Re: Obscenity democracy
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:51 pm
I might make it a global announcement in future.Michael Wallace wrote:Wow, 53 votes? Clearly the GOTW vote needs more prominence.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I might make it a global announcement in future.Michael Wallace wrote:Wow, 53 votes? Clearly the GOTW vote needs more prominence.
Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.Kevin Thurlow wrote: It is up to each individual and his/her beliefs and/or prejudices what is offensive. Jo Brand recently did a joke on TV about Margaret Thatcher's vagina, and she regularly uses strong language in her shows, and she jokes about the time she was arrested for driving whilst drunk. Yet, she was apparently mortally offended, when Carol Thatcher said a French tennis player looked like a golliwog. (For those who can't remember them, golliwogs were children's toys like Teddy bears or rag dolls - a cartoon, rather than a photograph.)
hmmCharlie Reams wrote:Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.
Do people not even read my posts any more?Hannah O wrote:I personally have no real opinion on swearwords, apart from the general feeling that people could be slightly more careful if children are using the forum.
I never got round to seeing that film but I remember thinking that "Every rose has its thorns" is probably the best tag line since Alien vs Predator.Jimmy Gough wrote:hmmCharlie Reams wrote:Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone.
Haha, great post. I wonder whether any of the people that voted for the bottom two options are under the age of, say, 40.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock. The American Consbreastution may never be the same.
I think the forum should encourage swearing so that people will go home and be gentle with their children and dogs.
I remember having to reword some sentences on a parenting forum, as, for instance, saying 'that'S HIT the nail on the head', the swear filter would assume I was trying to say 'shit' in the middle of it. Ludicrous.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock.
I used to take part in an online quiz in a chat room, and on more than one occasion, the correct answer was Dick van Dyke. Oh how we laughed when the filter stopped any of us winning the $5 for the correct answer.Julie T wrote:I remember having to reword some sentences on a parenting forum, as, for instance, saying 'that'S HIT the nail on the head', the swear filter would assume I was trying to say 'shit' in the middle of it. Ludicrous.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock.
It was perfectly OK with 'arsehole' BTW, so it rather depends which words you programme into it too.
People living in Scunthorpe and Penistone have problems, too.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock.
Not only in London. It seems that many cities had a street with that name, popular in what is now often known as the red light area. The London street was renamed Threadneedle Street and is home to the Bank of England, often referred to as The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street. What a shame the road name was changed; the earlier name would've given a much more interesting alternative title for the Bank of England.Ian Volante wrote:I think it may have been on QI, but I heard that there used to be a street in London called Gropecunte Lane. You can guess who you'd find down there. Shame it got changed really, but sensibilities do evolve.
And anyone wearing a wrist watch.Peter Mabey wrote:People living in Scunthorpe and Penistone have problems, too.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock.
I only just got this one lol.Charlie Reams wrote:And anyone wearing a wrist watch.Peter Mabey wrote:People living in Scunthorpe and Penistone have problems, too.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Can we take it that the four people in favour of a filter are not professional programmers? Perhaps there are some that work, but they generally seem to make themselves and the associated a forum a laughing-stock.
I can assure you that at least one person over the age of 40, even if you count in hexadecimal, did not vote for one of the bottom two options.Charlie Reams wrote:I wonder whether any of the people that voted for the bottom two options are under the age of, say, 40.
A friend of mine was walking round with a badge saying "Happy 0x17th Birthday" yesterday, which was (to get back on topic) pretty fucking geeky.Howard Somerset wrote:I can assure you that at least one person over the age of 40, even if you count in hexadecimal, did not vote for one of the bottom two options.Charlie Reams wrote:I wonder whether any of the people that voted for the bottom two options are under the age of, say, 40.
I don't think two minutes is too bad a turnaroundMartin Gardner wrote:I only just got this one lol.Charlie Reams wrote:And anyone wearing a wrist watch.
How is that offensive?Stuart Arnot wrote:Etymologically, 'vagina' is more offensive to women; it means 'sheath'.
It suggests that the purpose of a woman's vagina is to sheath a penis. In fact, it has many uses.Charlie Reams wrote:How is that offensive?Stuart Arnot wrote:Etymologically, 'vagina' is more offensive to women; it means 'sheath'.
An example of an offensive word having an inoffensive etymology doesn't prove that a word cannot be offensive because of it's etymology.Paul Hammond wrote:I don't think etymology is particularly relevant to how offensive a word is. "Nigger" just means "black" etymologically, after all.
