Man blacks up as Diane Abbott at the darts.Racist?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Man blacks up as Diane Abbott at the darts.Racist?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 14 of 17 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Beanyboysmd 19 Dec 17 10.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That is total crap. It is only racially sensitive if you are too sensitive. We dont decide what other people find offencive, thats literally the point here! We dont let bullys decide what counts as bullying andthe person being racially insesitive does not get to decide who is being sensitive. Any reasonable person would say it was insensitive. But even unreasonable people know that, they just dont want to admit it...
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

19 Dec 17 10.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is total crap. It is only racially sensitive if you are too sensitive.

We dont decide what other people find offencive, thats literally the point here! We dont let bullys decide what counts as bullying andthe person being racially insesitive does not get to decide who is being sensitive. Any reasonable person would say it was insensitive. But even unreasonable people know that, they just dont want to admit it...

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 19 Dec 17 10.20pm
Originally posted by npn White Chicks is, of course, an offence to cinema. I live in this cloud cuckoo land where someone's intent is far more important to me than what they say or do - in this case, the joke was on Abbott's inability to count, not on her race (or gender for that matter) so I don't find it offensive. I was escorted from the dancefloor at my mate's wedding by his brothers (all black) "because nobody wants to see a white bloke embarrassing himself by trying to dance" - it was funny and, again, not in the least offensive. My mum still refers to black people as "coloureds" because that was the polite way to refer to them in her day - some people now find that offensive, but it's just an elderly woman trying to do the right thing. If I actually offend you in anything I say, that's regrettable, and I'll likely apologise profusely, and mean it. If you choose to be offended by something I say, that's your problem not mine. The history thing is interesting and I'll have to look into it, because I don't really know much about the history of blackface aside from Morris dancing (fine and nothing to do with race) and the black and white minstrels (awful) Your mum is making an effort to not be racist and that is totally fine, again any reasonable person would say that there is nothing racist about an older lady using a slightly out of date term. As I said before, I dont think there was any racist intent on the Dianne Abbott thing, but you just cant black up anymore. People will argue it for the sake of it to try and score points against the PC brigade, but we are not the ones getting hurt by someone blacking up, our black friends and neighbours are. Especially the older ones, they have gone through enough crap in the past without having it thrown back in their face again...
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

19 Dec 17 10.20pm

Originally posted by npn

White Chicks is, of course, an offence to cinema.

I live in this cloud cuckoo land where someone's intent is far more important to me than what they say or do - in this case, the joke was on Abbott's inability to count, not on her race (or gender for that matter) so I don't find it offensive. I was escorted from the dancefloor at my mate's wedding by his brothers (all black) "because nobody wants to see a white bloke embarrassing himself by trying to dance" - it was funny and, again, not in the least offensive. My mum still refers to black people as "coloureds" because that was the polite way to refer to them in her day - some people now find that offensive, but it's just an elderly woman trying to do the right thing.

If I actually offend you in anything I say, that's regrettable, and I'll likely apologise profusely, and mean it. If you choose to be offended by something I say, that's your problem not mine.

The history thing is interesting and I'll have to look into it, because I don't really know much about the history of blackface aside from Morris dancing (fine and nothing to do with race) and the black and white minstrels (awful)

Your mum is making an effort to not be racist and that is totally fine, again any reasonable person would say that there is nothing racist about an older lady using a slightly out of date term.
As I said before, I dont think there was any racist intent on the Dianne Abbott thing, but you just cant black up anymore. People will argue it for the sake of it to try and score points against the PC brigade, but we are not the ones getting hurt by someone blacking up, our black friends and neighbours are. Especially the older ones, they have gone through enough crap in the past without having it thrown back in their face again...

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 19 Dec 17 10.22pm
While the golly was historically a mischievous fictional character I was unaware that blackface of old was intentionally or otherwise a denigratory stage and screen portrayal. The most recent (formerly) acceptable usage was still half a century ago and nothing of the sort, so the idea that pretending to be someone else, merely with the same makeup technique is offensive is lost on me, to be perfectly honest. If someone comes up with a suitable analogue using alternative races and methods of impersonation I may rethink. Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 10.23pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

19 Dec 17 10.22pm

While the golly was historically a mischievous fictional character I was unaware that blackface of old was intentionally or otherwise a denigratory stage and screen portrayal. The most recent (formerly) acceptable usage was still half a century ago and nothing of the sort, so the idea that pretending to be someone else, merely with the same makeup technique is offensive is lost on me, to be perfectly honest. If someone comes up with a suitable analogue using alternative races and methods of impersonation I may rethink.

Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 10.23pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 19 Dec 17 10.23pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle One can even argue about whether or not darts can be construed as a sport I feel ignorant that I feel qualified to have an opinion on blacking up, but on the fence about whether you can call darts a sport!
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

19 Dec 17 10.23pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

One can even argue about whether or not darts can be construed as a sport

I feel ignorant that I feel qualified to have an opinion on blacking up, but on the fence about whether you can call darts a sport!

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 19 Dec 17 10.24pm
Heard a song today called Dance Like a White Chick. Only offensive to me in light of the prohibition of all other racial stereotypes. The ironic notion that was presented to me recently in the context of Lukaku chants, was that it was racist because it was inaccurate in same sense that it would be racist to say all Kenyans are good long distance runners, because in fact it's only a particular village that produces these athletes. Still, a better argument than that it's racist because it's correct, which is how most generalisations operate. Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 10.30pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

19 Dec 17 10.24pm

Heard a song today called Dance Like a White Chick. Only offensive to me in light of the prohibition of all other racial stereotypes. The ironic notion that was presented to me recently in the context of Lukaku chants, was that it was racist because it was inaccurate in same sense that it would be racist to say all Kenyans are good long distance runners, because in fact it's only a particular village that produces these athletes. Still, a better argument than that it's racist because it's correct, which is how most generalisations operate.

Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 10.30pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Dec 17 10.34pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I'm not unsympathetic to this view.....however, just as long as I can do 'sh1ts and giggles' without a copper knocking at my door I think the balance is alright.....Just like a person who tells a sick joke....tell them what you think but that's about it. I can't help thinking about the Mohammad cartoons in relation to this.......Even I as a critic of Islam feel no need to upset people by drawing a picture of their 'perfect man'. It's a puerile action....I prefer to criticise the actual ideas within the religion itself. However, when people go beyond that and say causing offence to others means that your action deserves you being punished by some enforcement arm.......That's when I want to raise my middle finger. Thankfully most on here are saying that actions like 'black face' are worthy of criticism due to insensitivity.....well, that's fair enough. I reserve the right to be offensive to one or many people. Just as I back the right of those cartoonists to draw whatever the feck they wanted. I just don't personally have the desire to upset random people who aren't engaged in the argument.....but secularism is also about protecting the freedom to offend, to mock and so on. However....I note just how quickly in reality that the secular west virtue signalled over those deaths and then abandoned the concept......they won't publish anything.....I mean....none of them will. Just like when the IRA bombed London.....fine words until the elites themselves get scared. Then we find out that those with real money and power are prepared to give away mostly anything rather than deal when sh1t gets real. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2017 3.33pm) Pretty much agree with you here - definately not a police matter, and unless its something meant to be inciteful of hate, it never should be. The cartoon thing, maybe is a police matter, because a) the people publishing them did know the kind of reaction it would get and b) people died as a result c) often they serve no real artistic or journalistic value. That said, the likes of Charlie Hebbdo used images of the prophet in criticism of the use of terrorism, and I think that made them more viable as a target - Its noteworthy that they were attacked, because their depication of the Prophet Mohammed presented the idea that the prophet was ashamed of such action. Far more insulting works were ignored. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Dec 17 10.34pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not unsympathetic to this view.....however, just as long as I can do 'sh1ts and giggles' without a copper knocking at my door I think the balance is alright.....Just like a person who tells a sick joke....tell them what you think but that's about it.

I can't help thinking about the Mohammad cartoons in relation to this.......Even I as a critic of Islam feel no need to upset people by drawing a picture of their 'perfect man'. It's a puerile action....I prefer to criticise the actual ideas within the religion itself.

