Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

tom1ie

So what is the correct term to use when differentiating between skin colour when describing someone?

One eyed Jack

joeguevara wrote: »

Then learn the correct terms and stop b1tching if you are sacked for causing offense and homophobe and being a mysoginist and being an out and out dinosaur. Until then stay away from colour.

You missed the point - there are derogatory terms of course, but there are no correct terms. It’s simply ridiculous to suggest anyone ignore race or ethnicity as if they don’t exist and there aren’t differences which exist between them.

Suggesting that people ignore race or ethnicity and pretend as though it doesn’t exist, or that multiple disparate ethnicities or racial groups can simply be lumped in together outside of one race or ethnicity is like burying ones head in the sand or pretending as some people do that colour doesn’t exist, when we know it does, and there are real world implications of that fact.

sbsquarepants

It's offensive because the BBC says so?

They advise alternatives including "mixed parentage" and "dual heritage".

From your article.


Mixed Parentage sounds far worse to my ears than "see the black guy over there" Sounds like you're describing a dog or something.

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's offensive because the BBC says so?





From your article.


Mixed Parentage sounds far worse to my ears than "see the black guy over there" Sounds like you're describing a dog or something.

Nothing wrong with saying black. The issue was saying coloured. Interestingly i was shocked to hear half caste was now offensive as it is something that i had grown up hearing. But its not something i would use anyway.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think they are trying to seize power while pretending they want equality. There are some loonies lefties rioting nightly in America. The place there looks like a tinderbox

And consciously changing words like coloured to POC is a part of that power grab? How does it work?

joeguevara

tom1ie wrote: »

So what is the correct term to use when differentiating between skin colour when describing someone?

Why do you need to differentiate using skin colour. Is it for places on a bus or access to a swimming pool?

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But without me at the help desk, who would direct the customers to my friend and colleague John?:D

John is grand. If the only way that you can describe him is by the colour of his skin, maybe you shouldnt be at a help desk. The 1950s are calling, you can be a bus conductor.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with you about the terms having different connotations, hence the change from “coloured” to “people of colour”, but I don’t agree with the idea that it was because people who are not white had anything to do with the change in terminology. It has more to do with academia and advocacy groups which are, well... white!
...

I wouldn’t claim “ it was because people who are not white had anything to do with the change in terminology”. Either way, it would be beside the point as I see it

One eyed Jack

joeguevara wrote: »

Why do you need to differentiate using skin colour. Is it for places on a bus or access to a swimming pool?

There are contexts in which it’s entirely appropriate and even necessary to differentiate by skin colour, such as the example I gave earlier.

joeguevara

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are contexts in which it’s entirely appropriate and even necessary to differentiate by skin colour, such as the example I gave earlier.

Then if it is necessary, use appropriate terms.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wouldn’t claim “ it was because people who are not white had anything to do with the change in terminology”. Either way, it would be beside the point as I see it

But you made the point?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Words change meaning that’s not the problem. It’s only a problem for you if you dislike the meaning behind the change. And the meaning behind the change from coloured to POC is a demonstration that POC have influence over the language now. They have the power to change the meaning of a term.

In other words the thing that annoys you about the term changing meaning is that POC have gained the power to do it.

That’s why I contradicted your point and demonstrated that it wasn’t because anyone other than white people, who make up the vast majority of academia and advocacy who had influence over the language used, changed it.

Anyone who isn’t white still has no influence over the language used to refer to them precisely because of attitudes like your own when you don’t want to acknowledge a fact - claim that the point you made, when it’s shown that you’re mistaken, is beside the point. It’s a deflection.

And just to be clear about your claim - you claimed that the other poster was annoyed because (as you see it), people who aren’t white have influence over the language now and have gained the power to change it.

They really haven’t. They aren’t even close, because they don’t have the same opportunities or the means to change the language or have any influence over the language used as white people. Using terms like POC and BAME to refer to groups of people as though they are one homogeneous group is nothing more than racist virtue signalling among academics and advocates who are predominantly white -


BAME can also be used to hide the realities of systemic inequalities, and fudge diversity stats for certain institutions. Oxford University, for example, will frequently cite their admissions figures for BAME students (which was 22% in 2019), but it can be harder to find the admissions figures for Black students, which are consistently minuscule in comparison (3.1% in 2019).


The BAME debate: Why terminology matters when we’re talking about race

km991148

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's offensive because the BBC says so?





From your article.


Mixed Parentage sounds far worse to my ears than "see the black guy over there" Sounds like you're describing a dog or something.

lol - its offensive because society says so not the BBC(??). Its also offensive because coloured was used to classify non white people in times past. Its also offensive to say gay people are just making a lifestyle choice and girls playing football are weak and don't like to kick the ball hard (particularly offensive n the context of the head of the FA who is supposed to encourage many into the sport).


