tinyurl.com/y992apgo
If this carries on adverts wont be able to feature good looking people driving fast cars in case they discriminate against ugly people and anyone who can't afford a fast car.
Where will it end?
We all have our positive and negative attributes, the attractive, slim girl in the bikini that may inspire others to get a little fitter may not be the brightest spark, or may suffer from any kind of anxiety, whereas the overweight Mrs Average she inspires maybe very intelligent, totally content, at peace with herself.
It works both ways, the attractive, slim girl in the bikini may be inspired by a book written by the overweight Mrs Average which helps her immeasurably.
Though does that book set unrealistic expectations as it is suggested the beach body ad does?
There is a lot more too it than meets the eye.
Stereotypes are not always negative, the man being the bread winner and the woman being the home keeper may not suit all and that is fine though it is not a negative stereotype. Let people be who they are, allow the advertisers to inspire us, because that drives the economy, and stop the nannying!!!
|
I think there's an issue that people don't want to seem 'boxed' in any stereo type. I think people are more keenly aware of that than ever before, perhaps there's a little of both lead and follow on this from the ASA. Advertising is hugely influencing far more than we realise.
It'll perhaps be a refresh for advertisement companies to look at new ways of advertising things.
|
The full ASA report is here:
tinyurl.com/y7qs8zzm
Inevitably it tells a more nuanced tale then press headlines. The Telegraph does actually address the reality in later paragraphs.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 11:27
|
|
I think the various "agencies" should stick to their day jobs and leave the social engineering to the politicians.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 20:12
|
>> I think the various "agencies" should stick to their day jobs and leave the social
>> engineering to the politicians advertising industry.
Fixed that for you :-P
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 20:16
|
Regarding advertising standards, I remember hearing someone on Radio 4 suggesting that if everywhere men looked were images of buff guys with dongs hanging to their knees it might cause some to feel a tad insecure about themselves, and in a few lead to serious low self esteem and even anxiety and mood problems.
What I didn't understand was why seeing images of underendowed men would cause that.
I'll grab me kilt.
|
>> The word is "too"
>>
Too pedantic? ;-)
|
|
There needs to be guidelines around advertising, though to stop advertisers from supporting accepted stereotypes is a kind of social engineering.
|
Is the world becoming to PC?
Yes.
|
|
I suppose it depends who or what PC thinks. I don't find much of the world becoming although a Miss World would be rather more so.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Wed 19 Jul 17 at 12:36
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383
This is more of the same, "stars" earning over £150 are 65/35 male/female, if it were 95/5 then it would be a real problem, though it's never going to be 50/50 without engineering, without positive discrimination.
|
>> This is more of the same, "stars" earning over £150 are 65/35 male/female,
If you dig a bit deeper the highest earners are ore overwhelmingly male with some interesting discrepancies for people in similar roles.
www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/19/lineker-balding-the-list-that-shows-bbc-gender-gap
|
Part of the issue is how much a person earned in their previous life.
Ex-pro footballers aren't going to be tempted by £50k pa when their pensions are perhaps 5-10 times that.
|
>>Is the world becoming to PC?
I think a lot of people don't like the "PC" nature of things because they like bullying or being inconsiderate or just wrong.
A newspaper was criticised recently for not mentioning that acid attacks were a recent phenomena undertaken by black and Asian youths. They were apparently being too PC.
Of course the paper wasn't being PC. Acid attacks have been going on for years and I recall that the protagonist in Graham Greene's Brighton Rock carried a small bottle of acid.
I find the ones deride "PC" are the same ones who like to ignore other peoples feelings and rights, as long as it's not their rights!
|
|
The term Political Correctness was invented as a pejorative catch all for any steps designed to counter inequality. It is therefore used overwhelmingly by those who are still comfortable with and want to return to days when racial and sexual banter were unchallenged and minorities knew their place.
|
>> therefore used overwhelmingly by those who are still comfortable with and want to return to days when racial and sexual banter were unchallenged and minorities knew their place.
>>
That's just tosh.
Clearly we need racial equality and gender equality though selection ultimately needs to be based on suitability, qualifications, experience etc and processes like all women shortlists simply serve to perpetuate the problem.
|
Every selection should be on ability and not gender.
The fact that everything has to be black and white now doesn’t help things though.
What ever happened to the 50 shades of grey between those two colours, did Christian Gray make them unmentionable, or something to be ashamed of?
