Thatcher Barred

Nitefly said:
That assumes that 'offence' is going to be the only thing taken into account, which is unrealistic. Ross is a AAA star of the BBC. Also, he apologised immediately at the time of his comments.


A gollywog has negative connotations since they were the villains of the Noddy books.

In other words, he looks like a thieving villain, based on his colour. Not a pleasant thing to say, even if it wasn't intentional to have that meaning.
Click to expand...


I really don't care what the golliwogs were in Noddy. the fact of the matter is that the bloke looks like a golliwog, that is what she said and its quite obvious what she meant. Im quite sure that she was not implying that he is a villain.
 
Morba said:
I really don't care what the golliwogs were in Noddy. the fact of the matter is that the bloke looks like a golliwog, that is what she said and its quite obvious what she meant. Im quite sure that she was not implying that he is a villain.
Click to expand...

But her actual intentions are irrelevant. The golliwogs are (in some contexts) black villains. She really shouldn't have made the comparison.

I wouldn't look at a dusty chimney sweep and say "he looks like a ******" because it could be seen, quite rightly, as offensive regardless of its accuracy.
 
Andrew1978 said:
Would you consider hitler a racist?

(in case you're wondering where i was going with that, i think he put white on white racism on equal footing as white vs colour.)
Click to expand...

If it is 'white on white' racism, then it isn't racism. Hitler was possibly xenophobic (demonstrated by his view of other nations as inferior) and certainly 'idealist' (for a lack of a better word) as demonstrated by his treatment of the Jews.
 
Of course it wasn't racism per se as he wasn't discriminating on race but on other factors which is what i was originally talking about. It is possible to differentiate white people and its comparable to racism, it might not be the same but it's close.

just because you're the same race as someone doesn't make what you say or do more acceptable but for some reason people ignore that fact.
 
According to Adrian Chiles they were talking about who'd win the Australian Open and she said "you have to consider the frogs, you know that froggy golliwog guy".

Whoops, though I guess we're still ok to refer to the French as frogs.
 
The idea that Hitler wasn't racist is laughable. How do you make sense of his preference for the 'Aryan race'? I can't think of a country where Jews aren't defined in law as a race.

I'd also like to call Godwins at this point :)
 
Well unless you can find me a better definition of racism by a white person on a white person, i'll have to stick with hitler. If you choose to believe being jewish is a race and not a religion (or even both) then fine, i'm not going to argue that.

out of interest, do you bring up godwins law at every mention of hitler wether it has any actual bearing on the discussion?
 
Andrew1978 said:
out of interest, do you bring up godwins law at every mention of hitler wether it has any actual bearing on the discussion?
Click to expand...
No, though Hitler very rarely has any bearing on most discussions; especially so in threads about TV presenters being fired for off-air comments.
 
You mean people being fired for making supposedly racist comments and me making an observation that if those comments had been made towards a white person (in jest, just like she said) that they would have been less likely to attract this sort of attention?

admittedly i did ramble but i was bored, though i'd like to believe i wasn't completely off and my comments had at least some bearing.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
But her actual intentions are irrelevant. The golliwogs are (in some contexts) black villains. She really shouldn't have made the comparison.

I wouldn't look at a dusty chimney sweep and say "he looks like a ******" because it could be seen, quite rightly, as offensive regardless of its accuracy.
Click to expand...


How is that a similar comparison? Its not.
 
Since when has there ever been a ****** doll, or anything like that?
****** IS a derogatory term (although its origins were as just a normal term), and only a term.
 
Morba said:
Since when has there ever been a ****** doll, or anything like that?
****** IS a derogatory term (although its origins were as just a normal term), and only a term.
Click to expand...

I don't see the relavence of a ****** doll. Do you agree with this?

****** is a descriptive word with potential negative connotations.

Gollywog is a descriptive word with potential negative connotations.
Click to expand...
 
golliwog was something that actually existed, it wasnt just a term for something.

context is what you need to look at, she meant he looked like a frigging golliwog, which when you look at him, he does!
 
Morba said:
context is what you need to look at, she meant he looked like a frigging golliwog, which when you look at him, he does!
Click to expand...

Why is that any difference from saying a dirty chimney sweep looks like a '******', when he does*?

*By this, I mean he is black head to toe in soot.

They are both being used in a descriptive context.
 
because ****** is used for one thing and one thing only, as a derogatory term.
golliwog is / was a charachter / doll.

very different.
 
Morba said:
because ****** is used for one thing and one thing only, as a derogatory term.
golliwog is / was a charachter / doll.

very different.
Click to expand...

You mean black characters who were thieves and villains in an otherwise ‘black free’ society, created in a time where such discrimination was acceptable? Surely you see what is potentially offensive about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom