|
U-Know! Forum » Carol Thatch |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PMM 3155 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 11:25
|
||
Witch hunt? Where? I thought the conversation between Harv and Merrick was excellent, with both sides stating their views well.
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 11:28
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Witch hunt? Where? I thought the conversation between Harv and Merrick was excellent, with both sides stating their views well. Oh I can't be fuckin' arsed
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 11:41
|
||
Oh I do beg your pardon.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 11:59
|
||
|
Yeah, Moyles needs to go. The Jo Brand defence that she is sexist towards men is pretty weak, as it's a standard radical line to turn the tables and take things to the nth degree in the other direction. Its a radical line, its not supposed to be taken seriously, it's done to make you think about sexism. Sure, it will annoy people to do it, but it tends to only annoy the ones its aimed at (ie: Misogynists). Al Murray is trying to do the same thing with different issues. Unfortunately, society norms being as fucked up as they are, they get taken seriously. As Jerry Sadowitz once said 'I'm a comedian, I've crossed the line that allows you to take me seriously'. Its very dodgy ground though, agreed. Same goes for radical feminism in general, many people just don't get it (including some feminists unfortunately). It's like all radical argument, and thought experiments in general, are now seen as either counter productive or part of the problem. It's a shame tbh. Back to Moyles though, his sexism and homophobia, well, maybe I'm living in a complete fucking dream world (likely). But I'm sure only ten or so years ago he would have been out on his arse for those comments. Or am I wrong about that and I'm being hopelessly revisionist ? Honestly, I don't know anymore.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:23
|
||
|
suave harv wrote: A real racist will activley discrimate in real life surely? Just because someone says something someone percieves as being racist, does not by default make them a racist. I see no contridiction. I do see your point, and I agree there's a distinction between those who are actively, consciously racist and those who are racist by unquestioned social norms (including language). However, there is something of an overlap zone. To say something racist is surely to be racist, albeit at a far lower level than someone who shouts it in hatred. suave harv wrote: I really shouldn't get involved in all this, because there's no way on here that I don't make myself look like a 'Daily Mail' reader when I sound off whaoh there, I really wasn't having a go at you. In discussing political issues there are always going to be challenges to what we say. That's not a personal attack, it's a request to justify what's been said and, hopefully, for both of us to move towards greater clarity. And even if the person you're discussing with is being a tosser, the point of doing it on a public board like this is that we lay ideas open so that a reasonable third party can see what's right. On the 'Daily Mail' thing, I find it curious how most newspapers can be used like that. All of them are criticisms; 'Guardian reader', 'Sun reader', 'Telegraph reader', 'Daily Mail reader'.
|
|||
suave harv 704 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:30
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: The thing is, it's that casual, socially embedded racism that lets the active racism flourish. It makes the hateful racist feel they're drawing on a widespread discontent. It also serves to make anyone not white feel like they have a major struggle to be taken as an equal. Hell, if people can denigrate your entire ethnicity and not even 'mean anything' by it, what hope for real respect? Which is saying "no-one should say anything bad about anybody if it isn't true". And of course, you're damn right. I knew a bloke at work who used to call white girls that went out with black men 'wog meat'. He was an out and out bigot and I firmly believe if he saw a black person in trouble he might not help out in the same way as if it were a white person. Of all the people I've known in my life, he is the one I'd call a true 'racist'. He says 'Wog Meat' and it makes my skin crawl. My Mum says 'Wog's house' and I think 'aww blesss!'. The difference is 'intent', and that's been discussed here loads anyway. I know other people that go down the paky shop, eat from the chinkie and say jewish meaning 'mean', who would help anyone out in distress, regardless of colour. And that, to me, is the true test. Not how un-offensive their words are, or how 'PC' they are. I used to work on re-mods where I was the only white person there other than the carpenter. The contract was for an Indian builder, lasted a few years. We (the carpenter & I) used to rib them, we were always shouting "there's too many Indians here and not enough cowboys". The Indians ribbed the Jamacians, no-one gave a shit. From what I've seen all the up-tightness about 'words' comes from 'white lefties' anyway, (which, of course, I'm one). And as for this thread, I can scroll through every message and see common sense in every post. OF COURSE we shouldn't generalise or use terms that are offensive. However, I think it's quite healthy too to have people say "hang on" every now and again when they see the pendulum swing a bit too far and we are reacting merely for reaction's sake. Shit, I spent a few hours in the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam last year, that's quite an eye opener for bringing home the real horrors of racism. They've got one of those cloth stars there in a glass case that they used to make Jewish people wear so people would know who they were. Fucking chilling it is. When I got back in the UK a mate phoned me and said "I was going to buy such and such but I couldn't afford it, call me jewish but I just couldn't". Should I have berated him about his racist coment? No fucking way. I knew for a fact he's got nothing against any race and he's just saying something people have said to him all his life. Yea, it's wrong, and I wouldn't say it. He's 62, I'm 42, and I'd hope most people 22 wouldn't even know it used to be used in that way. We're doing okay. There's not one on this thread that isn't aware and right-on. So let's not worry the small stuff, some people just say stupid things. I can't see myself how stupid comments can lead to the type of stuff I saw in that museum in Amsterdam (which, let's face it, is the end result of extreme racism), but as far as OUR intent, we're all singing from the same hymn sheet at least (except I'm agnistic, but that's another thread. And I'm sure it will be).
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:32
|
||
but it is a toy built in a racist image. simple as that.
|
|||
|
suave harv 704 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:34
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: whaoh there, I really wasn't having a go at you. I know that buddy, no offence taken at all.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:39
|
||
|
suave harv wrote: My Mum says 'Wog's house' and I think 'aww blesss!'. You're more tolerant than me then. When my grandad used to say things like that it made me cringe. I would complain to my dad and he'd have a word with him. suave harv wrote: When I got back in the UK a mate phoned me and said "I was going to buy such and such but I couldn't afford it, call me jewish but I just couldn't". Should I have berated him about his racist coment? No fucking way. I knew for a fact he's got nothing against any race and he's just saying something people have said to him all his life. Well I think you should have said something. From my point of view that kind of comment is offensive, and if someone offends me, I want them to know. Same old story, if no-one does anything about it this kind of sub-racism flourishes and grows.
|
|||
|
suave harv 704 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 12:42
|
||
|
[quote="suave harv"]except I'm agnistic,[quote] Which is like being an dyslexic agnostic I suppose.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
