Egg On Face

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Of course the whole monkey thing carries greater connotations for black people, as do racial insults more generally. To claim that 'honky', especially in England, has racist baggage attached to it in the same way as other words which will remain unwritten just isn't true.

John Barnes and other black players used to have bananas thrown at them; Gareth Bale might look like an ape and even might have had a couple of yellow bendy ones thrown at him but there really is no comparison.

Now, I don't think RH was being racist, sub-consciously or otherwise, but it's quite easy to how a comment/joke like that could be misconstrued.
 
I heard Peter Herbert from the Society of Black Lawyers saying that it was unacceptable that the FA have made a decision so quickly as it dosen't matter whether Townsend wasn't offended, it was about all the people outside football that have been offended by it. No doubt he and his learned colleagues can hear the kerching of legal fees if they can keep this one going...
 
What is happening now in this country, and elsewhere, is a softly, softly creep towards our own version of an Iron Curtain (not so) secret police state. Except, where they had the Stasi, we have agents of Political Correctness that have sadly spread their net so wide across the whole of our society, vociferously sniffing out thought crimes, taking offence on behalf of others that were not offended (but, in their view, should have been) and hounding generally innocent individuals out of their jobs, careers or sometimes their liberty for what they didn't say or didn't mean.

Of course racialism is wrong. Of course homophobia is wrong. Of course any other form of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, colour or creed is wrong. But these agents of PC, in their zeal, will ultimately damage the very causes they feel they are serving through their own bigoted intolerance of others and refusal to accept that any behaviour is acceptable other than their own, if they haven't already.

It is of little surprise to me to see a resurgence of so-called Far Right organisations, as such things thrive in environments where more tolerant attitudes and legitimate concerns are not permitted a voice.

The hounding of Roy Hodgson is frankly but one example of the PC Stasi expressing outrage disproportionate to what has actually taken place. Members of this Stasi will not rest until somebody is (metaphorically) hanged for this.

Pay attention and be afraid.
 
...and yet today, in what could be seen as an anti Islamic action, a school has been severely bollocked for its impositions on women teachers and girl students. And for being crap of course. Its not all one way traffic. Those who make a living out of political correctness should not be trusted, and that goes for zealots of all kinds but the overall impact of greater awareness of diversity and at least a little more sensitivity to avoiding causing offence has to be a very good thing.

Totally agree that the Society of Black lawyers or whatever aren't helping anyone, but are their idiotic statements somehow giving permission for us to return to the ignorance of the behaviour and language of the sixties and seventies? I think not, but some may use this as an excuse.

PC Stasi? These are fringe groups with the ability to play the media. The interpretation of what is offensive is hugely subjective and the levels of tolerance seem to be calibrated on a very broad scale. All I know is that I don't feel oppressed or constrained at all - to attack or mock people on the basis of their genetic inheritance, even as a 'joke', is pure ignorance, and usually born out of fear of some kind. To do the same on the basis of their beliefs or attitudes is, in my view, sometimes an obligation. Roy Hodgson was doing neither, just referring to a joke so old that his audience would have had no idea what he was on about - and simply because of this it required an explanation.

I had some good discussions with Brix on this. I think we fundamentally agreed, but in the context of this board he wanted to include political and religious beliefs in with race, sex etc in the rules as areas to avoid, which is fair enough.

This thread had a legitimate start and has some interesting posts. But probably run its course.

Pay attention - absolutely. Be afraid? I prefer to be engaged.
 
sb_73 said:
...and yet today, in what could be seen as an anti Islamic action, a school has been severely bollocked for its impositions on women teachers and girl students. And for being crap of course. Its not all one way traffic. Those who make a living out of political correctness should not be trusted, and that goes for zealots of all kinds but the overall impact of greater awareness of diversity and at least a little more sensitivity to avoiding causing offence has to be a very good thing.

Totally agree that the Society of Black lawyers or whatever aren't helping anyone, but are their idiotic statements somehow giving permission for us to return to the ignorance of the behaviour and language of the sixties and seventies? I think not, but some may use this as an excuse.

