But Where Are You Really From?

[Deleted member 28]

Oh but you are offended shep, you're offended by far more than those that you throw that particular insult at. Immigrants, anti-brexit posts, black people, brown people, wokerati, lgbqt+, black or women Dr Whos, same sex strictly, people wanting a more equal society, women posting on the Internet, on and on it goes.

I feel you're getting 'offended ' mixed up with bewilderment in this case, why or how could I be offended by people's confusion?

I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why the terms created by the aforementioned minorities now offend them, how have you interpreted this as me being offended?

 

[Deleted member 28]

You're 'yet to receive an explanation' because basically you yourself have made an inaccurate assertion with very little basis in reality.

Having evidently done little to no research or even thinking on the matter yourself.

TMN @icowden

Now you're demanding that someone explain to you the justification for your own misapprehension..

It's a bit like me endlessly demanding to be told why they use a shuttlecock instead of a spherical ball in Premier League Football these days..

Enlighten me, misapprehension?

Reference shuttlecocks, I would explain to the best of my knowledge and if you failed to understand then I would leave you to it.

So...............please explain, once will do, why terms created very recently by minorities are now unacceptable to those that created them.

 

[mudsticks]

Enlighten me, misapprehension?

Reference shuttlecocks, I would explain to the best of my knowledge and if you failed to understand then I would leave you to it.

So...............please explain, once will do, why terms created very recently by minorities are now unacceptable to those that created them.

I'll try, hope you're sitting comfortably.

Misapprehension of yours

1. is that these terms have only just 'recently been created' they have been around a while as @icowden has related..
You may only recently become aware of their usage, but perhaps you weren't fully paying attention??

2. That they were ever created 'entirely' by minorities..
They can't have been created by 'all' of the minorities..
That would require canvassing and then collating results from across millions of people. And then finding an agreeable consensus among 'all' the people involved.

The 'unacceptabilty' according to some - (but not all) people has emerged over time, the terms have developed and changed over time too, as new thinking emerges , and as new voices and consciousness is raised...

HTH

 

[Deleted member 28]

I'll try, hope you're sitting comfortably.

Misapprehension of yours

1. is that these terms have only just 'recently been created' they have been around a while as @icowden has related..
You may only recently become aware of their usage, but perhaps you weren't fully paying attention??

2. That they were ever created 'entirely' by minorities..
They can't have been created by 'all' of the minorities..
That would require canvassing and then collating results from across millions of people. And then finding an agreeable consensus among 'all' the people involved.

The 'unacceptabilty' according to some - (but not all) people has emerged over time, the terms have developed and changed over time too, as new thinking emerges , and as new voices and consciousness is raised...

HTH

Not bad, many thanks.

So in a nutshell certain members of certain groups decided certain terms used to describe them were acceptable to some of them (possibly) but maybe not all of them but they went with it anyway and then when certain members of said groups decided they didn't like it anymore (or maybe never did) people get chastised for using an 'out of date ' term that they didn't really know who, why or where it came from in the first place.

Nowt as funny as folk.

 

[mudsticks]

Not bad, many thanks.

So in a nutshell certain members of certain groups decided certain terms used to describe them were acceptable to some of them (possibly) but maybe not all of them but they went with it anyway and then when certain members of said groups decided they didn't like it anymore (or maybe never did) people get chastised for using an 'out of date ' term that they didn't really know who, why or where it came from in the first place.

Nowt as funny as folk.

You're welcome.

As a rule people only get 'chastised' for using an out of date / offensive terms if they keep doing it repeatedly once they know that it is really unhelpful .

Particularly if they appear to be doing it to be hurtful, or for a wind up, and really don't seem to care about its impact.

In general people don't get 'offended' by genuine mistakes that arise out of a lack of knowledge. But learning new things is always possible .

Folk are indeed funny, marvellous, terrible, and all points in between too.

Another round of defrosting to do >>>> ❄️❄️❄️

 

[matticus]

In general people don't get 'offended' by genuine mistakes that arise out of a lack of knowledge

But the specific examples try very hard to make up for it.

 

[Ian H]

But the specific examples try very hard to make up for it.

Any examples of people getting annoyed by genuine mistakes?

 

[matticus]

Any examples of people getting annoyed by genuine mistakes?

Pffft. I can already anticipate what some of your exclusions would be:
- subconsciously racist
- a man in his position should have known better
- dog-whistle phrase
- it's not a mistake - it's a micro-aggression
- not "annoyed" - merely helping him learn!
- etc

I'm sure you are aware of several examples discussed in this holiest of houses.

 

[mudsticks]

But the specific examples try very hard to make up for it.

Not in my experience no.

I'm often at the interface where people from very traditional conservative (small and large 'c') people from rural backgrounds, meet up with people from far more socially and ethnically diverse and urban backgrounds.

It's very easy to discern who those people are who genuinely don't know, but whom are willing to learn, and they're given plenty of leeway / help / consideration. It doesn't usually take them long to adjust their language, and no one gives them a hard time if they slip up.


But just occasionally you'll get some really ignorant deliberately antagonistic sorts, who don't see why they should have to consider the feelings of other people who have historically been disadvantaged, and discriminated against.

They're clearly resistant to any kind of new learning, and just seem to want to make out it's all a big old fuss about nothing.

Those people may well be given shorter shrift, on account of their own poor attitude. Basically, they get back what they've given out.

 

[Deleted member 28]

How about if you think it's a load of boll*x?

For example when I grew up a black fella was just that and an Indian was, well, an Indian so why shouldn't I use those terms now?

Apparently 'half caste' is now unacceptable to some but we've already covered that one so when I hear 'person of colour' or 'BAME' I just think 'here we go again' and when I then hear that's now wrong as well it's just makes a complete mockery of the whole thing.

Why do I need to 'learn' anything new when the so called 'teachers' can't make their own minds up.

 

[mudsticks]

How about if you think it's a load of boll*x?

For example when I grew up a black fella was just that and an Indian was, well, an Indian so why shouldn't I use those terms now?

Apparently 'half caste' is now unacceptable to some but we've already covered that one so when I hear 'person of colour' or 'BAME' I just think 'here we go again' and when I then hear that's now wrong as well it's just makes a complete mockery of the whole thing.

Why do I need to 'learn' anything new when the so called 'teachers' can't make their own minds up.

You're talking about referring to individuals, who you know, or meet as individuals in day to day life.

Most of the time you can just refer to them by their name.

But wider and more generalised terminology is often used by policy makers, and when referring to whole ethnic groups, which it is sometimes necessary to do, particularly when tackling the systemic discrimination they are suffering.

Surely you want the people being referred to to feel comfortable as possible with whatever terms are used.,??

It needs to be their choice


The fact that so many terms are controversial, or that it's difficult to come to a consensus on all this just goes to show how language has been used as a tool for discrimination in the past.

Down the pub you can just buy a pint for Frank (who happens to be black) and no one needs to call him anything else.

 

[icowden]

For example when I grew up a black fella was just that and an Indian was, well, an Indian so why shouldn't I use those terms now?

You can. But, when you grew up it was common to refer to someone from Pakistan as a "Paki". That one won't go down as well.

 

[Deleted member 28]

You can. But, when you grew up it was common to refer to someone from Pakistan as a "Paki". That one won't go down as well.

Common yes, acceptable no.

I dare say phrases like that will always be used but I doubt they were ever thought upon as correct unlike the ones that were for a while and now aren't, even though they were dreamt up by the very people who wanted change.

You're talking about referring to individuals, who you know, or meet as individuals in day to day life.

Most of the time you can just refer to them by their name.

But wider and more generalised terminology is often used by policy makers, and when referring to whole ethnic groups, which it is sometimes necessary to do, particularly when tackling the systemic discrimination they are suffering.

Surely you want the people being referred to to feel comfortable as possible with whatever terms are used.,??

It needs to be their choice


The fact that so many terms are controversial, or that it's difficult to come to a consensus on all this just goes to show how language has been used as a tool for discrimination in the past.

Down the pub you can just buy a pint for Frank (who happens to be black) and no one needs to call him anything else.

Absolutely agree but it still doesn't explain why the terms chosen by the people in the first place are now unacceptable does it?

It's seems as if certain groups just want to cause issues where there aren't any to me.

 

[icowden]

Absolutely agree but it still doesn't explain why the terms chosen by the people in the first place are now unacceptable does it?
It's seems as if certain groups just want to cause issues where there aren't any to me.

Or is it that they aren't the same people.
Or that the way the words are being used has changed.

Out of interest, who do you think is best placed to decide? The group affected or some white blokes?

 

[matticus]

Or that the way the words are being used has changed.

Just for clarity - is this just about words being used in a negative way? e.g. moving from
"purple people are often disadvantaged in the workplace, and we can help them by ... " to
"Those farking purple people have farked this country right up" etc?

(genuine question, as usage evolves in all sorts of ways)