to divide us, it is another tier of disconnect if a topic cannot be properly discussed on a philosophic level, i.e. at the level of rational social dialogue as a point of discussion.
Let me give you another example.
A woman meets two men, both talk about the same thing to her.
The first receives a large cheque for his services
The second is arrested by the police and charged with lewd behaviour and faces jail time.
How is this so? A: The first is her gynacologist.
Now the interesting part here is that a) race has no factor on all three persons, b) the second person could also by a medical professional in a similar or same field to the first.
the first man gets pass because he was talking in a professional manner.
So ask yourself this, could a philosopher talk about the dynamics of the N-Word by name, in a philosophical setting, while white?
To ask the other simpler part of your question. It is otherwise a very bad idea for a non black person to ever use the N-word unless enabled to by a professional or vocational context. You will have to judge for yourself is said context can easily exist in this society. It most certainly can and has, a good example is in movie scripts while playing a role of a racist. Kenneth Brannagh played such a role in Wild Wild West, and certainly within the social timeframe of when it was no longer acceptable for a non-black person to use that word.
Personally, although I do not see it happening any time soon, I'd like a colorblind society, so anyone can use the N-word. Does that mark me as a racist, because I think white people should be allowed to use it?
Also, I've known white people who say it around black people. (Dividing people by race, even in text here, bothers me.) Because they say it in a friendly way. Did you know that people of different races could get along? And share slang? Because I know they can.
Fair enough. You want clarity, though the 'bunch of words' had relevant meaning.
Were I to discuss this issue as a point of philosophy face to face, or on camera. I would hope I had the courage not to use the phrase N-word. I hope I would have the courage to use the actual word on media.
I cannot here, mostly because it would not be processed and it is likely the context would be entirely ignored.
However if we cannot resolve or highlight and issue by its actual name as a philosophical commentary, and it is likely we cannot if not black, then it highlights the societal disconnect
It is one thing for language to divide us, it is another tier of disconnect if a topic cannot be properly discussed on a philosophic level, i.e. at the level of rational social dialogue as a point of discussion.
Let me give you another example.
A woman meets two men, both talk about the same thing to her.
The first receives a large cheque for his services
The second is arrested by the police and charged with lewd behaviour and faces jail time.
How is this so? A: The first is her gynacologist.
Now the interesting part here is that a) race has no factor on all three persons, b) the second person could also by a medical professional in a similar or same field to the first.
the first man gets pass because he was talking in a professional manner.
So ask yourself this, could a philosopher talk about the dynamics of the N-Word by name, in a philosophical setting, while white?
To ask the other simpler part of your question. It is otherwise a very bad idea for a non black person to ever use the N-word unless enabled to by a professional or vocational context. You will have to judge for yourself is said context can easily exist in this society. It most certainly can and has, a good example is in movie scripts while playing a role of a racist. Kenneth Brannagh played such a role in Wild Wild West, and certainly within the social timeframe of when it was no longer acceptable for a non-black person to use that word.
Those are interesting examples, because they really underscore that the speaker and context matters a great deal, which you seem to be trying to reject otherwise? In one case the relationship between the speaker and the woman determines the appropriateness of the dialogue, and in the other a term is put in someone's mouth specifically to characterise them negatively, as someone not appropriately positioned to use it.
I don't think you really answered the core part of the question though - is it inappropriate to read words differently depending on the speaker? Is it wrong for us to read the n-word differently? Is it not safe to assume it's usage is in some eay revealing of the speaker's perspectives?
As to the rest of your post, that's all GB news pass the parcel gak.
No it is not.
First I have been talking about this topic on Dakka for twenty odd years. We called it PC then. I think for myself.
You are applying an ad hominem here: the assumption that an opposed viewpoint is spoonfed to an unthinking fool by hostile media too stupid to think for themslves.
I don't think I'm better than anyone, but I pity you for the stuff you've said in this thread, because you're angry at stuff that is pushing you backwards. And I see it all the time and it's just sad. I hope you realise at some point that you've made a mistake but I'm not the one to change your mind.
I dont require you pity, but thank you for the sentiment.
You are applying an ad hominem here: the asumption that an opposed viewpoint is written in a fit of rage, because anyone not overcome with anger or other negative emotions could not possibly voice such an opinion.
I hope you realise at some point that you've made a mistake but I'm not the one to change your mind.
I am unlike to recognise what I wrote here as an error. My main reason for this is because again I predicted this, long before it happened.
I will say this. I do wish I was wrong. It would be better for all concerned if my long held beliefs on the processes and consequences of political correctness were just a delusion of mine, and would not lead to lasting trouble. It would be nicer if the systemic dismantling of the culture of the country I was born and deeply love in was not playing out as predicted.
I was not entirely right. I did not understand how the same dynamic could and would effect the USA. I believed at the time that the first amendment and the inherent vocal patriotism of the US would provide an adequate shield against wokeness. In reality while the UK had a ten year headstart on wokeness the US is unravelling faster.
I believe you’re referring to the Rotherham Abuse Scandal in the first claim.
That happened some time ago. Before right wing pundits, suddenly upset that freedom of speech didn’t come with freedom from consequence or reprimand, invented the term Woke.
That will not catch me out.
Woke is current vernacular, and thus used in contemporary comments on past issues without limitation when covering historical events that fit with the terms description. trends can long preexist the cultural labels that later people use to define them.
If you need any clarity on this let me give you an unrelated example.
Do you believe that feudal society existed in Europe in the middle ages? Would you change your mind if I told you that the term 'feudalism' was coined by a 19th century German historian.
I like it that you are beginning to recognise it is a 'right wing' thing to use freedom of speech to criticise large scale rape covered up by the state. And that it is against right wing values to cover such outcries with negative consequences or reprimand.
You did guess well, but the issue goes far beyond Rotherham. If only it were not.
Positive Discrimination is a sticky one, sure. But you seem to be neatly ignoring the decades of prejudicial hiring practices, where people with The Wrong Sort Of Name lost out on jobs. Not just media jobs. Jobs in general.
Prejudicial hiring practices have not gone away, the dynamics have just changed. So there is no 'neatly ignoring' something that is alive and ongoing and to which the positive discrimination does not and is not intended to counter.
Positive discrimination is separate to this, it is racism by the front end, input by force majeur, in a society where there are strict but unevenly applied laws on equal opportunities and often based on a false narrative that there is an employment equality to begin with.
Also the idea that if a cultural group was discriminatory in the past, then they should be discriminated against now is included as a rationale. Then any semblance of positivity in the discrimination is removed. Because at that that stage Positive Discrimination is little other than revenge, because the target is a racial group to be disenfranchised, ignorance, because it doesnt attempt to target any actual 'oppressor' but someone who shares purported racial characteristics and hatred, because the ideology of 'they did it to others' is itself a hate sentiment.
It is interesting that while you require citations to everything you are happy to just throw in accusations of 'decades of prejudical hiring practices'. While current equal opportunity laws date from the Equlity act 2010 actual equal opportunity laws go back as far as the 1970's, and covers the career lengths of almost the entire workforce of the UK.
And that is a frankly bizarre, unsubstantiated claim that Positive Discrimination only leads to, and I quote…
Orlanth wrote: As the career track has a queue you will be de facto behind people of equal or lower ability who do not share the same racial characteristics and entered state media employment at the same time.
How is it unsubstantiated? The consequences of restricted access to fast traxck employment to those of select racial characteristics should be obvious by logical progression.
Let us walk through this together with rational thought as our companion.
1. If person A and B both want to apply on the same day.
Person A gets a special apprenticeship only available to people of select racial criteria.
Person B is racially ineligible for this opportunity and can enter at the ground level without the apprenticeship.
2. Person B requires considerable ground floor work to gain eligibility to apply for the same opportunity they could have received day one if they were of a different race.
3. Person B's career is set back by this amount of time.
4. Now if seniority was equally applied within the same organisation, which is not a given, the apprenticeship opportunity, which is a fast track to career progression places person A higher on the promotion rung of the organisation.
5. State media follows the same career doctrine as the civil service, length of service at a particular level is a hard factor in promotional prospects. Person B will always be behind in promotion opportunity if they are of equal talent to person A.
I will stop there. My point remains and stands tall.
It was put to me that wokeness was a myth perpetuated by GB news and similar media.
That is not true and two non exhaustive, seperate and disparate examples were given, both of which involved woke policy at a governmental level.
Equal or lower ability getting pushed ahead of whitey, just because that person isn’t black? Citation. Very. Much. Needed. No the Daily Mail is not a viable citation. Nor is any Clarksonesque drivel. Clear, verifiable evidence that the sole reason for career advancement is not ability, but melanin, and that therefore any minority advancing their career isn’t deserving on merit.
Why do you insist its all a conspiracy despite multiple cases of open evidence.
First I will link the Daily Mail, because you didn't want that source.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9704235/BBC-sparks-discrimination-row-banning-white-people-applying-18-000-trainee-job.html You can now explain, if you can, why a source should be discounted just because you don't like it. Were the Daily Mail actually lying, rather than saying things you do not like to read, they would be called out on it by credible sources.
For someone who demands citations you get very picky on acceptable sources of factual data. You cant rely on an assumption that if you don't see it covered in the Guardian it can't be true.
Where’s Orlanth’s stand against the Old Boy Network? That absolutely promotes folk well beyond their ability. Ref Boris “Making Daddy’s Money Work Hard” Johnson and his spectacular failings boosting him to the top job.
1. What has that got to do with proving the existence of woke.
2. Are you going to say with a straight face that this is an isolated issue only linked to one particular party, and that those on your preferred political spectrum are too honest and nice to do such things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not to mention implying that racial categories being protected from legal repercussions is apparently due to "woke", completely ignoring centuries where black people and other people of colour had no recourse to the law, able to be assaulted, murdered, raped at will, because they were considered subhuman.
Name me a century even, which is generous, when the rights you describe above were not also denied to white people groups.
Many people of colour, even in living memory, do not need to imagine this. They lived it.
So did anyone else. Suffering is not a exclusive racially defined feature, never was, never will be. Youi have been exposed to too much equity propaganda.
Hell, just earlier this year we had a spotlight shone on this with the mass graves of indigenous children at residential schools. The perpetrators of those crimes will never face justice, and they were allowed to commit those acts in the first place due to the privilege of their race compared to that of their victims.
Where was this?
Second how does an example of suffering of an ethic people group in any way disavow the wrongs of wokeness, discredit claims of its existence, or justify current discrimination against unrelated persons.
You mention distress at the thought that abusers of children of a different racial group, were not punished for their transgressions.
I could share that sentiment with you easily without prior knowledge of which racial group suffered or was the accused. It would not take me long to find multiple examples of such an atrocity going in multiple directions historically. Adults of ethnicity x murdered children of ethnicity y is very likely to be of historical record for any two cultures with an extensive connected history.
At no point would it even excuse discrimination of unrelated citizens who identify as x or y, now.
Your position is that “woke” (a term invented and peddled by the hard right, for purposes of societal division) is the root of all societal ills.
Yet, I’ve offered clear examples of the same things you’ve claimed to be terribly concerned about as evidence which, by your own admission, have nothing to do with “woke”.
I’m sure you’d say things such as MeToo are “woke” - yet that movement was a sea change, as it meant Police now take such reports seriously. That the days of considering what the victim was wearing are over. Same with Believe Her, Black Lives Matter etc. All social projects aimed at challenging an unfair and discriminatory status quo.
The links you provided relate solely to hiring. Your bogus conclusion is two fold. One, that “they only got the job due to the colour of the skin. That is a bogus claim, as you’ve automatically discounted their relevant qualification and competence, because you’ve decided Positive Discrimination means such things aren’t considered. Two, that they’re getting career advancement as a result.
You claim that single job advert is A Great Evil. Yet….The Old Boy Network, which promotes utterly incompetent idiots to high position simply because they know the right people has existed for centuries, and continues to actively harm society to this day.
Which one is genuinely the problem? Which one is impacting lives up and down the Nation, day in, day out. Across the Political spectrum, but most pronounced in the Tories, thanks to Eton being a factory for the under capable but over privileged.
