katie price n word outrage

Murrisk

joeguevara wrote: »

Easier ways for her to grab headlines....she doesn't bring her other kids to limelight

You're joking, right?

RayM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's ridiculous to have such a complete taboo on a word yet at the same time have it spouted constantly throughout music, tv and film.

That reminds me of a readers' letter to Viz magazine:

"How come rap artist Dr. Dre can use the 'N' word on his multi-million selling albums and win a MOBO award, yet when I used it at my son's football match I was asked to leave the park? Once again, it's one law for the rich and another for the poor."

She could easily have just euphemistically said "the n-word" like most normal people would if they needed to refer to that word on daytime television. Then maybe the papers would be reporting the bullying story itself, rather than going on about people's reaction to her using the word.

Murrisk

RayM wrote: »

That reminds me of a readers' letter to Viz magazine:

"How come rap artist Dr. Dre can use the 'N' word on his multi-million selling albums and win a MOBO award, yet when I used it at my son's football match I was asked to leave the park? Once again, it's one law for the rich and another for the poor."

She could easily have just euphemistically said "the n-word" like most normal people would if they needed to refer to that word on daytime television. Then maybe the papers would be reporting the bullying story itself, rather than going on about people's reaction to her using the word.

Exactly. Hence my suspicion of her motives. She seems a bit too eager to publicise Harvey's woes, IMO, and his exposure to the media, along with her other kids, is irresponsible and inappropriate IMO and has probably made Harvey more of a target to the troglodytes out there.

_Whimsical_

Murrisk wrote: »

TBH, Ms. Price seems delighted to be able to get up on her high horse about people's reactions to her son. She should be shielding her kids, not pushing and prodding them into the limelight. I think the abuse Harvey receives will affect him more profoundly because she makes such a song and dance about it. Hideous woman. And her two young 'uns are so obnoxiously gobby and precocious. I know that's not their fault and this is the only life they know but that can't end well. Imagine having her and that Andre... thing for parents? Shudder.

His intellectual disability is such that he is unaware of the abuse even if told about it. She is standing up against a hideous element online and in society that seeks to use people like Harvey for a cheap laugh in the most disgusting ways. That anyone can take issue with that or try to lay the blame at her own for it boggles the mind.

She said the final straw was seeing a video someone had manipulated of him where a guy making it is pretending he's having sex with Harvey and asking him what positions he wants next, then using a clip of Harvey's voice saying "yeah baby" in response . Harvey is 14 years old. She contacted the police and the guy who made the video was questioned and released without charge as he'd never had a previous conviction and was from a good family! Is crazy anyone is getting away with that sort of thing. Someone needs to stand up against it.

Is she a perfect person or perfect parent? No she's not. Does that in anyway negate how wrong it is to treat any child, not to mention one with such profound difficulties, so horribly?

Murrisk

I think she is well aware that this is something it's difficult to criticise her for and IMO exploits that. How does the general public even know so much about her kids in order to throw abuse their way? Because she pimps then out. I wouldn't want to expose my children to all the arseholes there are out there. Absolutely she deserves some criticism in this regard. Other celebrities seem to have no problem keeping their offspring out of the public glare. At this point, now that the glamma mawdling days are past, she is well aware that to stay relevant, the only thing she can now sell is her family. She is rich but that doesn't make the cravings for attention go away.

That doesn't mean trolls should go unpunished. Rather, it's an incontrovertible fact that the world is filled with thick arseholes and any parent's priority should not to be offer their kids up for ridicule by these mouth-breathers. You can simultaneously hope to see trolls taken to task whilst also doing your best to keep your children low-profile and shielded from them. It's not either or. Ms. Price draws even more attention to her children rather than shield them. Arseholes are not going away so parents need to be hands-on in protecting them.

weldoninhio

I'd say she's delighted to have Harvey to wheel out any time she feels she's not getting the attention she "deserves". She can be Katie now, rather than "Jordan" and get publicity for her faux outrage rather than for being a slag.

NinjaKirby

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd say she's delighted to have Harvey to wheel out any time she feels she's not getting the attention she "deserves". She can be Katie now, rather than "Jordan" and get publicity for her faux outrage rather than for being a slag.

I think responsibility for that lands on the people who give her the attention though.

I don't know what she gets from these periods of being out there in the media spotlight but if there is some financial gain every time then you can kind of see why she might to that?