So you're offended by the fact that it's not an exhaustive list of all the purposes of a vagina? This seems like a recipe for being offended by... pretty much everything.Stuart Arnot wrote:It suggests that the purpose of a woman's vagina is to sheath a penis. In fact, it has many uses.Charlie Reams wrote:How is that offensive?Stuart Arnot wrote:Etymologically, 'vagina' is more offensive to women; it means 'sheath'.
No, but it does show that etymology and current meaning are not necessarily confluent.Stuart Arnot wrote:An example of an offensive word having an inoffensive etymology doesn't prove that a word cannot be offensive because of it's etymology.Paul Hammond wrote:I don't think etymology is particularly relevant to how offensive a word is. "Nigger" just means "black" etymologically, after all.
When I was in my 50s, I always used to give my age in hexadecimal - sounded so much better. But I had to stop when I reached 58. I forgot to restart when I reached 64, but may well do so now that I've remembered.Charlie Reams wrote:A friend of mine was walking round with a badge saying "Happy 0x17th Birthday" yesterday, which was (to get back on topic) pretty fucking geeky.Howard Somerset wrote:I can assure you that at least one person over the age of 40, even if you count in hexadecimal, did not vote for one of the bottom two options.Charlie Reams wrote:I wonder whether any of the people that voted for the bottom two options are under the age of, say, 40.
A racist cuddly toy...Kevin Thurlow wrote:"Well, that makes sense to me. Racism hurts people. Cunts don't hurt anyone."
Saying someone looks like a gollywog isn't racist, is it? You are saying someone looks like a cuddly toy!
I agree with Kevin. It might be insulting, but no more so than being likened to a Kewpie doll or a Barbie. And men-of-a-certain-age positively relish being described as Teddy Bears. The people applying the stereotypes are the ones who interpret such statements as racist.Kevin Thurlow wrote:Saying someone looks like a gollywog isn't racist, is it? You are saying someone looks like a cuddly toy!
Barbie is a male stereotype of women. Golliwogs are a white stereotype of black people. For whatever reason women seem happy with Barbie, but black people are definitely not happy with golliwogs, so we should respect that. I mean, be serious for a second: saying someone looks like a golliwog is just plain stupid, and it's crying out to be called racist, even if it's meant in an entirely not-racist sort of way (which, knowing Carol Thatcher, it probably wasn't.)Rosemary Roberts wrote:I agree with Kevin. It might be insulting, but no more so than being likened to a Kewpie doll or a Barbie. And men-of-a-certain-age positively relish being described as Teddy Bears. The people applying the stereotypes are the ones who interpret such statements as racist.Kevin Thurlow wrote:Saying someone looks like a gollywog isn't racist, is it? You are saying someone looks like a cuddly toy!
Name three!Stuart Arnot wrote:It suggests that the purpose of a woman's vagina is to sheath a penis. In fact, it has many uses.
Seriously, I have never seen any evidence that black people are bothered by the existence of golliwogs. The race relations industry and the equality industry (both of which have noble roots but are now almost exclsuively engaged in empire-building) are the only ones who complain. I don't know of any individuals who give a shit one way or the other.Charlie Reams wrote:black people are definitely not happy with golliwogs
No, and I'm not offended by the word vagina. I was trying to put the offensiveness of the word 'cunt' into some context, by making a point about the patriarchal construction of our language, and in particular the word 'vagina', the meaning of which refers to a male understanding of it.Charlie Reams wrote: So you're offended by the fact that it's not an exhaustive list of all the purposes of a vagina? This seems like a recipe for being offended by... pretty much everything.
I'll quote Bakhtin, if I may...Charlie Reams wrote:No, but it does show that etymology and current meaning are not necessarily confluent.Stuart Arnot wrote:An example of an offensive word having an inoffensive etymology doesn't prove that a word cannot be offensive because of it's etymology.Paul Hammond wrote:I don't think etymology is particularly relevant to how offensive a word is. "Nigger" just means "black" etymologically, after all.
That's kinda interesting. People within a group often exchange insults that they would object to from an outsider. So either the Asian considered himself and the West Indian to be equally black, or - conceivably - they were acquaintances or even friends. But this is not specifically a racist thing: I would strongly object to a stranger calling me "Grandma", however kindly meant.Kevin Thurlow wrote:an Asian ticket collector ... said ... "you black bastard."
My daughter attended a staff meeting, and the subject was racism. After a long discussion about the evils of racism, they were asked "any questions?". My daughter asked, " What about the racism practiced by the blacks against the whites?. She told me that the only answer she got was dead silence.Kevin Thurlow wrote:"A racist cuddly toy..."
It seems to be the perception now... I think the original comment was no worse than saying Boris Johnson looks like a Teddy bear, or some vacuous starlet looks like a Barbie doll. Of course, Barbie has a black friend (Francie), so I guess if you were talking about a black vacuous starlet, you couldn't say she looked like Frankie...
(I must add that a friend of mine is a leading Barbie expert - I'm not usually expert in these matters.)
Goldfinches and chaffinches like "Niger" seed, but if you visit your local pet food supplier, they frequently label it "Nyjer" to persuade you to pronounce it with a long "i" and without a hard "g".
These examples seem really trivial.
I hate racism, but I had to laugh when an Asian ticket collector at the local railway station grabbed a West Indian guy, and said, "Show me your ticket, you black bastard." I hope suitable disciplinary action was taken and appropriate ethnicity awareness courses provided.
Kevin
If you want some evidence, try calling a black person a 'wog'.Rosemary Roberts wrote: Seriously, I have never seen any evidence that black people are bothered by the existence of golliwogs.
In a way, that's my entire point: "wog" is well-known to be an insult and could not be uttered any other way. A "golliwog" is a toy with a particular style of hair. It is a conclusion of the witness to assume that when I speak of the one I am thinking of the other.Stuart Arnot wrote:If you want some evidence, try calling a black person a 'wog'.Rosemary Roberts wrote: Seriously, I have never seen any evidence that black people are bothered by the existence of golliwogs.
They are fairly heavily connected. And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.Rosemary Roberts wrote:In a way, that's my entire point: "wog" is well-known to be an insult and could not be uttered any other way. A "golliwog" is a toy with a particular style of hair. It is a conclusion of the witness to assume that when I speak of the one I am thinking of the other.Stuart Arnot wrote:If you want some evidence, try calling a black person a 'wog'.Rosemary Roberts wrote: Seriously, I have never seen any evidence that black people are bothered by the existence of golliwogs.
I don't accept that either. Is a pantomime dame inherently offensive to women?Stuart Arnot wrote:And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.
Your passive attitude offends me.Michael Wallace wrote:The world would be a much better place if people never took offence to anything. That's the approach I take, at least.
Seriously, wtf? Are you trying to tell the black community what they can and can't find offensive? Just accept that many people find the term offensive and stop trying to use gender discrimination to back up whatever point you're trying to make.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't accept that either. Is a pantomime dame inherently offensive to women?Stuart Arnot wrote:And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.
It's much more silly to be offended on somebody else's behalf. You need to justify this "offensive in itself" statement before you get anywhere.Jimmy Gough wrote:Seriously, wtf? Are you trying to tell the black community what they can and can't find offensive? Just accept that many people find the term offensive and stop trying to use gender discrimination to back up whatever point you're trying to make.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't accept that either. Is a pantomime dame inherently offensive to women?Stuart Arnot wrote:And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.
Blackface was a form of entertainment devised by white people to amuse white audiences with stereotypes of black people.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't accept that either. Is a pantomime dame inherently offensive to women?Stuart Arnot wrote:And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.
One does not have to be the victim to find abuse offensive.Jon O'Neill wrote: It's much more silly to be offended on somebody else's behalf.
Too right. Thats the sort of attitude that let the Nazis in.Matt Morrison wrote:Your passive attitude offends me.Michael Wallace wrote:The world would be a much better place if people never took offence to anything. That's the approach I take, at least.
I agree.Stuart Arnot wrote:One does not have to be the victim to find abuse offensive.Jon O'Neill wrote: It's much more silly to be offended on somebody else's behalf.
Your mum offends me.Matt Morrison wrote:Your passive attitude offends me.Michael Wallace wrote:The world would be a much better place if people never took offence to anything. That's the approach I take, at least.
I would but you're not worth the effort quite frankly.Michael Wallace wrote:One day someone will actually manage to offend me, and I will lol.
(People should feel free to take that as a challenge, by the way.)
I hope you're feigning naivety here.Gavin Chipper wrote:It's quite interesting that a lot of people have been programmed to think that "racial" prejudice is far worse than any other type (I'm not talking about anyone on here, just generally). It's "fine" to mock someone for the colour of their hair, their height, various other things, but not the colour of their skin. Also, a lot of white people have facial features that are a bit like that of a monkey and get the nickname "Monkey Boy", but say that to a black person...
WTF indeed. I might accept your argument from a black person who was willing to explain the problem to me, but not from a self-appointed spokesman for the underdog. All the black people I know and most of those I have read or heard speak have more sense that to take offence at stupidity. Racist (and sexist) comments show up only those who make them.Jimmy Gough wrote:Seriously, wtf? Are you trying to tell the black community what they can and can't find offensive? Just accept that many people find the term offensive and stop trying to use gender discrimination to back up whatever point you're trying to make.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't accept that either. Is a pantomime dame inherently offensive to women?Stuart Arnot wrote:And in any case, a golliwog is a representation of a person in blackface, which is offensive in itself.
History matters. Who knew?Gavin Chipper wrote:It's quite interesting that a lot of people have been programmed to think that "racial" prejudice is far worse than any other type (I'm not talking about anyone on here, just generally). It's "fine" to mock someone for the colour of their hair, their height, various other things, but not the colour of their skin. Also, a lot of white people have facial features that are a bit like that of a monkey and get the nickname "Monkey Boy", but say that to a black person...
Yes, history matters, but it can't go on mattering for ever or you end up with Northern Ireland and Palestine.Charlie Reams wrote:History matters. Who knew?
Nope. Anyway, I didn't say anything about whether it was right or wrong.Stuart Arnot wrote:I hope you're feigning naivety here.Gavin Chipper wrote:It's quite interesting that a lot of people have been programmed to think that "racial" prejudice is far worse than any other type (I'm not talking about anyone on here, just generally). It's "fine" to mock someone for the colour of their hair, their height, various other things, but not the colour of their skin. Also, a lot of white people have facial features that are a bit like that of a monkey and get the nickname "Monkey Boy", but say that to a black person...
Yes, history does make a difference to how people feel but equally I think people should look at the context in which something is being said.Charlie Reams wrote:History matters. Who knew?
Yep. It's almost like laws are made to win votes and keep stupid people happy rather than because they actually make any sense.Gavin Chipper wrote: One thing I certainly disagree with is that there is a specific crime for "inciting racial hatred" as if it is OK to incite hatred in general and only bad when there is a racial element.
It's a very American way of saying something is obvious.And maybe I'm showing my thickness but what does "Who knew?" mean?
I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?George Jenkins wrote: My daughter attended a staff meeting, and the subject was racism. After a long discussion about the evils of racism, they were asked "any questions?". My daughter asked, " What about the racism practiced by the blacks against the whites?. She told me that the only answer she got was dead silence.
The silence came from the shock of hearing someone refer to 'the blacks' and 'the whites'. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point out the comparative scale of the problems, and the history of imperialism and slavery that makes any perceived racism against whites if not justifiable, the certainly understandable. Being that we still live in an institutionally racist society (check the recent revelations about the metropolitan police force) and most non-whites that I've known have been victims of verbal abuse on the streets on a weekly if not daily basis, any racist act perpetrated against white people really is a drop in the ocean. And I'm sure the Daily Mail would pay them handsomely to print their story.George Jenkins wrote: My daughter attended a staff meeting, and the subject was racism. After a long discussion about the evils of racism, they were asked "any questions?". My daughter asked, " What about the racism practiced by the blacks against the whites?. She told me that the only answer she got was dead silence.
No. Because of the comparative societal and historical position of white people.Chris Corby wrote: I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?
...because 'paki' is used as a derogatory term, not just for people of Pakistani origin, but for any non-white in this country. One can hear it regularly in playgrounds, football stadia, shopping centres and on public transport the length and breadth of this sceptred isleChris Corby wrote: Prince Harry recently made a private video whereby he referred to his Pakistani comrade as a "Paki" and it caused a right old stink? Why? Who decreed that shortening one's nationality to the first four letters was offensive? If so, why am I not offended when I am referred to as a 'Brit'?
I'm not sure about legal action ensuing, but how about "Frog" and "Wop"? Both are used against white people and both are clearly derogatory and intended to be so (I consider this last to be of the essence: thoughtless language ought not to be a hanging offence). Perhaps the difference is that the insultees are not usually present.Chris Corby wrote:I have also been puzzled by this. Can anyone think of a name or phrase that could be directed at white people that would insult or outrage the race so much that legal action may be contemplated?