Jump to content

removed


Alan Dale

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pk,


I'm offended by your post. Therefore, it is offensive. Should you delete it? Or should you question why I think it is offensive?


PS Out of interest - since I can't seem to find it - which countries outside of N America have the Black/Fried Chicken stereotype?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • Can someone please explain who "one Dulwich" are?
    • We are actually referred to as "Supporters"...2,100 of us across Dulwich...read and weep! 😉   https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters   Got it, the one where 64% of respondents in the consultation area said they wanted the measures "returned to their original state". Is that the one you claim had a yes/no response question?   Well I suggest you read up on it as it is an important part of the story of utter mismangement by the councils and this is why so many of us can't work out who is pulling the council's strings on this one because surely you can agree that if the emergency services were knocking on your door for months and months telling you the blocks in the roads were delayihg response times and putting lives at risk you'd do something about it? Pretty negligent not to do so don't you think - if I was a councillor it would not sit well with me?   Careful it could be a Mrs, Miss or Mx One.....   Of course you don't that's because you have strong opinions but hate being asked for detail to.back-up those opinions (especially when it doesn't serve their narrative) and exposes the flaws in your arguments! 😉  As so many of the pro-LTN lobby find to their cost the devil is always in the detail.....
    • Really?  I'm sorry to hear that. What did you order? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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