Greg Clarke "Filthy Racist" Resigns
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
John Barnes MBE (a Jamaican-born English international former professional footballer and manager) in an interview on the BBC Radio 4 World at One program today was asked about this and didn't seem bothered - perhaps he headed a wet ball too often 
Indeed. Basically the world is currently mental.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
Difference is that coloured has been use repeatedly with the intent of causing offence
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I hear it all the time, along with an apparently now taboo expression for "mixed race" or whatever is the current flavour of the month. Apart from places like here I have never been reprimanded in person for using either expression. Personally I think the people who suddenly claim an age old expression is suddenly racist are on a wind up and sniggering to themselves when the dictionary definition gets changed to "offensive" or whatever. I have no intent to check yearly what's suddenly become risqué to some group after generations of usage by the English.
So has ' Black', yet Black lives matter is freely acceptted
And please explain how ' People of Colour' is acceptable, which, if the people are of a colour - therefore they are coloured.
Last edited:
Well if we are going to go down that road so has 'black'...
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
That’s fair. But black people seem to be mostly happy to be called black. It’s presumably up to them what everyone else calls them
I imagine that will depend on which black person you ask?
Or do they speak with one mind?
There are some people who find black bin bags offensive (really, this is a thing).
Should black bin bags be replaced for those people? Where do you draw the line?
Surely intent must play some part (ie, bin bags are not black as a racist gesture. They just are (black)).
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
Intent is the most important thing, in my opinion. And in this case, ignorance is probably ok unless you’re using terminology that’s decidedly ancient
There's no point in trying because it will be changed again in order to catch people out. It's a very useful weapon, so it won't stop being used.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
You live in possibly the least ethnically diverse part of the country.
I do, however, appreciate that you can’t be checking up what people currently feel offended by. It’s not simple.
Rationality and consistency are not what is desired. Nor is accuracy, since everyone is coloured unless they're wearing a full-body Vantablack suit and even then only if you don't count black as a colour (since colour is a function of light and black is the absence of light).
Take me, for example. My skin is about as pale as human skin gets without a person having albinism. So my skin is coloured various shades of pink and a really faint beige and some lines of blue(*). Other parts of my body are coloured black (my body hair), white (also my body hair and part of my eyes and part of my nails), dark brown (my head hair), medium brown (part of my eyes), black (another part of my eyes) and that's just on the outside and just what I can think of off the top of my head. Inside...I don't know, probably mostly red because of the blood.
The entire idea of race is crap anyway. It doesn't correlate with reality. It has no basis in biology. It's a purely political thing and humanity would be better off if everyone decided to to get rid of it rather than focussing only on people who obsess on it with fanatical devotion.
* I know that human blood isn't blue, but we're talking about appearance here and in someone with skin as pale as mine veins look blue.
Gareth in The Office used the term "coloured" in a clearly not-the-correct-term way, and that was about 20 years ago. And it wasn't a new issue then either.
Everyone's had plenty of time to understand. It's willful ignorance at this point. Particularly if you're head of the FA!
I heard this and then checked in with the wife what was officially not offensive at the moment. If I used the "wrong" term it wouldnt be because I was trying to cause offense, I just cant be bothered following the current trend on this or the LGBT stuff these days
For context im mid 40's and was one of 3 "brown" faces in my secondary school of 2000 people when I was at school (yes I got a bit of grief for it).
For context im mid 40's and was one of 3 "brown" faces in my secondary school of 2000 people when I was at school (yes I got a bit of grief for it).
I don't know the of the guy but regardless, the world now is constant gotcha moments in the worst possible way to ruin one's name, reputation and quite possibly livelihood. Since the mainstream media thrives on this and quite frankly, the masses love the outrage as well that in turns feed the views and clicks to the media outlets.
It's funny how nobody stitches up any of the media people and/or owners. You know, give them a bit of their own medicine?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,495
- Location
- London
The thing you all need to remember about the woke is in their ideology the only thing that matters is power - and obtaining it. They want this so that they can shape the world through policy and language for their utopian vision of enforced equality of all outcomes. They will set unattainable standards of purity with constantly changing language (and having online dictionaries change the meaning of words almost in real-time to suit them) and ask you to believe things that objectively aren’t true, and if you don’t subjugate yourself to them, they will destroy you, because they want to destroy everything.
I realise attention spans on here are often short but this is a brief overview of the mindset of these people:
I realise attention spans on here are often short but this is a brief overview of the mindset of these people: