Clarity on reporting posts and on what defines a racial slur

Jequ0n

First of all: I don't intend this as an attack on specific people, nor do I want it to be a pile on.

Can we get some clarity if the term "gammon" is racist or not please? I see it being used by some posters on this site and it frequenrly leads to debates whether it is a racial slur or not. Personally, I can't see how it can be seen as anything but a racial slur since it is directly linked to skin colour, but I'd be interested if there is an official Boards stance so the debate can be settled for once.

Secondly, and somewhat related to the first point: how do we report posts by mods/ C mods that we believe are falling foul of the charter? I have reported posts in the past and it simply led to the mod changing their post to remove the part I had reported, because they happened to be a mod in the forum that the thread was in. To be honest, I can only see this being an issue in cases where mods are prolifically posting in their own fora which they are supposed to mod.

I can provide a link to the thread/ the debate in question for context, but I don’t really want this to turn into a witch hunt.

It would be good to know how to report these cases as it seems pointless that our reports are being sent directly to the people who we are complaining about.

I am posting this on the back on having received a warning point for having questioned moderation on thread. I am not appealing for this warning to be lifted, but I think that it will be more beneficial to get clarity on the above as there are others who have similar questions.

Thanks

EmmetSpiceland

I, personally, wouldn’t have thought gammon was racist. It’s basically a synonym, another way of saying, “red faced”.

I always saw it as applying to middle aged, or older, men, it’s usually men, who get themselves all “wound up” over the changing world. This angry makes their face go red and look like gammon, a dark pink/reddish colour. Some may even turn puce.

Wouldn’t see it as a permanent thing, unless the person involved has some sort of high blood pressure “issue”. If that’s the case they should really be avoiding any situation that gets them all “riled up”.

It may not be a flattering “descriptor” but it’s a far cry from being a racist slur.

pjohnson

"Gammon" would be about as racist a term as "Snowflake"

StrawbsM

It is an insult that is dished out based on a persons skin colour.

odyssey06

It applies only to men. Based on age. And a physical characteristic based on their racial skin colour.

All three of these are protected characteristics.

Some people flush like this, nothing to do with being riled up about politicial opinions.

It is being used to support ad hominen attacks, braindead sloganisation and insults as the basis for debate rather than engaging with actual substance.

If gammon is acceptable then throwing out similar slur about other ethnic groups based on a physical characteristic is also ok.

Are we going to allow similar slurs about black people and white teeth, asian people and eyes?

CGI_Livia_Soprano

As far as I'm aware I've never used the word "gammon" in relation to anyone else but I can't help but laugh at the irony of gammonese people crying foul and claiming that it's a racist term, when they themselves tell anyone who points out their own bigotry to get over it, "you can't say nothing nowadays" and so on and so forth.

Being a gammon is like being a boomer: you don't need to have been born immediately after WWII in order to be a boomer, similarly you don't need bright pink features with bulging red eyes to be a gammon. They're a state of mind. Obviously I don't press those points too much during the cut and thrust of spirited debate, inflexibility about the "strict definition" of words and sticking religiously to them is the hallmark of the boomer/gammon.

The whole "gammon is racist" stuff reminds me of Ulster Scots in the North, where the Unionists saw that the minority Nationalist population were asking for offical recognition of the Irish language so the Unionists invented a language to claim for some extra rights for themselves. The Unionists don't believe Ulster Scots is a real language, and the people who are crying about "gammon" being racist don't actually believe that it is racist. They just want those extra "privileges" the minorities have for themselves too.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058284333/clarity-on-reporting-posts-and-on-what-defines-a-racial-slur

Mod posts can and should be reported like any other. Mods should never take mod action on any posts of their own that are reported, and we also discourage mods from taking action in discussions that they have been actively involved in, even if the report is not against their post, but this can be difficult to avoid at times.

If you think a mod has abused their mod powers then you should flag this to the relevant Category Mod (via pm) who can investigate.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120242868#Comment_120242868

Thanks. And if it relates to a c mod do we contact an admin?

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120242932#Comment_120242932

Yes.

I don't think it's racist - just unimaginative, like Karen, boomer, snowflake and SJW.

I learn something new every day. Never heard of the word “gammon” outside of a culinary context, had to Google it. 🙂

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120242746#Comment_120242746

Is Red a race now??? Because that's the skin colour in question.