It really comes across that your sole beef here is people of colour. I accept that may simply be a result of limited references being given, but I think you need to go have a wee think about what you’re actually posting, and how it’s painting you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Who are the agents of change that brought about improvements in day to day life?
It’s rarely, but granted not never, Those Already Enjoying The Benefits Of Societal Prejudice.
Everything the Working Class now has, they have because “woke” causes were taken up, and the benefits wrested from the hands of the powerful.
Paid holidays. Weekends. Public Holidays. Minimum Wage. Suffrage in general, most recently Women’s Suffrage.State Pension. State Education. The NHS. Working Hours. All part of a “woke” movement of their day. Every. Last. One.
And what’s the price of modern day woke? Not getting away with using racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted language and actions based upon the same without critique and/or censure. Woe. Is. You. You poor, poor thing. Nobody has ever suffered as you have.
Other stuff to come back on when I have time, but for the record Mad Doc, woke is not a term invented by the right. It originates in African American antiracist critiques.
It has just been adopted as a pejorative by the right.
Those are interesting examples, because they really underscore that the speaker and context matters a great deal, which you seem to be trying to reject otherwise? In one case the relationship between the speaker and the woman determines the appropriateness of the dialogue, and in the other a term is put in someone's mouth specifically to characterise them negatively, as someone not appropriately positioned to use it.
Thank you for the interesting follow up questions.
First in normal speech some selected words, in particular the N-word carry connotations dependant on the ethnicity of the speaker in almost all circumstances. It is hard to find exceptions of acceptable public use, playing a character role is one, and even then the finished work may be edited locally for local consumption, or may be required to do so by law.
I don't think you really answered the core part of the question though - is it inappropriate to read words differently depending on the speaker? Is it wrong for us to read the n-word differently? Is it not safe to assume it's usage is in some eay revealing of the speaker's perspectives?
Society has decided that is is wrong for a non black person to use the N-word. In some jurisdictions doing so has been made a criminal offence, either literally, or indirectly by legislation that highlights and perceived hate speech as speech that can cause offence. This is the legal position in the UK At which point you have to ask, can and would saying the N-word while not black be enough to cause offence. In the UK it would most clearly be so in all but a handful of circumstances, and those circumstances are based on perceived point of view of witnesses.
Under the same wording a black person using the N-word in the UK could face prosecution under the same law, but it would be less likely to occur because it is less likely that offence would be perceived, and it is unlikely an arrest would be followed through by processing a charge as there would be a higher burden of proof to claim offense caused as there is an existing culture of black people using the N-word when speaking to one another.
Consequently in the UK at least it would never be safe to use the N-word while non black, and not entirely safe if black, unless it is part of an agreed script.
So, basically No. In the UK at least there are no instances where it is safe to use the N-word without an prior agreement on context. So the decising factor is mutual premeditation. If you agree a priori that a white person calls a black person the N word because you are filming a dramatised event then it is safe. Otherwise I cannot see any circumstances where it would be safe to do so.
I would like to see an exception for topical discussion on the N-word itself and the cultural impact on society. But currently I do not see a way out of the perceived harm stipulation for the speech to be legally actionable.
Outside the UK local laws and customs apply, and I have nothing relevant to say on that.
However from the perspective I can speak on, the laws to which I am bound in the UK, all the nuanced sub questions you ask about different usage of the N-word would not be relevant under law.
So I have to conclude that mutual pre-meditation is the only safe exception.
Or, and brace yourself this is wild….just, sort of…..don’t use words you know full well are racially charged, and have a great many less provacative words at your disposal?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Your position is that “woke” (a term invented and peddled by the hard right, for purposes of societal division) is the root of all societal ills.
.
Not going to go beyond your first line. In fact I didnt bother reading the rest of your post. You are clearly going to misrepresent any reply I make as seen in your opening line..
I have clearly stated by wokeness is an existential threat to western society clearly enough, so I need not reiterate why.
However I have never stated or implied it is the only threat to western society.
Do you presume I believe that woke causes global warming, or Covid, or inflation? Because those sound like a societal ills to me.
I will highlight your assumption that you need to be 'far right' rather than 'not-leftist' to recognise the societal dangers of woke.
I will also highlight your assumption that pointing out the damage caused by woke is the actual societal division.
There is nothing further that needs a reply.
I have however come to reconsider my kinder words though. I made assumption that the wokeness you displayed that I used as example was a harmless well meaning application of woke dogma that unintentionally revealed how wokeness is contaminating otherwise level headed members of our society. I am no longer so sure of that.
Oh you’ve stated plenty. But you’ve proven nothing. At all.
You’ve claimed positive discrimination (which I’ve acknowledged is a sticky subject) sees the un or under qualified progress purely because of their cultural background. But you’ve not proven that. It helps folk get an interview, yes. No arguing that. But your flawed assumption is they don’t then need relevant experience or qualification. Which you’ve singularly failed to support.
You’ve entirely glossed over other cover ups of horrific, systemic abuse to focus on when a cover up benefited non-white offenders.
You’re seeing a teeny, tiny part of a problem, and simply blaming it on “woke”, resolutely refusing to look at the bigger, more widespread problem.
Yes concerns about race relations were at least partly to blame for Rotherham not being busted long before. Nobody is denying that. But what of the historical record of Police not taking any such reports, regardless of the cultural background of the (at the time) alleged offender?
This is what I mean. You’ve correctly identified a genuine and concerning problem. One which must be addressed, and is being addressed. But that’s it. You’ve ground your axe and seem to be pretending there are no other factors in play, no other similar scandals covered up for entirely different reasons.
“woke” sensibilities are driving that. “Woke” sensibilities, campaigns and activists are the ones changing political attitudes. Believe Her, MeToo, BLM and so on and so forth are changing thing. Right wing Pearl clutches bemoaning they can’t use racist terms or black up anymore….aren’t.
Those are interesting examples, because they really underscore that the speaker and context matters a great deal, which you seem to be trying to reject otherwise? In one case the relationship between the speaker and the woman determines the appropriateness of the dialogue, and in the other a term is put in someone's mouth specifically to characterise them negatively, as someone not appropriately positioned to use it.
Thank you for the interesting follow up questions.
First in normal speech some selected words, in particular the N-word carry connotations dependant on the ethnicity of the speaker in almost all circumstances.
I think the remainder of the post is mostly misunderstanding UK law (probably only English and Welsh law, really) and it's off topic in any case, but the above really hits it on the head.
You accept that emic and etic uses of words carry different meanings.
Why then, do you treat differing reactions to uses of particular terms or expressions by persons of different ethnicities as so ludicrous?
Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.
That might work if you do nothing important in your life, don't have any responsibilities and don't have anything worth taking.
If on the other hand you do, you might come into contact with equity movements who demand privileged access, and if you deny that then a target is placed upon you.
Also silence is at best a short term solution in a culture of changing goalposts and narratives.
Compliance is not safety either, the woke is a monster that can and will devour its own.
So much for 'we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.'
However blatant anti-Christian discrimination is very much a thing in the UK, and is a noted factor in many other western countries. It has now gone so far that quoting the Bible in public is no longer a defended activity, you can be arrested for that, but quoting the Koran is.
Scottish Christian here. I'm not aware of any real anti-Christian discrimination*, or anyone being arrested for quoting the bible in public.
However, I know there are plenty of areas in the UK where anyone quoting the Quran or Torah** in public would be at risk of getting attacked by bigots.
*There's a term "Bible Basher" which is more directed towards the annoying preachy people rather than believers in general.
** Even the bits that are the same as the Christian Bible. That's a good example of the bias actually, because in Latin "Biblos" just literally means book, thus the Christian Bible is given prominence. I'm sure the same can be said for Quran or Torah in Arabic or Hebrew though.
On the whole N-word thing, it's a very loaded word historically that I think should be confined to the history books, but a word that the black community has tried to take ownership of in an attempt at empowerment, and even then it's not exactly the same word, having been modified to fit the dialect. So it's not unreasonably something that black people should be allowed to use as they see fit, whilst everyone else should avoid. I can't really argue with that logic. I'm sure the same applies to various other slurs across history too.
Why anyone who isn't black would want to use the N-word is beyond me.
people of colour had no recourse to the law, able to be assaulted, murdered, raped at will, because they were considered subhuman.
Name me a century even, which is generous, when the rights you describe above were not also denied to white people groups.
20th century, South Africa. Look up Louis van Schoor, to start with, and then expand that to the entire apartheid police force. Did you know, for example, that under apartheid, 95% of the people sentenced to death were black?
Erm….which law says you can be arrested for preaching the Bible, but not the Quran?
I’ve had a cursory Google, and checking a number of Christian sites, it seems it’s just…..not the case.
The sole report in the first bit involved the arrest of a Street Preacher in London. Not for preaching the Bible - but because he was allegedly being Islamophobic. Also concern a law the Tories are pushing through Parliament (Police Crime and Sentencing Bill) could be used to do that. No claim that is the intent or aim of the bill, just that it could be used for that.
I accept i May simply not have found the specific law Orlanth appears to be referring to. But I’m afraid based on his other claims, that’s simply because no such law exists, and he’s instead just wanting Freedom From Consequence, not Freedom of Speech.
Also, all the "woke" people are against the tory bill as it is a horrific piece of legislation that can result in you needing to report to the police like someone on bail or parole for attending a protest, as well as being banned from future protests.
So, unless Orlanth is going to argue the Tories are "woke", which would really highlight that his usage of the word is meaningless except for "things I don't like", the real threat to what he claims to want is right-wingers in the UK Government.
Orlanth wrote: ....We had a system, it worked. He had unity via good cheer and mutual respect based on a healthy banter....
Here's the root cause of your posts and the problem with worldviews similar to yours.
We had a system and it did not work it just hid the unpleasantness from those who weren't affected by it, ie the white, English and male.
There has also never been mutual respect between the minority races in the UK and the dominant white culture. You might have thought so, but perhaps that's because they kept their thoughts to themselves because experience taught them it was the best way because of the amount of aggravation and abuse they might otherwise receive. The difference is that now we are being told, and it's uncomfortable to listen to. Not just from other races but also from the women and girls who share our world.
Rather than getting annoyed and blaming " the woke" (which is in essence, ego defence) you perhaps listen to what people are saying to you.
However, because, as you've stated that "Woke" is a disease it allows you to ignore everything that is said and blame it on the rational that everyone else is "infected" by something un-natural because it makes you uncomfortable.
You are the one who is making 2 + 2 = 5. You are blindly insisting that everything in the past was OK until "woke" arrived. It wasn't it just didn't affect you and TBH it probably still doesn't apart from it irritating you when people mention a problem they have or highlight systemic issues which were papered over before.
There’s also the difference between Banter, and Abuse.
This is something I explained earlier. My friends and I have our own banter. We tease each other about things, because after years of knowing each other, we know where each of us draws the line, and things you simply do not tease each other about. There’s a level of trust involved, gained via genuine mutual respect.
But what some claim “it was only banter” is simply an attempt excuse or whitewash abusive language. And no, I’m not going to offer set conditions for that, because it’s incredibly subjective.
But here are examples from my circle of friends. They can refer to me as a Mangy Scots Git, because it’s funny to me. A play on my nationality and one of my favourite films. I may call one of them a soft southern ponce for not having another beer. They laugh because they know I’m just playing up to a stereotype.
Now. If someone was to overhear that, and take offence? Our reaction also Depends. If it’s someone not Scottish calling them out for calling me a Mangy Scots Git? Far as I’m concerned they can get in a bin, because it’s nothing to do with them. But, if it’s another Scot? There is a reasonable chance they’ve taken genuine offence to such language. And so we apologise for the offence caused, but not for what was said in an otherwise private conversation.
See? Contextual. What we don’t do is use The N Word ‘because Snoop said it on that record and if we don’t use it that’s the real racism’.
But hey, as I said, if you yourself haven’t been a minority, even a lame arsed minority like being a Scot living in England, it can be hard to get your heard around. So don’t just listen to the opinions of others, hear them.
When BLM became a prominent movement, I asked a couple of colleagues if they could recommend sources to help me better educate myself on the experiences of black people. It was enlightening reading, and I feel I’m a better person for having done so.
I’m gonna stop short of the titles I was recommended as it feels a bit…gauche, for a Mangy Scots Git. But if anyone would like the same recommendations, feel free to PM me.
I'm giving a review of my own NSFW jokes I've made. I firmly believe that if you can't be the butt of your own jokes a good portion of the time that your "jokes" are just bullying.
Case in point, I sometimes allude to my fictional past. I occasionally make jokes about my non-existent time in LA and joining the Latin Kings gang, Hiding Hugo Chavez in my basement, or being one of the "real killers" OJ Simpson put a bounty out on. The joke being that my pasty-white nerd butt might pass for Walter White, but not a gang-banger.
Is joking around like this culturally offensive, or just self depreciating?
Depends on the audience I guess. If you’re playing around with racial stereotypes about your own cultural background, then y’know, that’s your decision.
It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.
If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.
Herzlos wrote: It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.
If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.
Darn tooting.
I was genuinely hoping Orlanth would return and respond to previous posts. Because whilst not exactly a hippie love-in cuddle pile of opinions, I don’t think anyone has been aggressive in their stance.
And I genuinely wish to learn more about their claims that Christians face hurdles other faiths don’t. Orlanth alluded to things, but I myself have been unable to find substantiating evidence. Given my career has an honest to goodness Inquisitorial Mandate, I genuinely wish to know if my Google-Fu is simply weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey hold on. I know a Heavy Metal track which serves as a counter to Orlanth’s claim that, once upon a time, nobody ever got upset ever and everything was fine and therefore everyone nowadays is all soft and that.
Bonus points for the lead singer now being openly gay.
It’s only a bit of Judas Priest.
Just…..hear the lyrics, yeah? Not simply listen. Transpose. Reflect.
I don't like it when posters treat response time higher than their personal baseline as something negative.
Also, you have had the time to correct your post with the simple factual inaccuracy since it was pointed out by someone in general agreement with the gist of your posts and have either decided not to or are simply not paying attention to the thread.
If one my salient posts is considered inaccurate? Given my contributions to this thread do the courtesy of copy/pasta. That way we can both be on the same page, if not wavelength.
If said quote is Mince? I’m far from above apologising,
If it’s contextual, I can consider my opinion and wording, and if necessary clarify.
But. If it’s quite clear what I said? I’ll have to question why you feel something you might disagree with is somehow an error.
Don’t get me wrong. If you disagree with any of my opinions or stances in this thread? In a positive way? I. Don’t. Care. Unless you can bring something to the table beyond personal indignation.
Newspeak. Casual <noun> is just part of the learned response of decreasing cultural tolerances made from woke.
Comedy from the 1970's was not offensive in the 1970's. Cultures do shift over time, but it is historically inaccurate and politically suspect to impose current dogmas on prior cultures.
You have been taught to apply a cultural trend of today and imposing it on prior generations that had thicker skins and healthier societal attitudes.
Others have highlighted why you're so monumentally wrong in your thinking already, but this, in particular, stood out to me.
In short, this quote is the root cause of your misunderstanding. It is Exhibit A in why you are so very, very wrong. Comedy in the 1970s was offensive in the 1970s. I assume the comedy you're specifically thinking about is comedy that would be called sexist, racist or homophobic today. It was sexist, racist or homophobic in the 70s too. The difference is the groups who were the butt of the jokes in the 70s had no power and no voice, so people like you assume it was all OK, since nobody really objected. Casually throwing around loaded racist terms, or insulting people for their sexuality is offensive. Those marginalised groups were offended back then, just as they would be now. The difference in the 70s was their fear outweighed their anger because the comedy of the time reflected the prevailing attitudes of the time.
Thankfully we've moved on since then, even though clearly some people wish we hadn't.
@Mad doc, re: the correction I was refering to this post and the fact you've still got right wingers as the originators of the term. Just a simple case of being factually inaccurate.
nfe wrote: Other stuff to come back on when I have time, but for the record Mad Doc, woke is not a term invented by the right. It originates in African American antiracist critiques.
It has just been adopted as a pejorative by the right.
I'm not posting for your benefit either. Just the general reader.
Herzlos wrote: It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.
If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.
So, i can't be made fun off because i am part of a minority that has been disadvantaged on religious basis?
Despite there actually being quite a few reasons why you should be able too and despite humor being a tool for criticism that is the least insulting and most likely to provoke some thought ?
It's a generalisation not a strict rule. However, if someone were making jokes about a minority, religious or otherwise and they were part of the dominant culture then it'd be hard for it to not be considered bullying or outright discrimination.
It could be done I suppose, but it'd be a tricky thing to pull off.
r_squared wrote: It's a generalisation not a strict rule. However, if someone were making jokes about a minority, religious or otherwise and they were part of the dominant culture then it'd be hard for it to not be considered bullying or outright discrimination.
It could be done I suppose, but it'd be a tricky thing to pull off.
So let me get this straight by that logic literally nothing someone from the dominant culture in the past could've levied against ultramontane and catholic Kantons where i am from? Or made fun of us for being exclusionary to women or backwards minded in regards to voting or cultural institutions or or or? because that would be "bullying" because we are a minority that also has been discriminated by law ?
Do you lot realise how absolutely moronical that is and that that absolves vast swaaths of people groups from any criticism at all to do freely as they please?
Nobody is above criticism, and it is far better it is meant and communicated in humor than just becoming an outright political discussion without the steps before that.
Didn't say it was impossible, just tricky to pull off.
I suppose one way to do it would be to satirical mock practices of that minority that attacks a minority within ie their treatment of women or others.
However, I have no idea who you're talking about and care much less. I'm also not a comedian, but if you want to choose this as a way to blow up a rule of thumb then fill your boots mate.
Still doesn't make it a bad over all guideline though.
I think I agree with NotOnline!!! Isn't concentrating on who delivers the message (in this case irony or critique) instead of the logic behind and actual validity of the message exactly what chauvinism (ethnic, national or whatever type really) is about?
