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

Rothko

cms88 wrote: »

Almost as sad as calling someone else sad becasue they're interested in something you're not....

Yeah, I think it's really weird when someone looks down on other for having an interest in something like video games or wrestling. I see it a lot on here.

Rothko

NIMAN wrote: »

That piece I linked to starts with "Warning: This report contains offensive language."
Does it really?

No, it doesn't.

joeguevara

Rothko wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

Im sure black people who are actually offended would disagree with you.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems like the "rules" of this are being made up on the hoof. "People of colour" = Good. "Coloured people" = Bad.

The FA should be embarassed. I don't know why he apologised. He should be suing his employer for unfair dismissal.

I feel like this PC nonsense is veering into dangerous territory these days. Institutions need to stop cowering and be willing to stand up to the outrage mobs for "wrongspeak". I wish people in positions of power would take a stand and say "enough".

If this was some old guy down the local (or some random person on boards.ie for that matter) they could be forgiven for not understanding the significance of using coloured and all that goes with it.


But as usual (and it is as usual with the permanently outraged, who just love a good moan about the PC brigade/snowflake/whatever this weeks buzzword is etc etc) context is key.

This is the head of an organisation that oversees a sport that has had an institutional problem with racism. Do you honestly think this guy made one "slip of the tongue" and was out on his ear? Or more than likely its been discussed many times and the behaviour continued.

Even if that is not the case, if one has the need to refer to non whites and is also the head of an organisation that has had problems with racism, doesn't it show a complete lack of judgement to still get the terminology wrong?

joeguevara

km991148 wrote: »

If this was some old guy down the local (or some random person on boards.ie for that matter) they could be forgiven for not understanding the significance of using coloured and all that goes with it.


But as usual (and it is as usual with the permanently outraged, who just love a good moan about the PC brigade/snowflake/whatever this weeks buzzword is etc etc) context is key.

This is the head of an organisation that oversees a sport that has had an institutional problem with racism. Do you honestly think this guy made one "slip of the tongue" and was out on his ear? Or more than likely its been discussed many times and the behaviour continued.

Even if that is not the case, if one has the need to refer to non whites and is also the head of an organisation that has had problems with racism, doesn't it show a complete lack of judgement to still get the terminology wrong?

But but but elderly mother etc etc

km991148

joeguevara wrote: »

But but but elderly mother etc etc

Exactly.

and if my elderly mother takes over the head of the FA I would expect her to learn how to speak to/about people too.

But she isn't, so her mildly embarrassing but probably fairly harmless casual racism can continue (because it is understood she is from a different time, where language was different).

NIMAN

The saddest thing for me is that the BBC felt the need to add a warning on both the online article and their tv news report that it contained offensive language.

Have we some people now so weak that they are going to be offended by the term coloured people? Will they be genuinely shocked?

A decade ago that warning was used when someone said a curse word, now it's using the wrong term, and not in the least way shocking.

joeguevara

spook_cook wrote: »

We used to laugh at Dev's "If I wish to know what the Irish want,I look into my own heart.” but today's Right-On types can expand that to people of all races and minorities. Quite the super power.

Dev was a pr1ck.

km991148

NIMAN wrote: »

The saddest thing for me is that the BBC felt the need to add a warning on both the online article and their tv news report that it contained offensive language.

Have we some people now so weak that they are going to be offended by the term coloured people? Will they be genuinely shocked?

A decade ago that warning was used when someone said a curse word, now it's using the wrong term, and not in the least way shocking.

Well looking at how easily people are triggered here.. I mean people are ready to be offended about people who might be offended..

ffs everyone get a grip will ye?

km991148

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So it is the saying of 'coloured footballers' that got him in trouble? In it's context I don't think he meant any harm. Plus he is an older gent. My mother still says things like a 'coloured fellow'.

It seems to be that language and what is acceptable is evolving very fast. Now 'person of colour' is the de rigueur phrase for non-whites.

Yet somehow saying 'coloured people' is wrong and saying 'person of colour' is perfectly acceptable.

Hard to keep up with all the nuances, no wonder older people struggle.

Is your mother also the head of an institution that has had a very public problem with racism? Does she have comprehension issues or a lack of awareness?

If she is, then that's obviously ridiculous and its a bit sh!t to defend her. But if she is like my mother and isn't (the head of such an organisation), then what has your point got to do with the head of the FA?


Do people really need this spelled out?

km991148

spook_cook wrote: »

It really is. You'd have to be an idiot to play along with their games.

You'd have to be an idiot to take on a public contract worth several hundred k per year that is responsible for stamping out racism in the organisation and not keep up with these "rules"..

but hey - snowflakes/stupid libtards/hate hate/ blah blah etc etc..

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Is your mother also the head of an institution that has had a very public problem with racism? Does she have comprehension issues or a lack of awareness?

If she is, then that's obviously ridiculous and its a bit sh!t to defend her. But if she is like my mother and isn't (the head of such an organisation), then what has your point got to do with the head of the FA?


Do people really need this spelled out?

Do the FA really have a "very public problem with racism"? Or is that a manufactured problem that exists in the heads of a tiny minority of activists with vested interests in exaggerating racism in order to get paid to be part of the solution?

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Yeah, rules like don't be a racist and homophobe. Anyone who is defending him is equally culpable.

People are defending his right not to be fired for a poor choice of words. It's possible to do that without defending every single thing he's ever done.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Do the FA really have a "very public problem with racism"? Or is that a manufactured problem that exists in the heads of a tiny minority of activists with vested interests in exaggerating racism in order to get paid to be part of the solution?

lol - do you also check under your bed at night in case there are any liberals underneath?

cmon - you don't think there has been a massive problem with racism in English football over the past few decades?

I suppose the police never either?

I'm not sure having access to the internet is a goods thing for some people..

El_Duderino 09

km991148 wrote: »

If this was some old guy down the local (or some random person on boards.ie for that matter) they could be forgiven for not understanding the significance of using coloured and all that goes with it.


But as usual (and it is as usual with the permanently outraged, who just love a good moan about the PC brigade/snowflake/whatever this weeks buzzword is etc etc) context is key.

This is the head of an organisation that oversees a sport that has had an institutional problem with racism. Do you honestly think this guy made one "slip of the tongue" and was out on his ear? Or more than likely its been discussed many times and the behaviour continued.

Even if that is not the case, if one has the need to refer to non whites and is also the head of an organisation that has had problems with racism, doesn't it show a complete lack of judgement to still get the terminology wrong?

Completely agree with this. People need to learn new information for work all the time. If they're unable to learn new information in something relatively simple like the terms for things, then what chance have they or learning other things that change like laws, procedures and new innovative practice?

Reality is that most of these people are well able to learn new information but they object to the change in meaning. For example, someone who grew up in a time when racism was fine and they could call black people darkies, the dreaded "n" word or, if they were being kind, "coloured". Now times have changed and racism isn't ok anymore. So the only way they can express racism is to say coloured, and then hide behind "it was ok to say coloured back in my day".

If people give a shyte about whether they offend people, then they would learn the words really easily as a matter of common courtesy and professionalism. If they want to offend people based on their race, then they have no business in high up positions in organisations like the FA.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

People are defending his right not to be fired for a poor choice of words. It's possible to do that without defending every single thing he's ever done.

He got fired for his long history of being a bigoted dinosaur. If people want to incorrectly defend him for having a slip of the tongue, then they are entitled to incorrectly defend them and feel self righteous in that mistake.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

People are defending his right not to be fired for a poor choice of words. It's possible to do that without defending every single thing he's ever done.

And as I pointed out CONTEXT is key - but such is your bias, you are willing to negate that point completely (to the point where you are denying racism is even "a thing").

So what's the point in replying?

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Do the FA really have a "very public problem with racism"? Or is that a manufactured problem that exists in the heads of a tiny minority of activists with vested interests in exaggerating racism in order to get paid to be part of the solution?

Yes they do.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Yeah, rules like don't be a racist and homophobe. Anyone who is defending him is equally culpable.

Can someone explain to me why "coloured people" is offensive but "people of colour" is OK?

I really don't get it. I think it's a moving of the goalposts that's come full circle, but if there's a genuine difference between the terms I would love to know what it is.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why "coloured people" is offensive but "people of colour" is OK?

I really don't get it. I think it's a moving of the goalposts that's come full circle, but if there's a genuine difference between the terms I would love to know what it is.

https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/537/6381/6387/40828163633.pdf

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why "coloured people" is offensive but "people of colour" is OK?

I really don't get it. I think it's a moving of the goalposts that's come full circle, but if there's a genuine difference between the terms I would love to know what it is.

If you are asking in good faith, I will tell you - but basically - coloured was part of a classification system used in some countries (mainly SA, but probably others).

It was at one time seen as a fairly innocent term. And that's why I wouldn't be giving my mother a hard time over such language. Language does change easier than people do - and I know my mother wasn't out in the street hurling abuse at people.
But if you lead an organisation, hold a public office (and if as in this case one where racism was a problem) then you really do have to get with the times.

Its not like there is some panel of Guardian reading lefties sitting around deciding what to do next to get people fired..