If she was just ignored then the issue doesn't arise. She isn't ignored though so it follows that she will continually seek attention.

robbiezero

RayM wrote: »

That reminds me of a readers' letter to Viz magazine:

"How come rap artist Dr. Dre can use the 'N' word on his multi-million selling albums and win a MOBO award, yet when I used it at my son's football match I was asked to leave the park? Once again, it's one law for the rich and another for the poor."

She could easily have just euphemistically said "the n-word" like most normal people would if they needed to refer to that word on daytime television. Then maybe the papers would be reporting the bullying story itself, rather than going on about people's reaction to her using the word.

More likely they would not report on it at all.

seamus

Anyone who gets upset about the word n1gger being uttered or written in isolation is getting offended for no reason other than believe they're supposed to get offended.

There was a similar incident in the US where in the course of an interview on a news show, one man said the word in a similar context to Katie Price, and the anchor lost it. She was unable to continue to the interview because she couldn't concentrate, was "shocked" that the interviewee would say the word on-air and was almost in tears. She had to end the interview.

Of course, she was a white woman with blond hair. She was getting upset about the word because she had been conditioned to think the word itself was offensive and upsetting, not because she had any particular reason to be offended by the word.

Did Katie Price know exactly what she was doing when she said it? Yes, she did. But she said it in order to adequately illustrate just how hurtful the abuse is. Saying "the n-word" is like saying "oh fiddlesticks" instead of "fuck". The impact is lost.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

RayM wrote: »

That reminds me of a readers' letter to Viz magazine:

"How come rap artist Dr. Dre can use the 'N' word on his multi-million selling albums and win a MOBO award, yet when I used it at my son's football match I was asked to leave the park? Once again, it's one law for the rich and another for the poor."

She could easily have just euphemistically said "the n-word" like most normal people would if they needed to refer to that word on daytime television. Then maybe the papers would be reporting the bullying story itself, rather than going on about people's reaction to her using the word.

WHY Though? The child is not being called "the n word" he's being called ******

keano_afc

She could have just said nagger.

topper75

So long as she didn't say Jehovah.

As a lover of real boobs, mock breasts offend me.

To whom can I send my complaint?

neonsofa

seamus wrote: »

Anyone who gets upset about the word n1gger being uttered or written in isolation is getting offended for no reason other than believe they're supposed to get offended.

There was a similar incident in the US where in the course of an interview on a news show, one man said the word in a similar context to Katie Price, and the anchor lost it. She was unable to continue to the interview because she couldn't concentrate, was "shocked" that the interviewee would say the word on-air and was almost in tears. She had to end the interview.

Of course, she was a white woman with blond hair. She was getting upset about the word because she had been conditioned to think the word itself was offensive and upsetting, not because she had any particular reason to be offended by the word.

Did Katie Price know exactly what she was doing when she said it? Yes, she did. But she said it in order to adequately illustrate just how hurtful the abuse is. Saying "the n-word" is like saying "oh fiddlesticks" instead of "fuck". The impact is lost.

It reminds me of some of the older people I work with, using the term "coloured" people, if discussing black people/culture etc. Yet when I say "black" they seem offended or look at me strange as if I'm some sort of racist monster. Even worse is "African american"- we're in Ireland, the person you're talking about is more than likely an Irish citizen!

Murrisk

LexieOnRale wrote: »

WHY Though? The child is not being called "the n word" he's being called ******

By making a song and dance, she's fuelling things. Trolls see that it hit the media so they do it again. She is drawing their attention to her kids. She also knows this and so has no intention of toning things down. Headlines = relevancy, or something. There is a less sensationalist way to discuss it that may be more helpful long-term but I can't see that being of much interest to KP.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Murrisk wrote: »

By making a song and dance, she's fuelling things. Trolls see that it hit the media so they do it again. She is drawing their attention to her kids. She also knows this and so has no intention of toning things down. Headlines = relevancy, or something. There is a less sensationalist way to discuss it that may be more helpful long-term but I can't see that being of much interest to KP.

I'm no fan of Jordan but she's not wrong here and to state otherwise would be erring in the side of blaming the victim. Her child is disabled, blind and a child for godsake. It's not her sensationalising the bullying, it's happening to her child. If your child was being bullied relentlessly, would you be sensationalising the problem going to the principal in school just incase it may infuriate the bullies moreso? Harvey is being bullied and trolled all over the Internet, by adults, around the entire country. Not a few kids his own age in a playground. That is disgusting and given he's 14, and this is nothing new, I'd say she's bit her tongue long enough.

weldoninhio

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm no fan of Jordan but she's not wrong here and to state otherwise would be erring in the side of blaming the victim. Her child is disabled, blind and a child for godsake. It's not her sensationalising the bullying, it's happening to her child. If your child was being bullied relentlessly, would you be sensationalising the problem going to the principal in school just incase it may infuriate the bullies moreso? Harvey is being bullied and trolled all over the Internet, by adults, around the entire country. Not a few kids his own age in a playground. That is disgusting and given he's 14, and this is nothing new, I'd say she's bit her tongue long enough.