It certainly seems that we have to be either for something, and support it fully, or by default we’re condemned as being against it.
Surely that’s a bit like not being far right politically, means you must be far left, by default?
There are a great many stances between those two and we really should embrace and be tolerant of those happy to be lily livered Liberals regarding a lot of things, PC included.
Pat
|
>>Every selection should be on ability and not gender.
How do you measure ability? Different measures could lead to different outcomes for different groups?
Men used to get on better by going out in the evening with their workmates and playing golf etc. with them, so they got to know you. Choosing you for a promotion was therefore less of a risk than choosing an unknown.
PC is more complicated. What do you do if you have a Muslim colleague that doesn't drink alcohol? Having team events in a pub (pub quizzes etc.) becomes more difficult and if you could be open to a claim if you persist in holding them in drinking establishments.
The question is; is this fair? Well, it isn't fair on the Muslim who can't attend meetings in a pub and would changing the venue make that much of a difference to the others?
Tolerance is key, as is understanding the needs of others.
|
>> Men used to get on better by going out in the evening with their workmates
>> and playing golf etc. with them, so they got to know you. Choosing you for
>> a promotion was therefore less of a risk than choosing an unknown.
>>
Women can play golf too, you know!
>> PC is more complicated. What do you do if you have a Muslim colleague that
>> doesn't drink alcohol? Having team events in a pub (pub quizzes etc.) becomes more difficult
>> and if you could be open to a claim if you persist in holding them
>> in drinking establishments.
>>
In that case, is it necessary to hold the meetings in a pub? If not, then obviously hold them elsewhere.
>> Tolerance is key, as is understanding the needs of others.
>>
Totally agree.
Pat
|
>>Women can play golf too, you know!
My game is so awful that most of them could easily beat me, but the game isn't the point, as you know, it was an example of what used to be a closed group.
>>If not, then obviously hold them elsewhere.
That was the point!
Problem is some of our news papers seem to stoke division which doesn't help.
|
I do agree Zippy, but it isn't just newspapers, it's present in every day life as well.
Pat
|
>> Every selection should be on ability and not gender.
Good point in theory but perhaps it fails your black/white test.
How do we deal with appointments to jobs where women (or ethnic minorities) are seriously under-represented? Aside from straightforward question of balance under representation of 50% population is strong evidence that, at some stage, appointments are NOT being made wholly on ability/merit and that conscious or unconscious bias is a factor.
Two examples spring to mind, one is candidates for Parliament and the other the Senior Judiciary. The former is mainly down to the organisation of the parties and their local selection policies. The latter has a problem with the pool of candidates, mainly Barristers with 15+ years experience, lacking diversity (and possibly the selection process too).
All three parties have used, or at least contemplated use of, all female shortlists. There is a specific exception in Legislation to allow for that. Given that, at least in theory, the final selection panel is the electorate their use is arguably a sensible way forward.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has an objective to become 50% Catholic, is another example with an exemption from Equality Legislation.
The Judicial Appointments Commission has attempted to widen the recruitment pool for judges and has specific policies to encourage diversity jac.judiciary.gov.uk/equality-and-diversity but the results are still somewhat mixed although representation at more junior levels such as Tribunal and Circuit Judges is improving. The strict merit principle (rightly) prevent more assertive affirmative action though (IIRC) they could prefer a woman where there is a tie on scores at end of recruitment process.
Is that a reasonable step.
|
>> How do we deal with appointments to jobs where women (or ethnic minorities) are seriously under-represented? Aside from straightforward question of balance under representation of 50% population is strong evidence that, at some stage, appointments are NOT being made wholly on ability/merit and that conscious or unconscious bias is a factor.
>>
You tackle the matter of appointment not being made wholly on ability/merit. Countering bias with bias is not the solution.
|
I don't see many 16 year old CEOs of any ethnicity or gender, ought we be wringing our hands about that too?
I know it's probably politically incorrect to say so but quite a few women take career breaks, sometimes multiple ones, for family reasons - surely it's not unreasonable, in fact I imagine inevitable, that this takes a toll on work prospects, and progression up the ladder to the top posts?
I think an application from anyone who has been out of work for an extended period will often be glossed over in favour of someone who's mind is still sharp and focussed on work.
|
you cannot put an expectation of gender parity across every role in. the workplace and say anything other than a 50% split is wrong.
My daughter teaches in a primary school which has, like many, an entirely female staff apart from one male teacher and one male LSA
They are all on the same salary scale which is what really counts.
|
|
Nursing is another one that springs to mind.
|
>> I think an application from anyone who has been out of work for an extended
>> period will often be glossed over in favour of someone who's mind is still sharp
>> and focussed on work.
That's a hell of an assumption to make about someone who's taken maternity leave or a longer career break. It is though a widespread attitude and one which keeps employment lawyers in business.
From the business's point of view it's also a phenomenal waste of talent.
The point about male Primary teachers is well made though and their absence is a real issue:
www.teachingtimes.com/news/primary-schools-male-teachers.htm
Meeting friends on holiday next week who's younger son is training to do primary; folowing in his Father's footsteps as it happens. Still got another year at least to do but he'll find no problem getting work.
|
It may be a hell of an assumption but that how the real world works IMO. I've been out of work (by choice) for over 2 years now and seeing as my Mrs still won't stop till next April or later I thought I'd sound out a short term contract to fund something like a new car.
I have only been applying for roles in which I have extensive experience and all the required credentials and professional qualifications, and in locations where it would be practical for me to work. While the nature of the work is project management, I used to manage a fairly narrow type of IT work and it is only that which I have targetted. I have also applied for more junior roles than I used to be in, as well as those at the same level.
I would suspect that in some cases I have more direct and relevant experience that most other candidates are likely to have.
Yet I've not even had an agency call me back let alone have an interview with any. I have followed up some particularly relevant ones and spoken to the agency but NONE of them have ever come back.
I do have a reasonable explanation for my career break, which I have often included ion a covering note. So I don't have any explanation other than what I said above as to why I wouldn't even get short listed. It would not surprise me on the least if I was filtered out by the agency rather than the company. I know they get extraordinary numbers of applicants for each role but on the law of averages I should have had a few hits by now... None of the agencies come back with a reason and nearly none even bother sending you a Dear John letter. That's always been the way.
I'm not bothered btw, nor do I have a chip on my shoulder about it. I'm just sayin'... :-)
|
>> It may be a hell of an assumption but that how the real world works
>> IMO. I've been out of work (by choice) for over 2 years now
I'm sure that's how it works. There is undoubted bias against people over 50. Seen several possible explanations ranging from worries about health/reliable service to concerns those applying for junior roles might be too bolshy or could usurp their managers. On leaving the CS I applied for several clerical/admin roles in schools but not even the hint of a bite. Few even troubled to send a rejection letter. CA employment was an extension of volunteering so I was a known quantity and because they'd taken up references for the volunteer role they had two strong recommendations from former senior colleagues.
None of that is much justification for a bias against women of child bearing age who've had time out for kids.
|
>> >> I think an application from anyone who has been out of work for an
>> extended
>> >> period will often be glossed over in favour of someone who's mind is still
>> sharp
>> >> and focussed on work.
>>
>> That's a hell of an assumption to make about someone who's taken maternity leave or
>> a longer career break.
There's nothing fair about recruitment. Lots of arbitrary filters, like grade of degree, age, gender, ethnicity/nationality (where apparent), style of CV are applied formally and informally, legally and illegally.
Being out of the workplace for a while can be a genuine issue. Not necessarily with competence, but with just fitting in.
Not quite the same thing, as I probably had a retirement mindset anyway, but I think I became de-institutionalised after a year or so after I left full time employment - maybe I could re-adapt to it but I certainly couldn't suffer now some of the corporate nonsense I had to work with in the past.
|
I agree with your last para. I had no plans to ever work again but I'm kind of in limbo until SWMBO retires too. Actually quite enjoying the solo holidays (been to Egypt 2 times, Germany twice, other places too, on top of usual joint holidays) but with a near-3 month run till my next major break I just thought I'd put out the feelers and see if I could earn a quick buck. Would just about have my feet under the table and it'd be time to leave!! :-)
But I will soldier on being retired. I prefer it that way :-)
|
>> The Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has an objective to become 50% Catholic, is
>> another example with an exemption from Equality Legislation.
You appear to believe that is commendable.
Presumably the other 50% would be Protestant?
What about the agnostics, don't knows, don't cares, load of superstitious nonsense brigade? Don't any of them get a job? Surely there must be space for non-believers?
|
>>Surely there must be space for non-believers?
Especially in the police, which represents a largely secular state and people of all religions and none. In fairness though I think that is what they are after - there's no denying the historical religiously based factionalism in NI and what they need is a police service that is representative of the population, not just half of it.
It's the fervent, born again or fundamentalist ones of all 'faiths' who bother me most. Never knowing what the imaginary being will tell them to do next.
|
>> You appear to believe that is commendable.
>>
>> Presumably the other 50% would be Protestant?
I fell into the usual mainland Brit trap of using the euphemism Catholic when I meant people from the Nationalist/Irish side of the sectarian divide.
As Manatee says the intention is to resolve the overwhelmingly Loyalist nature of the former Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 11:54
|
>> The term Political Correctness was invented as a pejorative catch all for any steps designed
>> to counter inequality.
Correction. The above is a description of how the phrase was adopted into usage by, initially the American neo-liberal right, from nineties on.
There was an earlier iteration in Marxist circles where it described the prescribed or 'correct' political view.
|
>> >> The term Political Correctness was invented as a pejorative catch all for any steps designed to counter inequality.
>>
>> Correction.
>>
I guess we are also talking about Positive Discrimination here.
|
>> I guess we are also talking about Positive Discrimination here.
A ridiculous term and approach. Discrimination is discrimination. You should neither be given nor denied a job for discriminatory reasons.
|
>> A ridiculous term and approach. Discrimination is discrimination. You should neither be given nor denied
>> a job for discriminatory reasons.
At the end of the day positive discrimination does nothing good, long term, for those so chosen, and provides plenty of ammo for those who would discriminate.
|
>> Agreed.
>>
Agreed with both.
|
|
"At the end of the day"! What.
|
|
At the end of the day :-) - what's so terribly wrong about offending people?
|
|
In my opinion, very very little.
|
>> At the end of the day :-) - what's so terribly wrong about offending people?
>>
>>
If free speech is only allowed provided it doesn't offend anyone, then it is not worth having.
|
I think someone said the other day, in the other thread, that we have no right to free speech anymore.
...but I could be wrong and I haven't got time to look because I'm cooking a meal!
Pat
|
"...someone said...we have no right to free speech anymore."
I thought it was a basic tenet in discussing the philosophy of morality that everyone has a right to freedom, but only insofar as the exercise of it does not impinge on others' right to freedom.
That "other thread" was, or purported to be when it did not consist of insults, a discussion of just those issues and how to balance them.
|
What is "free speech"?
What it is not is your right to say anything you like and screw the world.
What it actually means is that you will not be prevented from voicing your thoughts by opression or violence.
That doesn't mean that society, the law, or the environment that you are in, or simple decency shouldn't require you STFU.
What you may or may not say on a public forum such as this is entirely dictated by those responsible for the site.
You have no rights beyond what you would have in somebody's front room. And that ain't much.
|
-that "other thread....."
Its a little sad. Focal Point makes statements about how terrible the behaviour is in some threads, but when challenged he either cannot or chooses not to cite examples. He merely states that he doesn't want to talk about it and that it is not worthy of discussion.
But then cannot stop himself repeatedly referring to the stuff he made up.
I wonder what Focal Point's hidden agenda is. Its is almost as if Focal Point is capable of criticising but lacks the ability to contribute.
I wonder why he is so limited, its a shame perhaps it is an ability he once had but has lost.
|
NoFM is doing an excellent job of proving Focal Point's Point.
There was stuff in the 'woodpile' thread that went beyond (and this is my test) what would be acceptable in a pub or other social gathering. By that I mean comments that would kill social relationships and, in extremis, result in invitations to step outside.
As Posted in that thread:
One of the problems, Mark, is that people who dish out the nasty stuff either don't see how nasty it is, or else they pretend it's not nasty if challenged. It's about choice of words.
Not so much what you say as how you say it.
An example here is:
But then cannot stop himself repeatedly referring to the stuff he made up.
I wonder what Focal Point's hidden agenda is. Its is almost as if Focal Point is capable of criticising but lacks the ability to contribute.
I wonder why he is so limited, its a shame perhaps it is an ability he once had but has lost
Some of us are prepared to respond in kind. If you're not then it's a good reason to spoil the dinner party by stalking out or quietly take yourself off to another pub.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 20:24
|
I suspect that Bromp doesn't read stuff after he's posted it.
Surely he knows that he doesn't need to defend Focal Point and his limitations, I expect he can try himself.
I'm sure that Focal Point can get beyond Bromptonaut's normal riposte of "whatever"
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 20:53
|
>> I suspect that Bromp doesn't read stuff after he's posted it.
You might be right there. If point is made OK then it's a bit anal to focus too much on whether words are in exactly right order
|
"...cannot stop himself repeatedly referring to the stuff he made up."
"... lacks the ability to contribute."
"I wonder why he is so limited..."
Disingenuous and from someone well practised in such matters.
Ha. How droll!
|
I don't really understand Focal Point's last post. Perhaps my additional questions were too difficult for him.
Oh well.
|
>> I don't really understand Focal Point's last post. Perhaps my additional questions were too difficult
>> for him.
>>
>> Oh well.
Which is exactly why 'whatever' is sometimes only way to go.
|
Mark has made a number of posts today (20/07/17) in which he repeatedly refers to me personally and which are carefully provocative without being downright offensive.
At 20:05; at 20:50; another at 20:50.
He questions my self-control and truthfulness: "..cannot stop himself repeatedly referring to the stuff he made up."
He questions my motives: "I wonder what Focal Point's hidden agenda is."
He questions my intellect: "...lacks the ability to contribute." "I wonder why he is so limited, its a shame perhaps it is an ability he once had but has lost." "...Focal Point and his limitations..." "Perhaps my additional questions were too difficult for him."
And of course the tone is condescending. For someone who professes not to care about what others think, he seems remarkably concerned about me.
It seems he has some kind of agenda that involves getting a response from me (possibly an irritated one, and possibly one that he can then follow up). In plain language, it is trolling. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, it doesn't address any discussion or exchange of views and it is personal.
I suggest these posts illustrate why some of us are fed up with the way threads often seem to go on this forum. I'm not suggesting Mark is the only one responsible, by the way. However, this evening he seems determined to try to make trouble.
|
It seems that Focal Point, although clearly a master at handing out criticism in the 3rd party, seemingly enabling him to then avoid answering challenging questions by saying it is not worthy of his time to respond, is quite unable to take it.
Perhaps Focal Point is insecure or simply incapable of addressing things directly and feels safer addressing from the side.
One should not unduly criticise Focal Point for this, many who feel inadequate do the same and are to be helped rather than criticised.
It seems that Focal Point feels he has been appointed to critique rather than contribute. No doubt the reasons for that are easily understood by all.
|
|
And maybe No FM2R is a closet bully.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 22:39
|
|
How does one bully a group when one is alone and all have access to the same alphabet?
|
|
It depends on the Billy's ego?
|
|
Well, perhaps not all the same alphabet. Yours appears to be lacking in 'u's.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 22:49
|
>> Which is exactly why 'whatever' is sometimes only way to go.
I understand, sometimes one over reaches and the cupboard of adequate responses can be quite bare.
|
|
In that case maybe you should find a forum frequented by people that match your superior education.
|
|
Right, I'm off to the pub. Do feel free to carry on, it'll give me a laugh and something to do later.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 22:53
|
So, yet again one poster brings the kiss of death to a whole interesting thread being enjoyed by a number of us.
Double standards by someone who disapproves so loudly of so many things, yet can openly bully any articular poster he feels like targeting.
That means you support bullying then Mark, but I don't think any one of us has to ask that question because you have made it clear so many times.
So many posters in the past have been a victim at your whim.
AC, Roger, myself, ON and now it seems to be FP's turn.
The thread dies a death because no-one wants 'to get involved' so they go off somewhere else where that sort of behaviour isn't allowed.
One or two of us refuse to be bullied by you, but why do so many just show their disapproval by scowly faces instead of having the backbone to stand up to you too?
Because you intimidate them?
It will never stop while you stay silent about it.
If you carry on like this you won't have anyone else left to play with in the playground,
and if I was you I would take more water with it, or turn the internet off before you pick the bottle up.
Pat
Pat
|
>> I understand, sometimes one over reaches and the cupboard of adequate responses can be
>> quite bare.
The cupboard of adequate responses is well stocked. Its more a question of whether I'm prepared to waste the contents feeding trolls.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 15:13
|
I agree to an extent Bromp, but while we keep tolerating bullying then the bully will continue to do it.
Look at it this way, this always happens when Marks bored, when he's bored he's not happy and he can't stand to see others not bored and happy.
