Labour frontbencher Diane Abbott "coloured".

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I don't see this as a problem. It's the term I grew up with too. Far to many sensitive folks in this world . . .
I believe that "Coloured" was often used in the USA and in South Africa, by the "white" majority to identify and to discriminate against the disadvantaged and oppressed "non white" section of the community - as such, it is hardly surprising that it is not looked on in a particularly positive way by people who choose to describe themselves in other ways.

Perhaps the terms don't apply to you, as a result of which you don't see racist terms as a problem?

As to people's "sensitivity", have a look at the "Report" button at the bottom left of each post - designed to help the sensitive folks on here whine to the grown ups.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
8,881
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
Heres a question for you.

Have you ever had to describe a person to a group of people and were petrified of just saying "he the black dude" which would have saved you 1 minute of BS?

Is what i just said racist or insensitive? What do you think? Surely given the context saying Black/White Male/Female is a good ground to build a description on right?

Yep many times, yet colour is the first thing you generally say when trying to describe someone.

Even the Police do it, when it comes to white people.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Posts
3,916
Its baffling how today anyone still feels the need to refer to someones colour as a descriptor.

In the case of Diane Abbott instead of being described as a black woman, it would have been far more appropriate to describe her as an ignorant, racist, thick as pig muck hateful fat hag who is only where she is because she used to lunch on Corbyns genitals.

I just spat my coffee out I laughed so hard
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Its baffling how today anyone still feels the need to refer to someones colour as a descriptor.

In the case of Diane Abbott instead of being described as a black woman, it would have been far more appropriate to describe her as an ignorant, racist, thick as pig muck hateful fat hag who is only where she is because she used to lunch on Corbyns genitals.

So you’re saying women can only get higher positions if they have sex with a man?

Not offensive at all.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2007
Posts
5,413
Very good. Black people being sensitive about being called 'coloured' is certainly their issue, not a derp on behalf of some dumb privileged privately-schooled overly sheltered Tory. You can probably count on less votes for the conservatives next time round though, so there's a plus.
Correct. Plus, so long as wise voters with the help of the press reject a Corbyn government that's all that really matters.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2007
Posts
5,413
I believe that "Coloured" was often used in the USA and in South Africa, by the "white" majority to identify and to discriminate against the disadvantaged and oppressed "non white" section of the community - as such, it is hardly surprising that it is not looked on in a particularly positive way by people who choose to describe themselves in other ways.

Perhaps the terms don't apply to you, as a result of which you don't see racist terms as a problem?

As to people's "sensitivity", have a look at the "Report" button at the bottom left of each post - designed to help the sensitive folks on here whine to the grown ups.
But we're not the USA or South Africa, this is the UK. If we go down the road of examining other countries cultures and offensive words and language then we're likely to be rendered mute.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Same old nonsense.

It works in a world where there is no prejudice. Not real life.

We can ignore employers throwing out applications from foreign people, ignore police stopping and searching black and South Asian people more than white people, ignore the different personal safety issues women and men face. But then we draw an inaccurate conclusion on how we interpret people's behaviour and how we empathise with their experience.

Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make with this. What lesson are we learning, how does it inform what we do about race, gender and disability prejudices? Why do you say it in every thread about any social issue?

You're a devout believer in biological group identity, the idea that "they're all the same". I am not. We have no common ground. You want more irrational prejudice, I want less. There's no overlap. I say it every time it's relevant in a thread I see because I dislike irrational prejudices. Just as you say the opposite.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Inaccurate description of a person's skin colour according to who? [..]

According to anyone with adequate vision. If you have adequate vision, you can see the difference between black and white and various shades of brown and pink. You may choose to pretend you can't for political reasons, but that doesn't make it an accurate description. You could describe an elephant as a type of pigeon if you like, but that won't make it fly no matter how politically useful it is to do so or how much pressure is applied to you to say so.

Also IDK what world you live in but I'd love to visit it sometime as despite what you say the reality is that some people do differentiate between 'black' and 'white' people [..]

If you believe what you've just written, you should be prepared to (a) try to find me saying what you've just claimed I've said and (b) acknowledge that you were wrong because I never said it.

I'd be surprised if you do that.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2011
Posts
5,830
Location
City of London
Hardly, gd loves attributing the act of a single person to everyone that’s relevant, I’m being consistent in pointing it out.
Do you think Diane Abbott's relationship with Corbyn has helped her become shadow home secretary or do you think she brings something else to the table? (Forget about any whataboutery, I'm interested to know your opinion in this case)
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I believe that "Coloured" was often used in the USA and in South Africa, by the "white" majority to identify and to discriminate against the disadvantaged and oppressed "non white" section of the community - as such, it is hardly surprising that it is not looked on in a particularly positive way by people who choose to describe themselves in other ways.

Perhaps the terms don't apply to you, as a result of which you don't see racist terms as a problem?

As to people's "sensitivity", have a look at the "Report" button at the bottom left of each post - designed to help the sensitive folks on here whine to the grown ups.
It's not a racist term. It's a word that was used in racist speech/publications.

If the word "black" had been used (back then) instead of "coloured", we could be living in a parallel universe where "black" was "racist" and "coloured" was preferred.

Which just goes to show that the word cannot be racist.

You yourself say that the word is used to identify the group/person to which racist speech/actions were directed.

It's a bloody adjective and that's all it is.

The idea that the word itself is "racist" is utterly bonkers.

To me intent is far more important. Nobody thinks Rudd was trying to be racist. (Except the more bonkers here who think she's being "subconsciously racist", whatever that means in their world - to me it's just another stick to try to beat people into submission. "You might be doing everything you can to be non-racist but you're still racist subconsciously." Aka "You can't win because we set the rules of this game").
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,057
Location
Godalming
Hardly, gd loves attributing the act of a single person to everyone that’s relevant, I’m being consistent in pointing it out.

Not hardly, Rob's spot on. This trend lately of you being offended on behalf of everyone else is tedious, you're only making yourself look silly.



Side note:

Anyone who starts a post with "so you're saying" is generally regarded as an idiot by those capable of understanding the statement without having to twist it around to suit whatever petty agenda they're pushing. The fact that this is used primarily by lefties who are on the losing side of a debate only reinforces it.

(Seriously, no jokes, pay attention to it, every time you see someone start a post with those three words it's always someone twisting what was said).
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,057
Location
Godalming
I believe that "Coloured" was often used in the USA and in South Africa, by the "white" majority to identify and to discriminate against the disadvantaged and oppressed "non white" section of the community - as such, it is hardly surprising that it is not looked on in a particularly positive way by people who choose to describe themselves in other ways.

Perhaps the terms don't apply to you, as a result of which you don't see racist terms as a problem?

As to people's "sensitivity", have a look at the "Report" button at the bottom left of each post - designed to help the sensitive folks on here whine to the grown ups.


If a saffer refers to a coloured person it's a mixed race person. You have blacks, whites, and coloureds.

Oddly for a country with such harsh racist history, blacks aren't really offended by being called blacks. It's only the namby pamby crybabies who have no idea what real persecution is.
 
Back
Top Bottom