Is it possible to bully someone if they are completely unaware of it??

The definition in the Oxford dictionary is "To use strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker".

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is it possible to bully someone if they are completely unaware of it??

The definition in the Oxford dictionary is "To use strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker".

Yes. Is it okay if I make fun of or intimidate an intellectually disabled child on the street?

weldoninhio

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes. Is it okay if I make fun of or intimidate an intellectually disabled child on the street?

If you intimidate or make fun of them on the street they are present and will see/hear the abuse/intimidation.

How can you intimidate someone who doesn't even know you exist??

Glenster

I think shes an idiot.

I see no problem in a mature society in being allowed to use a pejorative word when discussing the use of the word.

But not on this morning love. Catch up.

Winterlong

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you intimidate or make fun of them on the street they are present and will see/hear the abuse/intimidation.

How can you intimidate someone who doesn't even know you exist??

You are been pedantic, word picking.
It is not ok to be offensive to other people, never mind a child who is disabled. It offends a lot more than that child and is indefensible IMO.

Glenster

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you intimidate or make fun of them on the street they are present and will see/hear the abuse/intimidation.

How can you intimidate someone who doesn't even know you exist??

Do you think people are going to turn around to that point and say, "OK, racially abusing a blind and deaf child is OK in those circumstances."?

I'm all for winning an argument, but this thread is about a disabled kid who is being called a ******.

weldoninhio

Winterlong wrote: »

You are been pedantic, word picking.
It is not ok to be offensive to other people, never mind a child who is disabled. It offends a lot more than that child and is indefensible IMO.

I'm not being pedantic, they are 2 totally different scenarios.

In one, you are face to face with someone who you are abusing or belittling.

In the other, you are talking to no-one, the subject of your abuse/belittlement has no idea of it and probably never will, except when his mother decides it'll keep her relevant and get her column inches and uses you as an accessory to get air time.

Winterlong

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic, they are 2 totally different scenarios.

In one, you are face to face with someone who you are abusing or belittling.

In the other, you are talking to no-one, the subject of your abuse/belittlement has no idea of it and probably never will, except when his mother decides it'll keep her relevant and get her column inches and uses you as an accessory to get air time.

And in both cases it is not acceptable. In your second scenario it is the mother and family who are hurt and that is probably the point of the abuse. To hurt the mother.
Its a scummy thing to do and a scummy thing to try to defend.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic, they are 2 totally different scenarios.

In one, you are face to face with someone who you are abusing or belittling.

In the other, you are talking to no-one, the subject of your abuse/belittlement has no idea of it and probably never will, except when his mother decides it'll keep her relevant and get her column inches and uses you as an accessory to get air time.

NO you're asking can you bully someone if they're unaware? If someone is intellectually disable don't and blind they wouldn't be aware you're standing there making rude offensive gestures (because they can't see) and may not understand the impact of the words you are speaking to them to perceive themselves as being intimidated or under threat. You're basically saying online bullying is okay.

A Little Pony

Why are so many obsessed with Harvey? Its bizarre.

razorblunt

A Little Pony wrote: »

Why are so many obsessed with Harvey? Its bizarre.

If only his Dad was.

Dwight Yorke is a horrible excuse of a person.

Murrisk

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic, they are 2 totally different scenarios.

In one, you are face to face with someone who you are abusing or belittling.

In the other, you are talking to no-one, the subject of your abuse/belittlement has no idea of it and probably never will, except when his mother decides it'll keep her relevant and get her column inches and uses you as an accessory to get air time.

+1, she has a part in this. There will always be troglodytes out there and they should be punished for the abuse they mete out if possible - that goes without saying. But pushing your children into the spotlight is exposing them to these idiots and that's why most high profile folk do their best to shelter their offspring. But KP and the likes of the Beckhams see their children as commodities and push them front and centre. Totally wrong. She is absolutely partly to blame here, IMO, but has shrewdly realised that nobody will really publically criticise her for her wildly inappropriate commoditisation of her kids and the damage it could do to them. The responses here show that.

weldoninhio

LexieOnRale wrote: »

NO you're asking can you bully someone if they're unaware? If someone is intellectually disable don't and blind they wouldn't be aware you're standing there making rude offensive gestures (because they can't see) and may not understand the impact of the words you are speaking to them to perceive themselves as being intimidated or under threat. You're basically saying online bullying is okay.

To bully or intimidate someone they have to be aware of it.

You are twisting my words in all sorts of directions to suit your narrative because you cannot answer my question. How do you bully someone if they are not aware of you, or anything you have said or written. How do you intimidate someone that doesn't know that you exist. It is not possible.

Murrisk

weldoninhio wrote: »

To bully or intimidate someone they have to be aware of it.

You are twisting my words in all sorts of directions to suit your narrative because you cannot answer my question. How do you bully someone if they are not aware of you, or anything you have said or written. How do you intimidate someone that doesn't know that you exist. It is not possible.

Indeed KP making a big deal might draw his attention to it where he mightn't have noticed otherwise!

southstar

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you intimidate or make fun of them on the street they are present and will see/hear the abuse/intimidation.

How can you intimidate someone who doesn't even know you exist??

jesus ..do you need to be so feckin pedantic...maybe shes the one who is feeling intimidated and bullied ...so what..it her child.Im not sure that going on TV makes much difference however and possibly only serves the interests of the media getting a story.It does show how low trolls will stoop.

Boom_Bap

weldoninhio wrote: »

To bully or intimidate someone they have to be aware of it.

You are twisting my words in all sorts of directions to suit your narrative because you cannot answer my question. How do you bully someone if they are not aware of you, or anything you have said or written. How do you intimidate someone that doesn't know that you exist. It is not possible.

This is an honest question, and I'm not beig a d*ck here, are you assuming here that Harvey doesn't hear or read the abuse that is directed towards him?

There is also a wider impact, Harvey has siblings of varying ages that have to put up with this abuse aimed at their brother. So they see their brother being targetted for online bullying.

If you watch the twitter video in the OP of this Katie actually says that she is using her place in celebrity to help spread the word of what is going on, and it's not just to her son.
There is 0 shame in using your fame for good.

I do not agree with alot her antcis in the past, and I don't like her using Harvey as a trophy in this case either by bringing him around putting him in front of cameras, that's not necessary.
But she is trying something and using her fame as a platform to get a wider reach.

Murrisk

I don't buy at all that her motivation is to combat online bullying, especially she has been instrumental in pushing her children into the spotlight. She never misses an opportunity to promote them and that brings them much more to the attention of all the lovely trolls out there. Hugely irresponsible parenting which makes her claims of trying to help seem very hollow indeed. If her children are upset about the trolling directed at Harvey, who put them all in a position where they are high profile enough to receive such attention?

I guess this is all a matter of opinion.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dublin Pintman wrote: »

Hate how it's referred to as the 'n word'. It's ******, an offensive word sure, but just a word at the end of the day. It's not some dangerous black magic incantation.

We don't refer to Mick as the 'm word' for example.

Funnily enough, 'white n.......' was also a phrase for the Irish on the east coast of the States.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

So what? She's supposed to hide her son in a cupboard because he's the wrong colour and not perfectly healthy?

Murrisk

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So what? She's supposed to hide her son in a cupboard because he's the wrong colour and not perfectly healthy?

What? That's not what I said at all. Dramatics! I'm sure you understand that I mean a normal childhood, not one in the glare of the public eye. Lots of famous people give their children a very normal childhood and have them barely photographed and actively avoid having them in the spotlight. How you would equate that to the above-quoted hyperbole, I have no idea. Hide him away... what? I mentioned all her kids too, as you well know.

Winterlong

Murrisk wrote: »

I don't buy at all that her motivation is to combat online bullying, especially she has been instrumental in pushing her children into the spotlight. She never misses an opportunity to promote them and that brings them much more to the attention of all the lovely trolls out there. Hugely irresponsible parenting which makes her claims of trying to help seem very hollow indeed. If her children are upset about the trolling directed at Harvey, who put them all in a position where they are high profile enough to receive such attention?

I guess this is all a matter of opinion.

It is a matter of opinion. I dont know her motivations but suspect she has just had enough after 14 years.
Maybe other families who have handicapped loved ones and have been victims of abuse welcome that a high profile figure is bringing the issue in to the public domain.
Maybe the awareness will stop just one scrote from doing this in the future and spare some other families some pain.

Triangla

I watched the interview. She said n****r when describing what her son was being called.

Philip Schofield in like a shot and told her not to use that word.

