| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It's using an animal or food in a disparaging way to mock skin colour and is aimed only at one race.Originally Posted by lardy
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The arbiter has spoken, probably best to “move on” to find something else for him to rule on now.
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.
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=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?
Not to mention nobody died from the flu for over two years.
Regarding the unvaccinated, that's the elephant in the room isn't it.
Absolutely. Billions spent over the years on flu jabs and the scientists missed that all we had to do all this time was stand a few feet apart and breathe into a hankie. Well mercy me.
It doesn't make any sense, unless the plan all along was to create the conditions for a great reset.
Over 35,000 people died of flu between March 2020 and April 2022 - hardly nobody.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ath/2022-05-23
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Still about half on a usual year and not recorded within 28 days of a positive test as there wasn’t one available for flu…………….
If there was a test for flu, I’d argue the statistics would affect Covid directly
do you not think that wearing masks and social distancing / lock downs etc will have had any effect on the levels of flu?
That was posted in reply to a statement that “nobody died from flu for over two years” - they clearly did, no matter how much you try to manipulate the figures.
I see nothing in these two links to justify your claim that the figures for the two years we’re talking about were about half the usual number in these two links, one of which is from more than fifteen years ago mind.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...0182019and2020
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676118/
The flu statistics were deliberately down-played by me to measure the responses. I suspected you would increase its severity yet not once have you asked why the same restrictions were not ever considered for Flu when it’s been established that the IFR rate is pretty similar.
It would probably much higher if you had a diagnostic procedure and testing regime similar to Covid, ( with a huge false positive rate) but as you know, we never have.
Funny how I've been the one posting actual figures and all you do is tell my why they don't count for anything. I'm a simple soul and my only intention is to prove Wales Bales' statement was wrong and that your follow up claim was wrong as well. What you and he have said in this exchange is incorrect, so why should anyone believe the pair of you when it comes to anything else you claim about Covid?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
