Clarity on reporting posts and on what defines a racial slur

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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. 🙄

But it isn’t just referring to the skin tone, of any group. It refers to a group of people based upon their political views and social class. The attempt to construe the concept as racist just doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Its use just doesn’t rise to the level where it could reasonably be regarded as uncivil. It’s silly, nothing more, and to attempt to sanction the use of the term would lend it legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve.

probably best to leave that decision to the mods.