How can a conversation take place if someone decides using a word is an offence.

It's a horrible word with terrible connotations but is also a word that exists and has a time and place for its use.

One example of its proper use was Katie Price detailing what names her son was called. The conversation then becomes about her using a word instead of one about her son, who she will need to look after for the rest of her life, and the crap he had to deal with.

I love Louis CKs take on 'the n word', very accurate.

RayM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

WHY Though? The child is not being called "the n word" he's being called ******

Because it's what people are supposed to do on daytime television, especially in the UK, where they're a lot more serious about swearing on TV than we are here.

Irish Guitarist

The comments on that video show how idiotic people are. For instance this drivel got 378 likes.

People knew it wasn't acceptable before you started throwing the word about you fuckin bellend.

Then there's these. You can tell by their profile pictures they're the "I'm so oppressed. Sent from my iPhone" type.

Regardless of the reason you said it. YOU ARE WHITE don't say it again

The fact that your son has been racially abused in the past is not a licence for you to then be a hypocrite and use the word

Stigura

I googled this " Katie Price ", earlier. I wanted to see who it was.

Then, I bleached my eyes.

Robsweezie

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt this time in using her fame for good,a mother standing up for her son is all i can see here.

southstar

Murrisk wrote: »

+1, she has a part in this. There will always be troglodytes out there and they should be punished for the abuse they mete out if possible - that goes without saying. But pushing your children into the spotlight is exposing them to these idiots and that's why most high profile folk do their best to shelter their offspring. But KP and the likes of the Beckhams see their children as commodities and push them front and centre. Totally wrong. She is absolutely partly to blame here, IMO, but has shrewdly realised that nobody will really publically criticise her for her wildly inappropriate commoditisation of her kids and the damage it could do to them. The responses here show that.

She must be a totally bad mother (commoditisation...wow)....really grow up ..this sounds like another bitchfest..a step below trolling itself...but seemingly as impulsive and creepy an activity.Is like some psychological need to be cynical and begrudging at every opportunity.

Murrisk

southstar wrote: »

She must be a totally bad mother (commoditisation...wow)....really grow up ..this sounds like another bitchfest..a step below trolling itself...but seemingly as impulsive and creepy an activity.Is like some psychological need to be cynical and begrudging at every opportunity.

What a bizarre post. Yes, pushing your children into the media glare is not good parenting. Nothing cynical or begrudging (:rolleyes:) about holding that view.

hungry hypno toad

Stigura wrote: »

I googled this " Katie Price ", earlier. I wanted to see who it was.

Then, I bleached my eyes.

Jordan, innit?

southstar

Murrisk wrote: »

What a bizarre post. Yes, pushing your children into the media glare is not good parenting. Nothing cynical or begrudging (:rolleyes:) about holding that view.

Like l said the same cynicism is derisory... pushing your children into the media glare. Give me strength... that's what happened here is it.?What could her underhand motives be.. to further her to career.. oh right obviously that's it. Don't try to mask mean spirited petty opinions.. you might fool yourself but....

please helpThank YOU

Katie Who?.

Murrisk

southstar wrote: »

Like l said the same cynicism is derisory... pushing your children into the media glare. Give me strength... that's what happened here is it.?What could her underhand motives be.. to further her to career.. oh right obviously that's it. Don't try to mask mean spirited petty opinions.. you might fool yourself but....

Of course pushing her kids into the spotlight is to further her career. That's without question. Most people seem sympathetic to her in this case but I doubt many would try to argue that she isn't fame-hungry. She is nakedly so. Pun intended. My thinking is that shielding your children is more important than fame. The people trolling Harvey are arseholes but a key role for parents is protect them as much as the possible, not put them in the firing line of said arseholes. I'm surprised that people don't see that she has played a part in Harvey getting this unwanted attention.

JayRoc

Rekop dog wrote: »

It's abuse on her social media. She doesn't have to make him aware at all. .

Please be joking. He's blind. That does not make him unable to access social media.


Jaysus.

Crea

JayRoc wrote: »

Please be joking. He's blind. That does not make him unable to access social media.


Jaysus.

He has autism, intellectual delay and is blind. He is almost 15 with the intellectual development of a much younger child. He needs to be protected from social media, especially since his mother has publicly stated that she would have aborted him if she has known about his disabilities. The N word is the least of his problems.

uch

Stigura wrote: »

I googled this " Katie Price ", earlier. I wanted to see who it was.

Then, I bleached my eyes.

I just watched her secret sex tape, nice pair of funbags, and yer man has a fine big tool on him :eek: