So calling someone "coloured" in London is not racist, but outside London it is?
(white people are <45% of London's population)
Greg Clarke "Filthy Racist" Resigns
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
(white people are <45% of London's population)
So calling someone "coloured" in London is not racist, but outside London it is?
(white people are <45% of London's population)
That wasn't the point you made.
You were trying to imply that coloured wasn't a comparison to the norm. It is, as you've admitted.
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,190
- Location
- Rollergirl
So calling someone "coloured" in London is not racist, but outside London it is?
(white people are <45% of London's population)
You bring next to nothing to a conversation, just statements that the other person didn't make followed by a smiley face.
It really depends on the context, I was merely pointing out the usual logical flaw in his point.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Genuine question:
On what information do you base this analysis of John Barnes MBE?
To be perfectly honest, I don't follow football and don't know much about him - presumably you do?
I think I just about agree on your point about coloured implying a difference to the norm, but to take the next step as to if implying difference to norm is offensive or not, why is 'person of colour' then ok?
I'm aware you made no assertions about this question, but I'm trying to work out if there's any actual meaningful difference between 'coloured' and 'POC', or whether it's arbitrarily been decided that one is offensive and the other is encouraged.
I'll be honest, I've used 'coloured' inadvertently and I accept that sometimes it can be confusing.
As I say, the context and intent are more indicative as to how I would judge a person for using a word.
However this guy has a history of downplaying racism and in the same exchange exhibited bigotry in most of its forms so he gets very little benefit of the doubt.
That's why i will never vote Labour again remember Starmer and Angela rayner kneeling for BLM cringe worthy.
I fail to see how a question (you know the "?" thing) can be an admission?
I don't think that the word "coloured" or the phrase "POC" is making any kind of implicit judgement on what is normal and what isn't.
I guess you don't like people asking questions. We're all supposed to fall in line with this insanity, and not question anything, and just let the SJWs set policy and act as thought police.
Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.
The current Labour party is all about virtue signalling and it's incredibly cringe-worthy. Very hard to vote for them now. In fairness, it was pretty bad under Corbyn too.
Well, the emoticon and phrasing made it clear it was a rhetorical question. So not a question at all.
I don't think you understand what a rhetorical question is in that case. It was not a rhetorical question.
The tongue-out smilie face was implying absurdity, nothing more.
Btw are you actually saying that the absurd position I posited is the case? That calling someone "coloured" in London is not racist, but outside London is racist?
You cant have it both ways, was it an absurd position you 'posited' or was it a question?
Given it seems we both agree it was your position, no I don't agree with it.
My point still stands, using the word coloured implies a difference to the norm.
But a difference to the norm isn't the defining characteristic of a word that causes offence. So what is your reason for making a big deal about it implying difference to the norm?
I'll thank you not to decide for me what my own words mean.
My grasp of English is absolutely fine.
Your position as you've stated it is now:
1- "Coloured" is racist because it implies minority/difference from the norm.
2- It's racist in places where whites are the majority.
3- It's racist in places where whites are the minority.
Wunderbar!
Greg Clarke comes across as an old-fashioned type of guy, like stuck in the 80's and 90's, times have moved on and he's just not kept up with it.
Out with the old and in with the new as the saying goes, someone who is up-to-date with reality please.
Out with the old and in with the new as the saying goes, someone who is up-to-date with reality please.
Why is his version of reality any less valid than yours?
It's all about the feels, man.
I'm not sure reality has anything to do with it
We live in a society where we have already seen the recounting of historical events censored, because history itself is "racist" if you want it to be. Well, "white history" is racist, anyhow Todays reality or what will be acceptable next week?