However, when people go beyond that and say causing offence to others means that your action deserves you being punished by some enforcement arm.......That's when I want to raise my middle finger.

Thankfully most on here are saying that actions like 'black face' are worthy of criticism due to insensitivity.....well, that's fair enough.

I reserve the right to be offensive to one or many people. Just as I back the right of those cartoonists to draw whatever the feck they wanted. I just don't personally have the desire to upset random people who aren't engaged in the argument.....but secularism is also about protecting the freedom to offend, to mock and so on.

However....I note just how quickly in reality that the secular west virtue signalled over those deaths and then abandoned the concept......they won't publish anything.....I mean....none of them will.

Just like when the IRA bombed London.....fine words until the elites themselves get scared. Then we find out that those with real money and power are prepared to give away mostly anything rather than deal when sh1t gets real.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2017 3.33pm)

Pretty much agree with you here - definately not a police matter, and unless its something meant to be inciteful of hate, it never should be. The cartoon thing, maybe is a police matter, because a) the people publishing them did know the kind of reaction it would get and b) people died as a result c) often they serve no real artistic or journalistic value.

That said, the likes of Charlie Hebbdo used images of the prophet in criticism of the use of terrorism, and I think that made them more viable as a target - Its noteworthy that they were attacked, because their depication of the Prophet Mohammed presented the idea that the prophet was ashamed of such action. Far more insulting works were ignored.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Dec 17 10.36pm
Originally posted by Beanyboysmd Your mum is making an effort to not be racist and that is totally fine, again any reasonable person would say that there is nothing racist about an older lady using a slightly out of date term. As I said before, I dont think there was any racist intent on the Dianne Abbott thing, but you just cant black up anymore. People will argue it for the sake of it to try and score points against the PC brigade, but we are not the ones getting hurt by someone blacking up, our black friends and neighbours are. Especially the older ones, they have gone through enough crap in the past without having it thrown back in their face again... I dunno, a friend of mine blacked up as Mr T repleate with Snickers bars for a stag do. We ended up at the After Dark club, which is mostly staffed by black guys who loved it. Most of the complaints were from white people. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Dec 17 10.36pm

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

I dunno, a friend of mine blacked up as Mr T repleate with Snickers bars for a stag do. We ended up at the After Dark club, which is mostly staffed by black guys who loved it. Most of the complaints were from white people.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

wwarr009 19 Dec 17 10.59pm
I always found Micheal Jackson to be some what rude for whiting up Beans beans there good for your heart, the more you eat the more you fart, the more you fart the more you eat the more you sit on the toilet seat
Alert a moderator to this post

wwarr009

19 Dec 17 10.59pm

I always found Micheal Jackson to be some what rude for whiting up

Beans beans there good for your heart, the more you eat the more you fart, the more you fart the more you eat the more you sit on the toilet seat

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 19 Dec 17 11.31pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I dunno, a friend of mine blacked up as Mr T repleate with Snickers bars for a stag do. We ended up at the After Dark club, which is mostly staffed by black guys who loved it. Most of the complaints were from white people. Maybe there should be exemptions for this and other costumes such as this, the Jamaican bobsleigh team and kids dressing up as their heroes. When MPs object on the grounds that there are many other costume ideas, I'd say they're the ones running out of ideas. Surely you can't dwell on historic misuse of style when people want to use it to show respect and admiration for a figure. Not that I'd argue for the Aussie kid being able to dress up as his favourite rugby player and against the mocking of Diane Abbott, cos she's an awful cnut on par with the white cnuts on the shadow cabinet. The possibly more pertinent angle is that "colour isn't a costume" but that falls in to the realm of 'white privilege' which I also take issue with. It's not as if people don't regular lighten their skin as a beauty statement. Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 11.37pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

19 Dec 17 11.31pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Maybe there should be exemptions for this and other costumes such as this, the Jamaican bobsleigh team and kids dressing up as their heroes.

When MPs object on the grounds that there are many other costume ideas, I'd say they're the ones running out of ideas. Surely you can't dwell on historic misuse of style when people want to use it to show respect and admiration for a figure. Not that I'd argue for the Aussie kid being able to dress up as his favourite rugby player and against the mocking of Diane Abbott, cos she's an awful cnut on par with the white cnuts on the shadow cabinet.

The possibly more pertinent angle is that "colour isn't a costume" but that falls in to the realm of 'white privilege' which I also take issue with. It's not as if people don't regular lighten their skin as a beauty statement.

Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 11.37pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 19 Dec 17 11.38pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger And when will this honeymoon period of using history as a reason to be especially offended end? People have been abused by other people throughout history, Black, White, Asian, Chinese etc etc. Had it occured to you that getting over it might be the way forward? Yes absolutely getting over it is the way forward! I think in about 2 generations we should be at the point where oppression of minorities will be firmly in the past. Both sides should and will be able to look back at it and nobody alive would have been around to see the awful stuff. Im proper looking forward to it...in the meantime, dont do blackface...
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

19 Dec 17 11.38pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

And when will this honeymoon period of using history as a reason to be especially offended end?

People have been abused by other people throughout history, Black, White, Asian, Chinese etc etc.

Had it occured to you that getting over it might be the way forward?

Yes absolutely getting over it is the way forward! I think in about 2 generations we should be at the point where oppression of minorities will be firmly in the past. Both sides should and will be able to look back at it and nobody alive would have been around to see the awful stuff. Im proper looking forward to it...in the meantime, dont do blackface...

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 19 Dec 17 11.44pm
Originally posted by johnfirewall Maybe there should be exemptions for this and other costumes such as this, the Jamaican bobsleigh team and kids dressing up as their heroes. When MPs object on the grounds that there are many other costume ideas, I'd say they're the ones running out of ideas. Surely you can't dwell on historic misuse of style when people want to use it to show respect and admiration for a figure. Not that I'd argue for the Aussie kid being able to dress up as his favourite rugby player and against the mocking of Diane Abbott, cos she's an awful cnut on par with the white cnuts on the shadow cabinet. The possibly more pertinent angle is that "colour isn't a costume" but that falls in to the realm of 'white privilege' which I also take issue with. It's not as if people don't regular lighten their skin as a beauty statement. Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 11.37pm) Now objecting to the dressing up as anotherculture (or cultural appropriation) really is subjective, if its to take the piss, its probably kinda wrong, if its a tribute or just because you like it, I think its fine. This is one of the areas where I think the 'pc brigade' have got it wrong. If its a tribute to someone then there is no problem. If you are dressing in chinese clothes because you like them its fine, if you are dressing in chinese clothes because it makes your 'Ching chong chinaman'impression funnier, its probably wrong...
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

19 Dec 17 11.44pm

Originally posted by johnfirewall

Maybe there should be exemptions for this and other costumes such as this, the Jamaican bobsleigh team and kids dressing up as their heroes.

Edited by johnfirewall (19 Dec 2017 11.37pm)

Now objecting to the dressing up as anotherculture (or cultural appropriation) really is subjective, if its to take the piss, its probably kinda wrong, if its a tribute or just because you like it, I think its fine. This is one of the areas where I think the 'pc brigade' have got it wrong. If its a tribute to someone then there is no problem. If you are dressing in chinese clothes because you like them its fine, if you are dressing in chinese clothes because it makes your 'Ching chong chinaman'impression funnier, its probably wrong...

Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles 19 Dec 17 11.45pm
There's bullies on both side of this argument and their's people who love to jump on any minor slip just to make themselves feel better. In the end it's intention that matters, and if we can't have open frank conversation about what divides us, how can we bring everyone closer together? Having said that Diane Abbott is a hypocritical, racist, innumerate idiot.
Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles

19 Dec 17 11.45pm

There's bullies on both side of this argument and their's people who love to jump on any minor slip just to make themselves feel better.

In the end it's intention that matters, and if we can't have open frank conversation about what divides us, how can we bring everyone closer together?

Having said that Diane Abbott is a hypocritical, racist, innumerate idiot.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 14 of 17 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Man blacks up as Diane Abbott at the darts.Racist?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors