https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62664537
:sherlock:
Printable View
Seems to me former Chancellors were given too much authority to bring in brainless schemes like eat out to catch Covid - his increasing efforts to pander to the gammon which get to choose our Prime Ministers these days is patheticQuote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Read the whole article for balance , people with children , who have their own business etc
Decisions were being made by unelected people based on wild predictions and algorithms.
Wow. Racist slurs, scientific inaccuracy and a lack of concern for peoples jobs all in one post. A hat-trick Bob. You must be Dorcus's idolQuote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Gammon is a slur against skin colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
The tweets in which people throw it out won't age well..
It might be a skin condition or lifestyle choice that causes it, but no - having a red face is not a race ffs :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's an insult aimed solely at one race based on a skin colour characteristic.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
What other foods do you use to describe people's skin colour?
It's definitely 100% racist, and intended to be. Sad how a so-called doyen of this board could stoop so low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Milky?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Olive?
Praline?
Gammon is not a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.
Chocolate isn't a race. Do you think it's okay to use that as a venomous term against black people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
It's plainly a racist term. It's using someones characteristic (skin colour) to insult them. You shouldn't do that.
Do you think it would be racist to comment on someone's eczema or a skin allergy?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Yes, I didn't see the thread heading in this direction when I typed that message a few hours ago - never been called a racist before in my life and I'm not bothered in the slightest that someone has chosen to do it now because it's too ludicrous for words aa are the other elements of his "hat trick". His desire to rush to the Conservative Party's defence despite his much proclaimed (always by himself of course) even handedness is remarkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Is telling someone they have scarlet fever racist I wonder?
Bob, you are insulting people based on the colour of their skin. It's not on.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I know you struggle with people with different opinions, but that's a new low.
And I don't rush to their defence - I said the PM should resign, I just wasn't hysterical about it.
No, but I think it would be racist to call a black person a chocolate biscuit, or a white person a gammon when used as an insult. Or is it okay to call people names based on the colour of animals now?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I mean, ideally Bob and the others could engage without insulting at all, but I understand that might be a bit much to ask.
Seems to me that your missing my point which was twofold - first a politician who imposed a policy which caused Covid infections to riseQuote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econom...esearch_finds/
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-rise-in-covid
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUKKBN27F1IR
and, second, a Conservative party leadership candidate yet again pitching their public utterances solely at the tiny proportion of the population who choose who becomes our new Prime Minister these days - I made and make no comment about the claims Sunak makes except to note that he kept quiet about them while he was in the Cabinet.
It is not an expression I ever use but I don’t see it as racist at all. It is a label to describe a certain type of almost cartoonish behaviour amongst mainly white, male, older, Tory-voting, Home Counties reactionaries.
It comes from cartoon portrayals of someone spluttering into their beer at the golf club over the latest woke ‘outrage’ and reddening as their ire rises. Those cartoons often appeared in the Mail or Telegraph in the past.
The caricature has its cultural roots but is about a mindset and behaviours - and gets applied to anyone who matches them. To call it racist, or sexist, or ageist is, ironically, another example of manufactured outrage. Something like what the word was used to describe in the first place? Too close to home, James?
I bit once, I won't bother again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
A black person is born black. A 'gammon' is not born red.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
You can make a perfectly good point about how belittling someone's physical appearance that they cannot help just undermines an argument. That's reasonable, but calling it racist is silly.
Lardy,Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Gammon. Pig. Pink Skin.
Like I said, it's better if more of you could engage without insults at all, but if you must, then at least don't resort to racist terms, or even dubiously racist ones.
You are trying to defend it like people would often say 'oh it's only a shortened version of pakistani'. I appreciate it might not be intended as such, but it's an insult based on skin colour and it's as simple as that. Best to steer well clear.
Get it?
I'm not outraged. It is Bob who considered Sunaks perfectly reasonable opinion and illustrated it with words such and phrases such as "brainless", "eat out to catch covid", "pathetic" and "gammon".Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I merely said that Gammon is considered a racist term, it's an insult based on skin colour and best not used.
Thats reasonable in my opinion. And I'll repeat, all of this is better if you can refrain from insults entirely, but racist ones are certainly best left alone.
I haven't defended it at all. I haven't used it. I've even given a reason why it's not good to use physical appearance as a stick to hit someone with.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I'm going to ignore your Pakistani comment as that is just way beyond where our discussion is. I'll put it down to getting a bit carried away - unless you really are accusing me of what it seems?
As another question, if my brother gets jaundice and I take the piss, am I being racist?
I'm sorry for being unclear, yes perhaps you aren't defending it, and I merely point out the 'its only a shortened version of pakistani', because it's another example of something that people tried to justify, but is now considered a racist slur.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I don't think your jaundice example works. The term Gammon is a slur aimed at white people. A specific sub section some may argue, but it's still a slur based on skin colour and considered racist by many. I certainly consider it a racist slur.
It doesn't work because jaundice is a temporary condition which changes the skin colour and is not about race. Same as gammon.
Unless you know different, there's been no legal cases for racial discrimination related to being called gammon. There's no legal definition of it as a race or ethnic group. There is no box for it on a diversity form and we all know, deep deep down, there never will be.
Now this whole conversation is so stupid that it's on the verge of making my day worse, so I am out.