Also, on this site I'd say it's almost exclusively used by white people. Can it be considered a racial slur in that context? I'd have to say no. That would be like claiming black people calling eachother the N word is racist, when it's patently not.

MrStuffins

The type of person to claim "gammon" as racist is the same type of person to turn up to a Garda Station with Graham Carey and use the word "unvetted" over and over.

Racism, in most forms, is when you use predjudice or make claims against someone that you attribute towards them AS A RESULT of them being part of a race or ethnic group.

Saying "Gammon" does not meet this criteria. And claiming it as racism is extremely pathetic!

facehugger99

I know some woke-lad was recently made a Mod and, as seems to be common with these so-called liberals, promptly tried to shut down debate on a load of threads he didn't agree with.

But going after him on the 'gammon' comment is pure stupid too.

Glaceon

I'd usually be the first to call out double standards but I disagree in this case. I've only ever seen 'gammon' used to refer to angry Brits, usually the type who want Johnny Foreigner out yet voted for Brexit from their Spanish retirement villas. Bigoted maybe but I wouldn't consider it racist.

banie01

Gammon IMO isn't a racist term, nor is it a gendered one.

It's a synonym with red-faced anger or rage, it does a job of both illustrating the red-faced anger that some folk work themselves up to. Much like Karen, Snowflake, boomer and zoomer are a descriptive shorthand for some demographic cohorts, it serves a purpose.

I do find it odd that anyone complaining about being labelled a gammon? Would take the snowflake path of seeking the word labelled as a racist pejorative? Rather than confront the behaviour that led to the label being applied?

The, traditional, conservative, fúck your feelings and anti-woke bandwagon that is so often the party labelled as Gammon, are the same ones claiming that it's offensive and racist? If their own words are just words? If the power ascribed to the word Gammon, is a pointed, direct and hurtful slur upon them?

Perhaps they could reflect upon what led to someone calling them Gammon in the 1st place?

osarusan

If somebody was to do an analysis of the word and collect data on who was being described each time it was used, I think that the data would indicate 99%+ white people (and probably 90%+ men).

If that did turn out to be the case, I think it'd be difficult to argue that usage has nothing to do with race, even if it's generally used specifically to describe the flushed face of a ranting conservative.

MrStuffins

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243569#Comment_120243569

Only if you don't actually know how racism is defined.

Jequ0n

Look, I asked the question because I thought it’s specifically aimed at a specific group of people (one defining feature being the skin colour). If it’s not a racial slur then so be it, but it sounds like everyone has a different opinion here.

@facehugger99 this wasn’t aimed at a newly appointed mod at all.

odyssey06

By means of comparison, how is Gammon different to these as a race based stereotype and racialized cariacature.

Would we allow these phrases?

Banana, Coconut, and Twinkie are pejorative terms, primarily used for Asian Americans who are perceived to have been assimilated and acculturated into mainstream American culture and who do not conform to typical South Asian or East Asian cultures.

Uncle Tom:

Also see the Emmy Award-winning 1987 documentary film Ethnic Notions by Black gay filmmaker Marlon Riggs narrated by actor Esther Rolle. The documentary narrates the history and legacy of the dehumanizing effects of African-American stereotypes and racializing caricatures from the "Loyal Uncle Tom" to grinning fools (see Stepin Fetchit) in cartoons, minstrel shows, advertisements, household artifacts, and even children's rhymes.

(refs taken from Wikipedia)

tjhook

There are insults that are based on those physical characteristics (or behaviours) that can be most commonly found among black people. I'd be uncomfortable using such terms at all, and I think it's a sign of ignorance to casually throw them around in a discussion.

To be consistent, I'd think the same applies to "gammon". If one of these is permitted, then I think it would be difficult/inconsistent to ban the other. And I'm not sure I'd be bothered engaging in such a forum.

As for black people calling eachother the "N word", I don't think it's relevant. In the context of Boards, it's not feasible to have lists of people who are allowed to use different terms. And I'd like to think Boards wouldn't get into categorising people/races into groups to which pejorative terms can be applied, and groups to which they can't.

All just my opinion obviously. The term "gammon" doesn't wind me up, I'd just like to see consistency.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243621#Comment_120243621

Because gammon isn't used as a pejorative against white people because they are white. it is used against people with particular traits.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243652#Comment_120243652

It isn't used against "people" with particular traits though is it? It is used against white people. How else can you be a gammon except red cheeks on white skin?

