-
These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TWGL1
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 pathetic
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
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 pathetic
A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
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 pathetic
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 idol
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
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 idol
racist?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
racist?
Gammon is a slur against skin colour.
The tweets in which people throw it out won't age well..
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Gammon is a slur against skin colour.
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:
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
It might be a skin condition or lifestyle choice that causes it, but no - having a red face is not a race ffs :hehe:
It's an insult aimed solely at one race based on a skin colour characteristic.
What other foods do you use to describe people's skin colour?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
racist?
It's definitely 100% racist, and intended to be. Sad how a so-called doyen of this board could stoop so low.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It's an insult aimed solely at one race based on a skin colour characteristic.
What other foods do you use to describe people's skin colour?
Milky?
Olive?
Praline?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Quiet Monkfish
It's definitely 100% racist, and intended to be. Sad how a so-called doyen of this board could stoop so low.
Gammon is not a race.
One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
Gammon is not a race.
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?
It's plainly a racist term. It's using someones characteristic (skin colour) to insult them. You shouldn't do that.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Chocolate isn't a race. Do you think it's okay to use that as a venomous term against black people?
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?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
Gammon is not a race.
One of many sentences I didn't think I would ever have to write.
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.
Is telling someone they have scarlet fever racist I wonder?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
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.
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.
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Do you think it would be racist to comment on someone's eczema or a skin allergy?
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?
I mean, ideally Bob and the others could engage without insulting at all, but I understand that might be a bit much to ask.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TWGL1
A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .
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.
Seems to me that your missing my point which was twofold - first a politician who imposed a policy which caused Covid infections to rise
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
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?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Bob, you are insulting people based on the colour of their skin. It's not on.
I know you struggle with people with different opinions, but that's a new low. :hehe:
And I don't rush to their defence - I said the PM should resign, I just wasn't hysterical about it.
I bit once, I won't bother again.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
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?
I mean, ideally Bob and the others could engage without insulting at all, but I understand that might be a bit much to ask.
A black person is born black. A 'gammon' is not born red.
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
A black person is born black. A 'gammon' is not born red.
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,
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?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon1959
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'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".
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
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 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.
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?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
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.
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.
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
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.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
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.
It's using an animal or food in a disparaging way to mock skin colour and is aimed only at one race.
It may be newer than calling someone a monkey or chocolate biscuit, it may (or may not) be said with less bile behind it, but the principle is the same.
It's a slur based on skin colour and is best well avoided.
Even at best, if it isn't a slur on skin colour (which is is) then it's mocking someone's physical appearance.
None of it seems reasonable to use in discussion of whether lockdowns were two intense or not, as there are perfectly reasonable opinions on both side of that debate, even if Bob can't see it.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It's using an animal or food in a disparaging way to mock skin colour and is aimed only at one race.
It may be newer than calling someone a monkey or chocolate biscuit, it may (or may not) be said with less bile behind it, but the principle is the same.
It's a slur based on skin colour and is best well avoided.
Even at best, if it isn't a slur on skin colour (which is is) then it's mocking someone's physical appearance.
None of it seems reasonable to use in discussion of whether lockdowns were two intense or not, as there are perfectly reasonable opinions on both side of that debate, even if Bob can't see it.
A white man calling another white man a gammon is completely incomparable with someone calling a black man a monkey.
If you call someone ginge is that also racial abuse in your books, as only white people typically have ginger hair?
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
A white man calling another white man a gammon is completely incomparable with someone calling a black man a monkey.
If you call someone ginge is that also racial abuse in your books, as only white people typically have ginger hair?
There may or may not be different scales within racial slurs, but it is not acceptable to insult a group of people (wholly of one race) people based on a characteristic of the colour of their skin.
It's as simple as that. Am surprised people are so keen to try and keep justifying which is at very best a fairly grim insult based on someones appearance, at worst a racial slur.
It's not a good word to use, not a particularly good look to try and defend it IMO
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Having had a bit of time to think this through, I’d say that I would be upset to be called a gammon. However, my upset would be entirely down to the term’s political connotations. As for the so called racial implications, that wouldn’t bother me at all - as an overweight sixty odd year old who has drank too much beer and ate too much of the wrong types of food in my life, I reckon I’m fair game for someone taking the piss over the colour of my skin at certain times. The point as I see it is that I’ve contributed to making myself look the way I sometimes do and so I don’t get how that can be a basis for claims of racism.