El_Duderino 09

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So it is the saying of 'coloured footballers' that got him in trouble? In it's context I don't think he meant any harm. Plus he is an older gent. My mother still says things like a 'coloured fellow'.

It seems to be that language and what is acceptable is evolving very fast. Now 'person of colour' is the de rigueur phrase for non-whites.

Yet somehow saying 'coloured people' is wrong and saying 'person of colour' is perfectly acceptable.

Hard to keep up with all the nuances, no wonder older people struggle.

It depends on how stupid or racist you think old people are. It's not that hard to keep up. Someone says "do you know the thing you said (e.g. coloured) is now considered offensive?"
You have a very simple choice and that's to either make a conscious effort to not say it in future or reject the new information and dismiss it as PC gone mad. A competent person will be able to do the former, an openly racist person racist will do the latter. It's not that hard, give old people some credit, they're not daft.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Gender quotas are rubbish

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why "coloured people" is offensive but "people of colour" is OK?

I really don't get it. I think it's a moving of the goalposts that's come full circle, but if there's a genuine difference between the terms I would love to know what it is.

What do you need explained to you? Language evolves and changes meaning. It happens all the time and i doubt you have any objection to other parts of language changing so why get cross about this part of language changing?

paw patrol

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on how stupid or racist you think old people are. It's not that hard to keep up. Someone says "do you know the thing you said (e.g. coloured) is now considered offensive?"
You have a very simple choice and that's to either make a conscious effort to not say it in future or reject the new information and dismiss it as PC gone mad. A competent person will be able to do the former, an openly racist person racist will do the latter. It's not that hard, give old people some credit, they're not daft.

tbh why would I (or anybody) change my language because somebody says that language is now considered unsuitable.

Have we lost the concept of context ?
Are people that stupid they can't understand the thrust of what somebody means ?


Who makes these rules? and why am I beholden to them?
It's a weird concept that people I don't know or groups I don't like (such as the ADL for example) get to dictate the actual words I utter.
Who control this control?

km991148

Incidentally - its not just the racism - the casual misogyny and the homophobic rhetoric.

Are we also going to deny that there is a problem with homophobia in English football (Tell that to the Fashanu's..)? How should young girls feel (that should be encouraged into the sport) when the head of the organisation implies they are different? Or is that just more lefty BS and they should simply grow a pair?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

cmon - you don't think there has been a massive problem with racism in English football over the past few decades?

I was referring to the FA - not English football as a whole.

Racism in English football in the 70's and 80's was absolutely a big problem. However in the 90's and 00's the Kick It Out campaign was very successful and racism in stadiums had been basically eradicated compared to what it had been.

It feels like football had become largely colour blind until the last couple of years when the internet and social media started blowing every little incident out of proportion. (like the Bernardo Silva Twitter post to Benjamin Mendy).

joeguevara

paw patrol wrote: »

tbh why would I (or anybody) change my language because somebody says that language is now considered unsuitable.

Have we lost the concept of context ?
Are people that stupid they can't understand the thrust of what somebody means ?


Who makes these rules? and why am I beholden to them?
It's a weird concept that people I don't know or groups I don't like (such as the ADL for example) get to dictate the actual words I utter.
Who control this control?

Is it a big deal for you that you want to use outdated racist terms?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What do you need explained to you? Language evolves and changes meaning. It happens all the time and i doubt you have any objection to other parts of language changing so why get cross about this part of language changing?

Actually I do have a problem with language changing. I'm fine with things like "selfies" or other such things which are just modern world terms. But I have a real problem with them changing the dictionary definition of racism, and changing the meaning of the word "literal" to being the complete opposite of "literal" for example

km991148

paw patrol wrote: »

tbh why would I (or anybody) change my language because somebody says that language is now considered unsuitable.

Have we lost the concept of context ?
Are people that stupid they can't understand the thrust of what somebody means ?


Who makes these rules? and why am I beholden to them?
It's a weird concept that people I don't know or groups I don't like (such as the ADL for example) get to dictate the actual words I utter.
Who control this control?

Well - if you don't understand the concept of changing language then who can help you?

I guess all this talk of snowflakes is to do with the weather? No one makes the rules. language is for communication - words come in and out of fashion, meanings change - otherwise we would all be speaking Latin or ye olde English or drawing pictures or some other ancient form.

You are not beholden to anything. If you want to refer to non white people as coloureds - go for it - but you have to understand that some people won't like it. Equally - if enough people are with you then the language will change further.

But just don't stick your fingers in your ears and pretend things are the same as 20/30 years ago or that this isn't the case..