PC Stasi? These are fringe groups with the ability to play the media. The interpretation of what is offensive is hugely subjective and the levels of tolerance seem to be calibrated on a very broad scale. All I know is that I don't feel oppressed or constrained at all - to attack or mock people on the basis of their genetic inheritance, even as a 'joke', is pure ignorance, and usually born out of fear of some kind. To do the same on the basis of their beliefs or attitudes is, in my view, sometimes an obligation. Roy Hodgson was doing neither, just referring to a joke so old that his audience would have had no idea what he was on about - and simply because of this it required an explanation.

I had some good discussions with Brix on this. I think we fundamentally agreed, but in the context of this board he wanted to include political and religious beliefs in with race, sex etc in the rules as areas to avoid, which is fair enough.

This thread had a legitimate start and has some interesting posts. But probably run its course.

Pay attention - absolutely. Be afraid? I prefer to be engaged.
Click to expand...

Bravo.

Political correctness - as it has come to be known - is just a general acceptance that it is wrong to discriminate or use derogatory terms based on race, sexual inclination, hair colour or any other distinction. That seems to me be a big step forward. Why is the term used so sneeringly?
 
For many years anyone who dared question Labour's immigration policy was automatically labelled racist, even those who gave well-reasoned arguments. This has now been acknowledged even by their current leaders. The same sort of hysteria is being enacted now with every high-profile 'gaffe' or insult being forensically examined by all the usual suspects with vested interests and talking of 'education' being needed for the perpetrators.

The worst aspect of this sorry saga is that the complainant has remained anonymous and didn't have the 'cojones' to confront Hodgson if he really was that offended. No doubt the press will eventually hunt him down and hang him out to dry when, in reality, if he had just held his hand up when Hodgson 'offended' him and said, "Sorry boss, but I think that's offensive", he would probably have got an immediate apology and that would have been that. This smacks of an individual acting out of spite and knowing the controversy it would cause rather than someone who has a genuine beef about what was a very poor judgement by Hodgson...
 
sb_73 said:
...and yet today, in what could be seen as an anti Islamic action, a school has been severely bollocked for its impositions on women teachers and girl students. And for being crap of course. Its not all one way traffic. Those who make a living out of political correctness should not be trusted, and that goes for zealots of all kinds but the overall impact of greater awareness of diversity and at least a little more sensitivity to avoiding causing offence has to be a very good thing.

Totally agree that the Society of Black lawyers or whatever aren't helping anyone, but are their idiotic statements somehow giving permission for us to return to the ignorance of the behaviour and language of the sixties and seventies? I think not, but some may use this as an excuse.

PC Stasi? These are fringe groups with the ability to play the media. The interpretation of what is offensive is hugely subjective and the levels of tolerance seem to be calibrated on a very broad scale. All I know is that I don't feel oppressed or constrained at all - to attack or mock people on the basis of their genetic inheritance, even as a 'joke', is pure ignorance, and usually born out of fear of some kind. To do the same on the basis of their beliefs or attitudes is, in my view, sometimes an obligation. Roy Hodgson was doing neither, just referring to a joke so old that his audience would have had no idea what he was on about - and simply because of this it required an explanation.

I had some good discussions with Brix on this. I think we fundamentally agreed, but in the context of this board he wanted to include political and religious beliefs in with race, sex etc in the rules as areas to avoid, which is fair enough.

This thread had a legitimate start and has some interesting posts. But probably run its course.

Pay attention - absolutely. Be afraid? I prefer to be engaged.
Click to expand...

Great response, Stan. Looks like we generally agree in most of the areas that matter. As for the areas where we don't, I guess only time will tell. We can only base our opinions on what we know, what we have seen and what we feel; the latter may give us cause to interpret things differently, but doesn't make me always wrong, or you always right.

I agree the thread has probably run it's course. Let's talk about boobs.
 
Uber_Hoop said:
Great response, Stan. Looks like we generally agree in most of the areas that matter. As for the areas where we don't, I guess only time will tell. We can only base our opinions on what we know, what we have seen and what we feel; the latter may give us cause to interpret things differently, but doesn't make me always wrong, or you always right.