Also, Rjk’s point about ginger hair is a very good one in this context. For about the first twenty five years or so of my life, I had bright ginger hair. I used to get the odd comment about it, but it was like water off a duck’s back because I was quite proud of it and was disappointed when it started to turn to a mousey brown colour. As a result, most of those who wanted to make something of it didn’t bother taking it any further because they saw there wasn’t a lot to be gained from it.
In saying that, I know there are lots of people with red hair whose lives are made a misery by what’s said about an aspect of their appearance and it is clearly a form of discrimination, but I don’t believe that any of them would think for a second that they were the victims of racial discrimination.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
There may or may not be different scales within racial slurs, but it is not acceptable to insult a group of people (wholly of one race) people based on a characteristic of the colour of their skin.
It's as simple as that. Am surprised people are so keen to try and keep justifying which is at very best a fairly grim insult based on someones appearance, at worst a racial slur.
It's not a good word to use, not a particularly good look to try and defend it IMO
James, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, old fruit.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
James, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, old fruit.
Not at all, just ahead of the curve on this one.
Old fruit is fine btw, it's not a reference to skin colour. But mocking a skin colour by tying it to a pig or a lump of meat is different. :thumbup:
As mentioned, Bob could have been far more open minded about what Rishi Sunak said in the first place, there was no need for any insults, but ones referencing skin colour certainly aren't okay.
It's not hard, there's plenty of other ways to make a point than to point out someones skin colour and tie it to some kind of animal or grotesque looking piece of food.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
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 pathetic
Bob, after having to suffer all the puerile garbage that followed your post I have to agree with your sentiments on the original issue
A classic case of an all but defeated candidate desperately playing to the gallery in an attempt to (dare I say) bring home the bacon. Note I didn't use the G****n word!
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dorcus
Bob, after having to suffer all the puerile garbage that followed your post I have to agree with your sentiments on the original issue
A classic case of an all but defeated candidate desperately playing to the gallery in an attempt to (dare I say) bring home the bacon. Note I didn't use the G****n word!
Or perhaps he has looked at the economic, educational, social and health mess left in it's wake and considered that locking down an entire country wasn't the best thing to do?
I appreciate you may not see both sides of the argument, but they exist, and the case that lockdowns caused more damage than they prevented is considerable.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doucas
Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.
It doesn't surprise me to see you defend it as you love dishing out abuse to anyone with a different opinion, but it is Doucas. It absolutely passes the test for it, even if the user didn't intend it as such, in much the way that other terms are not always intended as such.
Gammon is only applied to one skin colour. Skin colour is a protected characteristic, using an abusive term to refer to it is racism. It's as simple as that.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doucas
Imagine thinking the word gammon is racist, embarrassing.
It’s not racist , but there was no need to use it in the post in my opinion.
The chancellor was offering his viewpoint on his own governments overreach ,and their reliance on non elected people having too much influence, which people like myself were posting two years ago and called conspiracy types, right wingers , etc
Typical really that we argue amongst ourselves and the government get away with it unscathed.
Somehow , I can’t see a public enquiry anytime soon.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It doesn't surprise me to see you defend it as you love dishing out abuse to anyone with a different opinion, but it is Doucas. It absolutely passes the test for it, even if the user didn't intend it as such, in much the way that other terms are not always intended as such.
Gammon is only applied to one skin colour. Skin colour is a protected characteristic, using an abusive term to refer to it is racism. It's as simple as that.
The arbiter has spoken, probably best to “move on” to find something else for him to rule on now.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TWGL1
A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .
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.
It was a largescale IQ test, to gauge the gullibility of entire nations before they drop the big one. Follow the money, it can all be traced back to the same sources.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TWGL1
A typical response from someone with your demographic makeup .
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.
200,000 people have died in this country, what were the “wild predictions” saying? I can remember an American projection nearly two and a half years ago being laughed at when it claimed 66,000 would die in the UK - lots of people with very selective memories around these days.
-
Re: These anti Lockdown conspiracy theorists
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5336390]200,000 people have died in this country, what were the “wild predictions” saying? I can remember an American projection nearly two and a half years ago being laughed at when it claimed 66,000 would die in the UK - lots of people with very selective memories around these days.[/QUOTE
200,000 the VAST majority of which had underlying health issues and were over 70. Most people at end of life care would be positive due to compromised immune systems.
Some health boards were testing people for positive results after death.
Clearly with millions unvaccinated in the UK at this present moment how is it they have survived?