Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But is it genuinely offensive? Or are people

> searching for something to be offended by.

>

yes - people have been offended by it so it is offensive and there are longstanding stereotypes around black people (not only in the US) and fried chicken and it is long established that some people find these stereotypes offensive


why are you so keen to dismiss the fact that people have been offended and deem from (i am assuming) a different cultural perspective that despite the fact that people have in fact been offended that the offensive act was not offensive? (and even suggest that those have been offended are looking to reasons to be offended, which i find in itself offensive?)


you could take the opportunity to stop and think, or to learn something about an area in which perhaps you are ignorant - but no

You are joking right pk?


No - I think if a small minority of west indian people are offended by this statement that is not enough to make a statement generally offensive.


If a majority or at least a significant minority are offended by the statement then yes I'll agree with you that it's generally offensive.

and even suggest that those have been offended are looking to reasons to be offended, which i find in itself offensive?)


What happens if the people pk finds offensive are offended by pk being offended by the suggestion that those who have been offended are looking to reasons to be offended?

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You are joking right pk?

>

> No - I think if a small minority of west indian

> people are offended by this statement that is not

> enough to make a statement generally offensive.

>

> If a majority or at least a significant minority

> are offended by the statement then yes I'll agree

> with you that it's generally offensive.


i'm not joking


if cause you personal offence does it not matter if it's not 'generally offensive'?


why do you say that those that are offended are insignificant in number? do you know their number? and what about those offended outside the West Indies?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> What happens if the people pk finds offensive are

> offended by pk being offended by the suggestion

> that those who have been offended are looking to

> reasons to be offended?


what happens on my part is that i become curious as to why people are offended and may indeed try to avoid causing similar offence in future, i might even apologise


why do you find my statement offensive?

This reminds me of the BBW situation on this forum. If 10 people find him hilarious, and they use the forum a lot, but 1 person who doesn't use the forum quite as much, finds him really offensive, and complains about it, does that make him an offensive poster?


I guess the answer is yes, he offends someone, so he is offensive. The problem is, then 10 other people miss out, because they enjoy his stuff.


Note, I made those figures up, and it was very likely more like 10 people found him offensive for every 10 that didn't.

Bobs the closest on this one, at worst this is ill judged by a company who's primary but unintended Market is in a position to be offended in today's viral world. Though why an American would be interested in cricket I don't know unless it's being forwarded in order to encourage people to be offended in a daily mail 'shouting at your wife banned!!!!!! In france.....err maybe)' fashion.


Personally I thought the implication that Germans all invade and are only following orders the most offensive out of all the things referred to in this thread. As a quarter german I stand by my right to dictate (oops) to others whether or not it is offensive even if they haven't the foggiest idea what I'm blithering on about.

[www.heraldsun.com.au]


OMG- Check the second headline down..


'Fumbling Pakis drop another'



Alan, I've already explained this in my first post. 'Pakis' in the UK extremely offensive because of it's use as a racial epithet to attack all people from the subcontinental area. It is tied up in some pretty bad history in this country. Any newspaper in the UK trying that headline would, quite rightly, incur a lot of anger. But UK racial history does not necessarily apply to other countries. In Australia, it's considered an acceptable shorthand - just as, say, Bangla is in the UK when there was a movement to rename the Brick Lane area to Banglatown.


You can parallel this with any use of 'boy' towards black men in America. I don't know if it still applies, but not too many years ago that would have got you into some serious, serious hot water, because of slavery connertations. Would it be right to vent your fury at a UK paper featuring, say, a picture of a black footballer with the headline, "The Boy Did Good"? (Grammar pedantry notwithstanding...)


For someone professing to be so worldly-wise, you sometimes sound very insular.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you, Pugwash. That's really useful information. Do you know who was responsible for the locks and keys, or which council department? Could you PM me if you don't want to put someone's personal details on here?  It may save me having to speak to Monica. Thanks.
    • Does anybody know why? Trees aren't cut down for no reason. There must have been something wrong with it (I hope that was the reason). A child was recently killed and another one injured when a tree fell in a park (not in this area). It isn't always obvious from the outside when a tree is diseased or whatever, and I imagine the council would give safety considerations priority when deciding what to do, if there was any doubt at all.
    • It looks like they have cut it down completely now 😭
    • Different people will be  involved within Thames Water. The people dealing with the leaks aren't the people encouraging less water usage. How many people have reported the Barry Road leak? By what channels? What response have they had? When we had a leak in our road which meant we had no water, several people reported it, there was good communication with TW, they explained why they couldn't come out immediately (other urgent jobs elsewhere in the area) , kept  in touch with us and fixed the leak within a reasonable timescale (hours). Someone from TW also contacted me later to make sure my water was back. But does Thames Water know about it? They aren't psychic (I presume). If nobody reports it, I also presume they won't even know the leaks are  there, unless they have some kind of central monitoring system which tells them when there are leaks in the system. To make it clear, I am not defending Thames Water as a company, which I think should never have been privatised.  But there are some things they can't be blamed for (old and disintegrating water pipe system in London) and some they can (possibly, lack of sufficient staff to deal with leaks, maybe due to trying to save money to give their shareholders more. But this is just surmise on my part - I know nothing about Thames Water).
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...