I agree the thread has probably run it's course. Let's talk about boobs.
Click to expand...

If I were always right Ubes, it would be ****ing boring. But don't tell my kids.
 
sb_73 said:
...Pay attention - absolutely. Be afraid? I prefer to be engaged.
Click to expand...

Stan, you truly are a very wise man.....

All I can say I do not think I am a racist, but I am of an older generation...and along time ago was a different country. I remember reading a book about Walt Disney bring a misogynist. Today he was/is...but back then he was acting out the acceptable behaviour of the current times, he was no different to 90% of everyone else. It does not condones his behaviour but explains it a little.

I do not think I was a racist, but I had a golliwog..who I loved..I did not know what it was meant to represent, but it was cuddly and had a great smile, and made me feel better when I was down. I still love golly, it represents nothing...but my childhood.

I had a monkey too...it represented nothing but a pressie my mum bought me for Christmas....not as good as golly, because its arms were stiff, but still it represents my childhood

What I am trying to say...it is not the joke, the name, the tag, that is wrong...... but how it is truly meant.

If i call some a bad name...I hope it is because, that is what I think/believe at that time...and is nothing to do with any preconceived ideas.
It is only what they have made me feel/react.
 
sb_73 said:
...and yet today, in what could be seen as an anti Islamic action, a school has been severely bollocked for its impositions on women teachers and girl students. And for being crap of course. Its not all one way traffic. Those who make a living out of political correctness should not be trusted, and that goes for zealots of all kinds but the overall impact of greater awareness of diversity and at least a little more sensitivity to avoiding causing offence has to be a very good thing.

Totally agree that the Society of Black lawyers or whatever aren't helping anyone, but are their idiotic statements somehow giving permission for us to return to the ignorance of the behaviour and language of the sixties and seventies? I think not, but some may use this as an excuse.

PC Stasi? These are fringe groups with the ability to play the media. The interpretation of what is offensive is hugely subjective and the levels of tolerance seem to be calibrated on a very broad scale. All I know is that I don't feel oppressed or constrained at all - to attack or mock people on the basis of their genetic inheritance, even as a 'joke', is pure ignorance, and usually born out of fear of some kind. To do the same on the basis of their beliefs or attitudes is, in my view, sometimes an obligation. Roy Hodgson was doing neither, just referring to a joke so old that his audience would have had no idea what he was on about - and simply because of this it required an explanation.

I had some good discussions with Brix on this. I think we fundamentally agreed, but in the context of this board he wanted to include political and religious beliefs in with race, sex etc in the rules as areas to avoid, which is fair enough.

This thread had a legitimate start and has some interesting posts. But probably run its course.

Pay attention - absolutely. Be afraid? I prefer to be engaged.
Click to expand...

groups like The Society of Black lawyers should be banned
they call BNP racist, but they are probably more racist without realising it
 
Uber_Hoop said:
What is happening now in this country, and elsewhere, is a softly, softly creep towards our own version of an Iron Curtain (not so) secret police state. Except, where they had the Stasi, we have agents of Political Correctness that have sadly spread their net so wide across the whole of our society, vociferously sniffing out thought crimes, taking offence on behalf of others that were not offended (but, in their view, should have been) and hounding generally innocent individuals out of their jobs, careers or sometimes their liberty for what they didn't say or didn't mean.

Of course racialism is wrong. Of course homophobia is wrong. Of course any other form of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, colour or creed is wrong. But these agents of PC, in their zeal, will ultimately damage the very causes they feel they are serving through their own bigoted intolerance of others and refusal to accept that any behaviour is acceptable other than their own, if they haven't already.

It is of little surprise to me to see a resurgence of so-called Far Right organisations, as such things thrive in environments where more tolerant attitudes and legitimate concerns are not permitted a voice.

The hounding of Roy Hodgson is frankly but one example of the PC Stasi expressing outrage disproportionate to what has actually taken place. Members of this Stasi will not rest until somebody is (metaphorically) hanged for this.

Pay attention and be afraid.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back