You can still talk about the black guy over there (although I find it hard to think of a need to specify and not why its not just the guy over there) - but the word black on its own isn't particularly offensive on its own.


If you are struggling to keep up, just go back a couple of pages as we just discussed it all :pac:

sbsquarepants

joeguevara wrote: »

You can still talk about the black guy over there (although I find it hard to think of a need to specify and not why its not just the guy over there) - but the word black on its own isn't particularly offensive on its own.


If you are struggling to keep up, just go back a couple of pages as we just discussed it all :pac:

And that was my simple question. What was offensive about calling a black guy, a black guy. Turns out the answer is nothing - which was exactly what i thought!


Thanks for clearing that up for me Joe;)

joeguevara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And that was my simple question. What was offensive about calling a black guy, a black guy. Turns out the answer is nothing - which was exactly what i thought!


Thanks for clearing that up for me Joe;)

Apologies. But the article was glen Clarke being calling someone coloured not black. Coloured is offensive.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

dubstarr wrote: »

No it should not.What if theres abuse and women flees.Still think the mans rights trump the womens.

If paternity is requested it should be on a case by case scenerio.

He's still the father.

The birth cert is a factual legal document, emotions aside.

Go to your safe space to have a little cry if you don't like it.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In a weird way, I think even the prospect of mandatory paternity testing would scare a lot of women. A midwife once remarked to me that if a woman is 35 or older having her first child theres a massive chance that kid will be born in september , celebrating a bit too much over the christmas and newyears period....not always with the partner

Scared of what?
Pray tell.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah mate you don’t get up control anything about who we sleep with so give it up.

Who's trying to control who you sleep with?

I await your reply.

ingalway

joeguevara wrote: »

Apologies. But the article was glen Clarke being calling someone coloured not black. Coloured is offensive.

Is People of Colour offensive? It's used in the USA all the time as it includes many other people who are not black skinned but who are not white.

joeguevara

ingalway wrote: »

Is People of Colour offensive? It's used in the USA all the time as it includes many other people who are not black skinned but who are not white.

No it’s not.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-dahleen-glanton-colored-email-reading-list-20200304-utx7geiwm5hupa3t7w6xr3xqn4-story.html

One eyed Jack

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

He's still the father.

The birth cert is a factual legal document, emotions aside.

Go to your safe space to have a little cry if you don't like it.

Indeed -


Lesbian parents will both be recognised on birth certs but fathers must wait


I wouldn’t be so smarmy as to suggest you go off to your safe space and have a little cry if you don’t like it though.

Gervais08

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

He's still the father.

The birth cert is a factual legal document, emotions aside.

Go to your safe space to have a little cry if you don't like it.

Isn’t that what you need because you can’t got laid? I hate Americanisms but fair stench of the incel off your woman-controlling posts. Concerning.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Gervais08 wrote: »

Isn’t that what you need because you can’t got laid? I hate Americanisms but fair stench of the incel off your woman-controlling posts. Concerning.

How are my posts women controlling?

Gervais08

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

How are my posts women controlling?

Seriously????

Who’s business is it of yours who someone has sex with ?

Who are you to demand that by law a woman must disclose her sexual partners ? **** right off with that.

Necro

Mod:

Gervais08 and Eleven Benevolent Elephants, cut out the petty squabbling or don't post in this thread

Quazzie

The English FA appointing a black man as the their new chairman is as racist as anything said by Clarke. They are appointing someone based on their skin colour which is racist.

km991148

Quazzie wrote: »

The English FA appointing a black man as the their new chairman is as racist as anything said by Clarke. They are appointing someone based on their skin colour which is racist.

Are they really?

Some might say that it's racist to assume..

Gervais08

Necro wrote: »

Mod:

Gervais08 and Eleven Benevolent Elephants, cut out the petty squabbling or don't post in this thread

My apologies.

Macu17ab

I think Irish land that has been inherited through the British Monarchical system e.g. Powerscourt Gardens, should be returned to the state and used for purposes to help revitalise Irish culture and language.

walshb

Macu17ab wrote: »

I think Irish land that has been inherited through the British Monarchical system e.g. Powerscourt Gardens, should be returned to the state and used for purposes to help revitalise Irish culture and language.

Please, no.

I am proud to be Irish, but can’t stand this forcing the dead Irish language on us

It’s dead...let it rest in peace!!!

Next to fooking nobody can speak it!

km991148

Funny - I was just watching this the other day - I'v always said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvlQXPNwrqo

fcuk it.