Gammon is used in similar ways to:

Banana, Coconut, and Twinkie are pejorative terms, primarily used for Asian Americans who are perceived to have been assimilated and acculturated into mainstream American culture and who do not conform to typical South Asian or East Asian cultures.

Banana and Twinkie refer to a person being perceived as 'yellow on the outside, white on the inside', while Coconut is used to refer to darker-skinned Asians, such as those from South Asia or the Philippines.

It is used against white people with particular physical traits, and usually age based as well.

So it is a race based cariacature.

It is a slur based on protected characteristics.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243663#Comment_120243663

it is a behaviour based caricature. Being an anti-immigrant bigot is a not a protected characteristic.

Shield

This is a great example of context, context, context.

If it’s said between friends in a jokey manner, then no, it’s clearly not a slur.

If it’s said in anger, hate, or in an otherwise demeaning way, then there is precedent (albeit across the water) for it to be recorded and investigated as a hate crime. Google EP-20180519-0726 for the complaint details.

Is it racist? The answer is it depends on who you ask. It seems to be one of those things that gels, or doesn’t, with people of a political persuasion. The Guardian would have you believe it’s a perfectly fine utterance:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/14/gammon-not-racial-slur-change-conversation

…whereas GQ assert that it’s hate speech, comparing it to ‘the k word’ for Jews:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-gammon-mean

Back to the OP, I don’t think you’re going to get a definite yes or no to this because it’s such a fluid word, but the final word on this is outside my pay grade.

-Shield

Dial Hard

Some of you are really reaching here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120242688#Comment_120242688

White men though , it’s used to dismiss peoples opinion on the basis of a combination of age and skin colour

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243673#Comment_120243673

Then just call them that if that's what you think they are.

It is not based on behaviour alone. It clearly references skin colour.

They are not being called gammon because that's the choice of sunday dinner.

How else can you be a gammon except by having red cheeks on white skin?

It is race based stereotyping.

Leg End Reject

Wasn't there uproar before about "Karen" being used to describe the female equivalent?

I don't think that was ever deemed offensive or actioned.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243690#Comment_120243690

By that logic "Karen" is also a racist (and sexist) slur as it's predominantly used to refer to white women but I don't see anyone advocating for that to be proscribed.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243706#Comment_120243706

Actually, it was once argued that it was misogynistic, but nothing came of that.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243706#Comment_120243706

What if 'Karen' was only used to describe menopausal women who engage in such behaviour?

Gammon goes a step beyond Karen, or snowflake or boomer imo.

If gammon is to be allowed then I don't see grounds for treating other race based stereotypes as proscribed either such as banana or coconut as I mentioned.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243695#Comment_120243695

it is not white people with red cheeks. it is white people who get themselves so worked up about their bigotry that there face gets flushed.

Play it safe and just refer to them as a **** instead.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243718#Comment_120243718

So you admit it's not just "people", it is white people specifically.

How does their face get flushed? An involuntary skin colour change towards red.

Does it only happen when they use bigoted language?

Are they the only circumstances under which white people's cheeks get flushed???

Nope.

Your posts on this are exercises in disingenuousness.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243736#Comment_120243736

well it is generally white people that are anti-immigrant bigots in the UK.

tjhook

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243718#Comment_120243718

I understood the term to be a little more general - it could be applied to a middle-aged white guy getting worked up about anything, e.g. "the state of today's youth".

Either way, would you feel the same about pejorative terms applied to black people based on outside perceptions of their group's behaviour?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243734#Comment_120243734

A four star pizza?

Don't think that'll work as well.

Hodors Appletart

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243743#Comment_120243743

I mean their home secretary is not a white person, has she ever been described as a gammon?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243766#Comment_120243766

no idea. should she be?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243569#Comment_120243569

It would be presenting a misleading picture based upon manipulating statistics though as the term doesn’t refer to 90% of white men, it refers only and specifically to a vanishingly small group of affluent white men of a particular social class based upon as you point out - their political views.

It amounts to not much more than a pithy insult, objected to by people on the basis that it’s hypocritical of their political opponents to argue against discrimination based upon race while deploying what they construe as a racist epithet, attempting to portray the target as the victims of prejudice and discrimination motivated by racial differences.

The attempt to decry the term as racist has about as much legitimacy as attempting to claim wigger is motivated by racist intent. It’s an insult, used to convey a negative stereotype, but it’s not based upon the fact that the target is white, it’s based upon the idea of their feigned outrage causing a rush of blood to the head, producing the resulting distinct colouration similar to the appearance of gammon.

It doesn’t apply on the basis of membership of a specific racial group, nor would it make any sense if it were targeted at anyone solely on the basis of their membership of a particular race, age group or sex. It only has any kind of meaning applied in a very specific context to a very specific group of people based upon characteristics they share in common, and like all insults, it only has any power at all if the target understands what it’s meant to convey. Otherwise, it just makes no sense -

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html?amp

Karen is sexist as fk. Particularly hypocritical of "liberal" guys to use it (and lots do) - they're as bad as elements of the right for their disdain towards women who have the audacity not to be young and to have particular opinions. The "uppity" witches.

knucklehead6

Seems to me there’s a little bit of rules lawyering being looked for here

”oh, you said a word I don’t like and went to the admins to get banned so you’re in trouble”

This is why shields response where context is key is totally valid and should be taken as the final word.

I once almost got in trouble in work once for referring to tinkers hill. My comment was reported to HR. A HR person came to me as part of a preliminary investigation. Admittedly, me laughing in the HR persons face probably wasn’t the best response, but when I told her it was a place name the matter quietly went away

Larbre34

Here's some clarity. None of it is sexist, none of it is racist. Its just a way of identifying people by their behaviour. If they don't like the label, change the behaviour.

Gammon:

Karen:

Common-or garden Tory scum:

Clear enough?

ancapailldorcha

In fairness, I could just as easily say that "woke" or "Metropolitan elite" are racist terms.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243791#Comment_120243791

The target is white.

It specifically references an unflattering natural reaction of their skin tone.

That is how it originated.

It is a race based slur (or insult) in origin.

And, even if don't accept it as a race based one, it is clearly just a weaponised insult, allowing it just moves political 'debate' on boards into the realm of insult throwing.

The forums where the word is most likely to be used, politics and CA, both stress the need to remain civil in posts.

And Politics states:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye.

Gammon in these terms is clearly not civil imo

CGI_Livia_Soprano

"Karen" isn't misogynistic because it refers specifically to a kind of shrill, bossy, entitled, bullying, middle-class woman. Not women in general.

When I clicked on this thread I was expecting those posts along the lines of "if you can say gammon that means we can use twinkie, choc-ice, the f-slur, the n-word" and so on. So gross. They're clearly foaming at the mouth, hoping to carpet bomb the place with N-bombs.

That harks back my earlier point about a certain subset of the population (white male bigots) who are fabricating outrage over an invented "racial slur" so they can pretend to be victims themselves and give themselves a licence to spread their bile with impunity. The people defending them need to look at the real world rather than through the filter of the dictionary definition of words.

Gammon is a word that refers to white males who (this next part is the most important part) have rendered themselves bright pink in outrage at foreigners, people on the dole etc. It is primarily based on a certain type of ugly behaviour, not skin colour. It's not racist.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243859#Comment_120243859

No. How is Coffey a Karen but Braverman and Truss aren't? And Coffey isn't common-or-garden Tory scum?

Inane and meaningless.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243853#Comment_120243853

There are so, so, so many people out there that are just dying to get one up on somebody else. It's kinda sad.

Sent to HR for referring to a place name.

Fuck me. 🙄

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243877#Comment_120243877

The target is unquestionably pink, if they were white, it wouldn’t make any sense, it would be so off-target that it wouldn’t make any sense outside of that context. ‘Casper the unfriendly host’ is a bit of a mouthful.

Of course it’s a weaponised insult, as all insults are, but it only becomes uncivil in a discussion when it’s referring specifically to the other poster or posters involved, and even then I would expect the context in which it is used would be of greater importance than the use of the term itself. Otherwise it’s simply a question of inventing yet another creative term to convey the same meaning, and the same people claiming to be offended when their intentions are so obvious as to be not worth entertaining.

With the amount of hate that has been let fester here you might as well let people call people whatever they want..

Like, if you're allowed to call someone an orc, you should be able to call someone a (boop)..

It's actually hilarious odessey06 is here saying calling someone gammon shouldn't be allowed..