If the skin colour of the comedian is relevant for someone (but not height or hair length or eye colour) doesn't it mean they themselves have a race-based (racist?) perspective?
There is a difference between someone commenting on their lived experience of something, such as say a black comedian doing a routine about black gang culture or growing up in it, and someone from outside the group, with no actual experience with that group, doing a routine based on stereotypes.
Like, a white comedian could do a bit on what their experience was like spending time in China and how the cultural differences created humurous situations, and even be critical of some of those cultural differences. That would draw pretty much zero legitimate criticism.
But that is not the same as a comedian giving themselves "slant eyes", putting on a lampshade and making their front-teeth pronounced to recreate the stereotypical "chinaman" then saying things in a "funny accent".
And yes, you can mock the specifics aspects of a culture without turning it into a full-on abuse of that culture. But that takes skill in crafting the joke.
That was near the knuckle enough, no doubt about that. But yes, being a black man he is able to satirise black culture because he genuinely knows it and has lived it,
Now that doesn’t mean the next person can’t or won’t find the content offensive and unfunny. But it’s still a completely different kettle of fish to that skit being done by a white comedian.
So as I’ve maintained throughout? It Depends, and can be highly contextual.
It's familiarity, really. Stewart Lee's routine about UK comedians and Islam is really on point. Not enough of the population know enough about Islam either to make jokes or for any jokes to land unless it's just offensive stereotypes. It's not simply that Christians are the dominant demographic that makes Christianity a fair topic for jokes, it's that because it's so dominant it's really familiar to virtually everyone. You aren't reduced to 'don't those nun outfits look silly'.
But that is not the same as a comedian giving themselves "slant eyes", putting on a lampshade and making their front-teeth pronounced to recreate the stereotypical "chinaman" then saying things in a "funny accent".
And yes, you can mock the specifics aspects of a culture without turning it into a full-on abuse of that culture. But that takes skill in crafting the joke.
You're absolutely right, but it's a difference between a good and a bad joke. Is the comedian's nationality of any relevance here? No, what matters is his/her skill and taste not affiliations with any group.
I think, if the end goal is to judge the message on its merit, not on race/nationality/gender etc.of the messenger, why not apply it to comedy? Rate the joke on how funny and tasteful it is, let the comedian's skin colour or nationality be as irrelevant as other random traits this person was born with.
(I'm white and I love Trevor Noah's jokes about white people )
Because, as the other posters here have all explained in detail already it simply cannot be just judged on the message. That is not how humans and certainly not how humour works. Jokes are not colourblind and they shouldn't be either.
A white, 40 something, middle class, male who took the humour of Chris Rock and performed it on stage would not be funny, at all. Why do you think that might be?
A person's race, gender or other characteristics will have a bearing on the legitimacy, tastefulness and humour of that joke.
I'm not sure how much more clearly that can be explained really.
I mean I know tribal instinct is a very strong part of human psyche, there's no denying that. But maybe we should at least strive to make it less so instead of feeding it?
We're civilised, we try to move away from primal instincts, for example, violent aggression. Maybe tribalism should be next on the list?
It's not really about tribalism though is it, its about respect and recognition of yourself in others and finding self-depreciating humour in situations and scenarios.
That cannot happen if the person doing the "humour" is not part of that experience. Instead it becomes something else, an attack or assault on fellow human beings for the sake of trying to have a laugh at their expense.
It's not about race or tribalism, it's about a shared experience. It's why new comics frequently introduce themselves and their backgrounds so that even if you do not share their background you can laugh "with" them about scenarios that might be outside of your lived experience.
It can also be about highlighting sources of negative stereotypes.
For instance, Scotland has a significant drug problem. A Scottish comedian can work that into a joke - criticising their nation’s flaws. Whereas a non-Scot is likely to make “Scotland are has the smackheads” the entirety of the “joke”. Same with the reputation for being heavy drinkers and a bit fighty. They can also skewer odd sources of pride.
It’s kind of a variation on speaking truth to power. A reflection on issues real or perceived. Those can be rich veins of comedy, either defending or attacking those issues, or simply exploring them depending on where the comedian finds the comedy.
And yes. Those absolutely can be in-jokes, intended solely for the National/Cultural audience the comedian belongs to.
It needn’t be justified to anyone else. I have of course once again stuck to my own frame of reference.
Now I enjoy comedy. And there have been times when I watched say, a Latino Comedian telling Latino jokes, and it’s gone entirely over my head. That’s….fine. There’s no requirement for anyone to talk me through why it got the audience in hysterics when I was left baffled.
I don't like it when posters treat response time higher than their personal baseline as something negative.
Also, you have had the time to correct your post with the simple factual inaccuracy since it was pointed out by someone in general agreement with the gist of your posts and have either decided not to or are simply not paying attention to the thread.
Fair point on the origin of the term woke. Consider me better informed now.
Herzlos wrote: It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.
If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.
So, i can't be made fun off because i am part of a minority that has been disadvantaged on religious basis?
Context is very important. If someone can make a joke about your minority religion and you genuinely find it funny, then that's all good.
I'm just saying that it's very hard for a majority group to make a joke about a minority group that's actually comedy and not bullying. I've seen a few examples of the years of genuinely funny cases but it's usually something like a play on words and involving some pretty heavy background awareness. I can't even think of any examples here.
I'm using the power imbalance example above to try and illustrate that there are many situations where a person can make a joke in poor taste and not be called on it and therefor think that it's acceptable. Of course, with wokism, people are more likely to highlight the disapproval they've been scared to historically.
I guess you could flip it and say that if you'd walk up to a group of random minority categories in a bar and make the joke to them confident that you won't get beaten up, then it may be genuinely funny.
Despite there actually being quite a few reasons why you should be able too and despite humor being a tool for criticism that is the least insulting and most likely to provoke some thought ?
Do you have any examples?
Humour is often used for criticism but as I said, that only works when punching up. Like when I make jokes about how incompetent our Government is, that's punching up. If I make a joke about how incompetent French* people are, that's bullying.
*I'm using France as an example as our nearest national neighbor. I like the French. Mostly.