He effectively stops 90% of posting on this forum when he starts trolling like that whoever it's aimed at.
Why don't we all just totally ignore him and carry on posting?
He wants a reaction, if he isn't getting one he'll go elsewhere to get one because it's what he does, what feeds his ego and what makes him feel good.
I've worked with so many blokes like that over the years and without exception, they are always under the thumb at home and aren't allowed to speak unless spoken too.
Meet them in person, with their wives and you wouldn't recognise them!
Pat
|
"He wants a reaction, if he isn't getting one he'll go elsewhere to get one because it's what he does, what feeds his ego and what makes him feel good."
Pat calling the kettle black methinks.
|
....and your point is what exactly Sherlock.
I don't post for a reaction, other than to defend myself when someone deliberately tries to twist my words.
I have never tolerated that and don't intend to start now.
I'm mindful of the fact Hard Cheese hasn't posted on these forums for some time.
He's now returned and given it another chance but he's also stated that 'this sort of thing' is why he stopped posting before.
Mark's attack on FP last night was unfair, unnecessary and impolite and effectively stopped quite a lot from bothering to post anything on the forum at all when I looked in at 01.30 today.
So a very good post by Hard Cheese had gone to pot and we all can see why......is that fair, encouraging or is it easier just to walk away again?
Please do give me your opinions on how you think it should be dealt with.
Pat
|
Another thing that we as a collective needs to stop (I'll not name names) is the out of the blue, uncalled for attacks on other members. Maybe there's history between the posters but why the nastiness.
I can give some recent examples but I'm sure the regulars know the sort of thing.
|
Exactly CG, but why stop posting altogether?
Why not carry on posting on that thread and others and just totally igore the trolling?
But that doesn't happen.
Everyone seems to walk away and go quiet because they fear they will be the next target and that makes the forum not a nice place to be.
Pat
|
The internet is unfortunately full of keyboard warriors who gain courage from anonymity and distance and behave in a way that would land them a spell in hospital if they did it to random strangers in person. This forum is no worse than most.
If you wouldn't say it to someone's face (honestly), don't post it.
|
|
Yes, why not but you seem compelled to keep responding. The exchanges are quite frankly tedious and repetitive. I know it can be difficult but at the end of the day it's better to just walk away.
|
>>but at the end of the day it's better to just walk away.<<
CG, I take your point but had I have just walked away from such knock backs 30 odd years ago I would never have had such a brilliant career as a lorry driver which I loved.
Why let others spoil your life?
Pat
|
|
Sometimes it's worth arguing,: sometimes it's not. The secret is to know when.
|
>>The secret is to know when.
>>
The real secret is to act in accordance with that knowledge........
|
How sad, same ol' same ol'.
|
>> At the end of the day :-) - what's so terribly wrong about offending people?
>>
>>
It is all about degrees and meaning. Calling someone an a*** or an idiot is probably fine* but calling a black person "n*****", a Jewish person "spick" or "y**" or a Pakistani person Paki because you hate people of different races isn't.
*Except that repeated name calling can become bullying. Not everyone has the character to stand up to bullies and the consequences can be truly dreadful: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/polish-girl-16-found-dead-at-school-after-complaints-of-racist-b/
Where does the right to free speech end. For example, I think Charlie Gard should be given all the treatment he needs, but the sick prats that are sending hate messages and death threats to the staff at GOS should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 23 Jul 17 at 11:17
|
>> It is all about degrees and meaning. Calling someone an a*** or an idiot is
>> probably fine* but calling a black person "n*****", a Jewish person "spick" or "y**" or
>> a Pakistani person Paki because you hate people of different races isn't.
"Spick" is not a term of racial abuse against Jews, its a word used in the Hispanic, Spanish or Latin American context.
Interestingly that brings us on to the term Four by Two. (forbetwo in the cockney vernacular). Is it a racial slur against Jews, or merely slang. I would contend the later as east enders have traditionally had a sizeable and socioeconomically active jewish population.
But like all of these things, its the recipient that decides. I'll ask a jewish mate of mine what he thinks.
|
>>But like all of these things, its the recipient that decides.
True.
|
">> >>But like all of these things, its the recipient that decides.
>>
>> True.
>>
But so often not true. People get wound up on other's behalf. The "recipient" sometimes has little say (and sometimes little interest) in what's being argued for on their behalf.
|
Is the world becoming to PC? - sooty123
