Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

nfe wrote:

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?

Because he really, really wants to use the n-word.

For reasons.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

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.'

 Orlanth wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Wokeness most definitely is a thing.

Can you explain woke to me like I'm 5?

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

@Mad doc,

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.

Sorry, I don’t follow. At all.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:


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 ?

k. interesting.

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.

Good example? The infamous Chris Rock stand up.

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'.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


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.