Fun fact? On a good day, I can walk five or so minutes from my crypt and see France. It’s oddly humbling.
I am a bit concerned, like genuinely concerned, that folk don’t seem to understand that humour isn’t only subjective, but often quite highly contextual.
I think the universal translation is what in the right moment in the right conversation is Genuinely Witty if not outright Hilarious, taken out of that context is just…..not funny. A literal “you had to be there” issue. Except when it comes to criticism of one’s own culture or cultural background, perhaps it’s more “you have to be from there”
The context can also be to a specific time.
Examples for me would be The Young Ones and The Goodies. Both were punching upwards and skewering egos in their own way. And both had moments satirising Racism. Now for their time? Both shows were avant garde and absolutely punching upwards. But viewed without that historical context? Yeah there just racist to the casual viewer.
One particular scene is the racist policeman from The Young Ones. I won’t run through it here, but maybe you can find it on YouTube. If you can’t, the punchline is the Policeman removing his sunglasses and saying “sorry John, thought you was a”. And yes it includes the word I’ve not.
Herzlos wrote: It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.
If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.
So, i can't be made fun off because i am part of a minority that has been disadvantaged on religious basis?
Context is very important. If someone can make a joke about your minority religion and you genuinely find it funny, then that's all good.
I'm just saying that it's very hard for a majority group to make a joke about a minority group that's actually comedy and not bullying. I've seen a few examples of the years of genuinely funny cases but it's usually something like a play on words and involving some pretty heavy background awareness. I can't even think of any examples here.
well pretty much my first comment highlighted context alas.
Also satire, but then again satire profits from being accurate assessments that will hurt on some degree if it is actually good satire. The key being that one still can laugh, or atleast see the punchline. Same with stereotypes.
I'm using the power imbalance example above to try and illustrate that there are many situations where a person can make a joke in poor taste and not be called on it and therefor think that it's acceptable. Of course, with wokism, people are more likely to highlight the disapproval they've been scared to historically.
I guess you could flip it and say that if you'd walk up to a group of random minority categories in a bar and make the joke to them confident that you won't get beaten up, then it may be genuinely funny.
If you get beaten up for a joke then i say A you didn't tell a joke or B people can't take a joke anymore. I've seen both. Regardless violence is not justifyable by provocation, atleast not over here.
Despite there actually being quite a few reasons why you should be able too and despite humor being a tool for criticism that is the least insulting and most likely to provoke some thought ?
Do you have any examples?
Humour is often used for criticism but as I said, that only works when punching up. Like when I make jokes about how incompetent our Government is, that's punching up. If I make a joke about how incompetent French* people are, that's bullying.
*I'm using France as an example as our nearest national neighbor. I like the French. Mostly.
Well, for one there's a pretty funny joke about catholic "Schrankdienst" but that one is prolific in general in german afaik. Pretty common aswell, serves as a nice criticism against a catholicism and certain things. Considering that it is a minority religion here AND has been partially organised by the communities due to some legal wierdnesses that would qualify as targeted enough for the locals to be "bullying" if used here, very likely to provoke laughter though or atleast a grin. And for certain that is an institutional system that requires some.
There is also the stereotypical portrayal "de puur" literally "the peasant" which is also targetting technically rural folks often catholic, which typically serves in humour as some kind of ironic straight man and at the same time parody of the people from there. Normally equipped with pretty thick accents occasionally showing up in duos often being confronted with other swiss or foreigners, slowish mannerisms and a healthy dose ironic wit aswell as doing something stupid or commenting to slow that someone else is doing something stupid. Not inherently critical, mostly in context but it is a nice reflection that one shouldn't take himself to serious.
Then there are Canton specific jokes, mine is literally jokingly refered to as stonage and other swiss supposedly delivering developmental aid or flat out being limmited in vocabulary to NO because we only seem to write that down on ballots. Which tbf is true, my kanton votes No the most out of all so yeah, there is more than one argument on certain things to not just vote no, that one is selfexplenatory.
Orlanth wrote: Sorry for the blunt message. This is tough love for decent people overtaken by 2+2=5.
No, it's a load of complaining from someone who is used to seeing certain groups have to deal with 2+2=3, or even less than that, while they benefited from 2+2=4.
Now that society is broadly rebalancing to try to get 2+2=4 for everyone if at all possible, the group that used to get 4 see the groups that got 3 getting more than they used to, and believes that those groups are now getting 5 instead - and at the cost of some of their 4.
That group is blatantly wrong, and definitely blinkered, and needs a reality check.
I’m not entirely persuaded tribalism is the problem.
Yes, taken to extremes it can cause division and strife. But….so does anything taken to extremes.
Consider nationalism. My nationality is of course a significant part of me as a person. But it’s never defined me, except in the eyes of others (as we saw earlier in this thread). I don’t think being Scottish makes me better than the next person, just as I don’t think it makes me lesser than the next person.
But it is absolutely part of what makes me, me. And I’m part of other tribes too.
My taste in music, Media, hobbies are all part of who I am. Yet like my nationality, none of it particularly defines or limits me. It does inform me in some ways, just as it informs others. All part of being human.
It begins to get problematic when one decides it makes you superior to others, or that others are inherently inferior. It gets really bad when you fixate on both. I could go on but we’re already sailing close to the wind on the No Politics rule.
Tribalism helps us bond with other humans, and create societies within societies. Yes it can be used to create division - but it takes someone working hard to do that, and usually lying through their teeth, and relying on a form of stolen valour (my Grandad fought in X, therefore I are the grate etc). Of course, another part of the “only really a problem is when it’s taken to extremes” is one person’s moderate is the next person’s extreme. Lazy, sensationalist journalism tends to do the rest.
Well, for one there's a pretty funny joke about catholic "Schrankdienst" but that one is prolific in general in german afaik. Pretty common aswell, serves as a nice criticism against a catholicism and certain things. Considering that it is a minority religion here AND has been partially organised by the communities due to some legal wierdnesses that would qualify as targeted enough for the locals to be "bullying" if used here, very likely to provoke laughter though or atleast a grin. And for certain that is an institutional system that requires some.
There is also the stereotypical portrayal "de puur" literally "the peasant" which is also targetting technically rural folks often catholic, which typically serves in humour as some kind of ironic straight man and at the same time parody of the people from there. Normally equipped with pretty thick accents occasionally showing up in duos often being confronted with other swiss or foreigners, slowish mannerisms and a healthy dose ironic wit aswell as doing something stupid or commenting to slow that someone else is doing something stupid. Not inherently critical, mostly in context but it is a nice reflection that one shouldn't take himself to serious.
Then there are Canton specific jokes, mine is literally jokingly refered to as stonage and other swiss supposedly delivering developmental aid or flat out being limmited in vocabulary to NO because we only seem to write that down on ballots. Which tbf is true, my kanton votes No the most out of all so yeah, there is more than one argument on certain things to not just vote no, that one is selfexplenatory.
To be honest though sound more like bullying than comedy. It may still be funny to those that aren't impacted it it, but that was the same with any other brand of comedy throughout history.
The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)
Well, for one there's a pretty funny joke about catholic "Schrankdienst" but that one is prolific in general in german afaik. Pretty common aswell, serves as a nice criticism against a catholicism and certain things. Considering that it is a minority religion here AND has been partially organised by the communities due to some legal wierdnesses that would qualify as targeted enough for the locals to be "bullying" if used here, very likely to provoke laughter though or atleast a grin. And for certain that is an institutional system that requires some.
There is also the stereotypical portrayal "de puur" literally "the peasant" which is also targetting technically rural folks often catholic, which typically serves in humour as some kind of ironic straight man and at the same time parody of the people from there. Normally equipped with pretty thick accents occasionally showing up in duos often being confronted with other swiss or foreigners, slowish mannerisms and a healthy dose ironic wit aswell as doing something stupid or commenting to slow that someone else is doing something stupid. Not inherently critical, mostly in context but it is a nice reflection that one shouldn't take himself to serious.
Then there are Canton specific jokes, mine is literally jokingly refered to as stonage and other swiss supposedly delivering developmental aid or flat out being limmited in vocabulary to NO because we only seem to write that down on ballots. Which tbf is true, my kanton votes No the most out of all so yeah, there is more than one argument on certain things to not just vote no, that one is selfexplenatory.
To be honest though sound more like bullying than comedy. It may still be funny to those that aren't impacted it it, but that was the same with any other brand of comedy throughout history.
The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)
Americans who know their history will have knowledge of the pervasive anti Catholic bias that existed throughout much of our own history.
The KKK was staunchly against Catholics and it wasnt just extreme groups like that. The common libel of "split loyalties" (papal vs national) had remarkable staying power and was leveraged even against JFK in his presidential run.
The wealth of the Vatican or global reach of Catholicism meant little in a nation that prided itself on its Protestant character for it's first century and a half.
The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)
It's less an odd one and more the norm tbh. There are very few affiliations or characteristics of individuals/classifications where the benefits/challenges aren't contextual.
The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)
It's less an odd one and more the norm tbh. There are very few affiliations or characteristics of individuals/classifications where the benefits/challenges aren't contextual.
I suspect Americans have a different perspective on it than Europeans. Catholics faced more difficulty in predominantly Protestant America than in Europe which many of the stereotypes commonly ascribed to Jews and Muslims being typical of biased attitude about Catholics as little as a half-century ago. It's only recently started to fade away in the past 2-3 generations of the US.
For sure for sure. He plainly laid out the differing contexts for us in his post.
I'm saying it's more normal for a demographic to simultaneously have neighborhoods where it is advantageous to belong to it and neighborhoods where it is not than for a single statement about their level of oppression to be accurate universally.
To be honest though sound more like bullying than comedy. It may still be funny to those that aren't impacted it it, but that was the same with any other brand of comedy throughout history.
Intent is diffrent. And intent is contextualy visible. Also at some point if i were to get insulted by any of the above i'd not stop being insulted 24/7 and i frankly got other things to do. For exemple laugh at these jokes because they are funny and by extention fire some back off my own.
Take the first exemple, sure the joke is pretty mean spirited, but it's a joke with a degree of accuracy. Now compare that to the non joke form which would basically go the papist route or even meaner things etc etc. Guess which message will get you an debate and actually lead to criticism being taken into consideration and which will lead to hostility.
The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)
You are forgetting a significant fact. We were part of the HRE. You know the same "state" that had the dress rehearsal for the total war doctrine because some silly priest decided to hammer some thesises on a church door? You know the one state in which political-ideological doctrine and indoctrination in conjunction with political aims dictated a war that raged on for some 30+ years and which brought a mental mortgage that would lead on and be a hallmark of all inheritor states of the HRE like switzerland in which political coalitions formed around K-K Katholisch-Konservativ (catholic-conservative) vs P-L (protestant-Liberal). In which the constant conflict between potential unifiers, seperatists, etc went on culminated in differing ideas and by extention aims for ethnicities, elites and states?
The german empire f.e., after it's unification under protestant prussia didn't take long to attack catholics, or jews for that matter. But especially not other ethnicities, which when you compare to ideas like "greater germany" in the 1848/49 revolts and their ideas of who is even a "german" only 21-22 years earlier (basically everything and anything vaguely german culturally influenced is good enough to be and gets an invitation to draft a constitution) and that whole debate yeah, catholic was just not "german" enough for prussian-protestant germany , (well enough for the catholic habsburgs but alas we got prussian germany instead and yes this is a reference about we got x at home whilest x is objectivly worse) but it was also of course but a happy accident that the poles were also not protestant. Relgion and culture are tied extremely close to this day for some ethnicities and that makes them very easily targetable and in these cases elites are interdependant and when you are competing with such an elite why not targeting both with one stone by targeting them by an very easy marker of their identity?
Same reason here, catholics were targeted because they were mainly conservatives and against the new liberal dominated state or at the very least highly sceptical, you can't target us for speaking another language or being an other ethnicity (because have you looked at a map of faiths and languages in switzerland, let me tell you it's thankfully an overlapping intertwining mess because that severly limits discrimination possibilities) but you could target us and our elites for being catholic and surpressing or forcibly reform our institutions.
)
)
