You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Both it and Gammons are unhelpful though really, once you start down the path of this sort of abuse, its becomes increasingly easier to “other” people with different political belief’s to you.
Worth remembering next time we all get dragged down to their level
So we have a perfect little echo chamber going on ourselves 🙂
The point they made about the "old internet" eg forums and bulletin boards really rang true. This place is an echo chamber, but that's why its fun to spend time on it and contribute to it.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours. The algorithm then feeds you those because anger is good for engagement, even if its ultimately really bad for your mental health.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours. The algorithm then feeds you those because anger is good for engagement, even if its ultimately really bad for your mental health.
Yep, I had to quit facebook for this reason, and even on here there are threads I have to drag myself away from.
In real life, I despise conflict and avoid it to an unhealthy degree, but on the internet I find it very hard to walk away from an argument even when it's glaringly obvious how s**ty it's making me feel.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours.
Only if you go looking for it. It's readily avoidable, even in post-Muskrat days. Curate your feed with people you like and don't read the comments.
Yep, I had to quit facebook for this reason
As above really. I don't see this on Facebook, at all, aside from ill-moderated groups which I've long since flounced from. This was in fact a key component in the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal; the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it, those who might object never saw the propaganda and so didn't even know to protest until it was too late.
This is a snapshot of what Leave.EU was sending as targeted posts. Did you see it? I didn't. If you did then that rather raises questions as to why the algorithms thought you might be a receptive audience.
(use of "you" is generic here, not aimed at any individuals)
The idea of some equivalence between the far right and the far left is just a fantasy, the far left doesn’t exist in any real way, other than a lie to portray an imaginary ideological battle.
Pointed this out years ago when someone was going on about rabid left wingers. It's ironic most western governments view right wing groups/individuals as the largest domestic terrorist threat. In the US they are organised, heavily armed, backed-up by certain professions, prominent politicians and the mainstream media.
I'd go further. In the last 15 years there has been a concerted effort to stamp out any remotely left leaning discourse in the public domain.
Not read the whole thread but surely snowflake is the opposite of gammon in the UK. Seems to be the go to term for anyone expressing remotely leftist views.
Dunno, Snowflake is more of a projection with right wingers, Trump being an arch snowflake at times.
the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it,
It was and still is cleverer than that, it starts by targeting pretty innocuously, maybe some slightly credible stories about "EU are ruining bicycles with X legislation" and it drags the victims in just nudging them along to more hateful topics. It is dangerous to be smug about the impact and believe that it is only other people who are stupid and/or vulnerable people that can be ensnared.
As above really. I don’t see this on Facebook, at all, aside from ill-moderated groups which I’ve long since flounced from. This was in fact a key component in the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal; the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it, those who might object never saw the propaganda and so didn’t even know to protest until it was too late.
This is a snapshot of what Leave.EU was sending as targeted posts. Did you see it? I didn’t. If you did then that rather raises questions as to why the algorithms thought you might be a receptive audience.
I've never had that sort of stuff on my feed. What tipped me into quitting facebook was the amount of anti-cycling stuff I was seeing. I went through a period of feeling increasingly unsafe on the roads, which was partly due to a couple of cm-close incidents from drivers that were pretty much aiming their cars at me, but at some point I realised facebook was probably the bigger factor in my heightened anxiety.
The other issue for me is that I do like using the internet as an opportunity to learn about people and views that I amost never encounter in real life, so my youtube feed, for example, is often an incoherent mess.
I'd like to ask if the term 'gammon' could be seen as a 'racial' insult. It appears to refer only to older white men, and I believe possibly originated with Dickens, so has been around for a fair while. So is it one of those things that is ok to say if you're white yourself, or is there no such concern? I have seen one or two people who might themselves be described thus, suggesting that it's 'racist'. I'm wondering if there is a genuine issue here, or if it's just them trying to cancel any criticism of their behaviour and attitudes. To me, 'gammon' identifies people like Nigel Farage, Jeremy Clarkson, Boris Johnson, Lawrence Fox etc. So, people who already hold reactionary insular and often racist views themselves, who feel that they are beyond scrutiny and criticism. Problem is that they all happen to be white, so that makes the use of the term somewhat problematic for me personally. Many white people I know, my wife included, don't see it like that, and see it more as a cultural descriptor rather than a racial one. IE you can be white, male, and suffer with high blood pressure, yet not hold such insular and offensive views. Ergo 'gammon' isn't a 'racist' term. It would be interesting to see what people on here think though.
@brownperson I don't see it as racist. I think it is perfectly possible, though perhaps less common for non white people to display 'gammon' tendencies. I don't like the term though because it's intended as an insult. I see it used regularly on here, along with terms like 'flag shagger' and I feel exactly the same towards their use as I do towards 'libtard', 'snowflake' etc. It's juvenile name calling. It's perfectly possible, and always more effective to be critical of the right (or left) without acting like the most obnoxious kid in the playground.
I’d like to ask if the term ‘gammon’ could be seen as a ‘racial’ insult.
I don't think so. I think it obviously started as referring to the colour of older white men's faces but now its a signifier of jingoism, stereotypically right wing views and an entitled attitude, and TBH they come in all shapes and sizes.
It would be interesting to see what people on here think though.
I would disagree that it's racist. It's a reference to going red with anger, a phenomenon I don't believe is the exclusive domain of old white men (though it is more pronounced on paler skin of course).
The fact that older white men seem to hold the majority is on them really. Race is an inherent trait, like sexuality and many others. Whereas one can stop being a gammon simply by calming the **** down and being nice to people.
it’s just them trying to cancel any criticism of their behaviour and attitudes.
Bingo.
It's not the predominantly "whiteness" of the term that is the issue, so I personally don't consider it a racial thing. Prominent members of the cabinet are not white but hold "gammon" type views.
It is, however, only ever used as an insult. If the only way you* can describe a person who you disagree with is by using an insult, it shows a failure on your part that makes me want to ignore everything else that comes out of your mouth. It shows that the plan to divide and conquer is working.
And yes, I have fallen into the trap of using it myself.
*you/your in the general sense, not picking up on any individuals in this discussion.
It is, however, only ever used as an insult. If the only way you* can describe a person who you disagree with is by using an insult, it shows a failure on your part that makes me want to ignore everything else that comes out of your mouth. It shows that the plan to divide and conquer is working.
👍 What I was trying to say, but said more eloquently!
Absolutely not racist. You can stop being a gammon instantly - it is an attitude, a choice.
Could be seen as ageist. Oddly there's a good number of young jingos about.
Thank you for your responses. I'm not going to assume everyone here is white, but I'll hazard a guess that most of you probably are, so it's reassuring to hear one 'group' at least denounce any notion of racism. I felt it was perhaps one of those problematic terms whose acceptability is dependent on the actors within a situation; another I feel is similar is 'coconut'. When said by someone of colour towards another person of similar colour, it has no racial element (ignoring its offensiveness in other regards for a moment). It's a political slur. 'Uncle Tom' was an expression popular amongst some black people I knew when I was growing up. Language is very powerful, and can be very harmful and damaging when used outside of a framework of 'acceptability'.
It is, however, only ever used as an insult. If the only way you* can describe a person who you disagree with is by using an insult, it shows a failure on your part that makes me want to ignore everything else that comes out of your mouth. It shows that the plan to divide and conquer is working.
Thank you, that is such a brilliant summary. I have used the expression myself, without considering it adequately. It's too easy to resort to angry attacks, much more difficult to address issues properly.
I’d like to ask if the term ‘gammon’ could be seen as a ‘racial’ insult. It appears to refer only to older white men, and I believe possibly originated with Dickens, so has been around for a fair while. So is it one of those things that is ok to say if you’re white yourself, or is there no such concern? I have seen one or two people who might themselves be described thus, suggesting that it’s ‘racist’.
Those claiming it's "Racist" are just playing Possum (IMO).
The term invokes quite a specific person in a single word and yes captures aspects of their white ethnicity, but puts you in mind of a ruddy faced, middle-aged, portly, balding, angry bloke, in a froth over whatever issues Farage and/or Yaxley Lennon are promoting this week. They have no problem pointing at other groups and making statements based on whatever characteristics they object to... They deserve no special treatment.
I remember when I first heard 'Gammon' used as a descriptor for a certain type of person, it needed no further explanation I knew who/what was being described...
Look at it this way, I'm white and middle-aged but I don't think the term 'Gammon' describes me, mainly because I'm not fuelled by rage and the idea that despite being quite a privileged demographic I'm under threat in some way from which ever marginalised group they're focussed on today.
It's concise and maybe a bit reductive, but what people who object to it probably hate the most is how on well it conjures up an image that isn't particularly inaccurate...
I'd (personally) disagree on the gammon referring to anything other than portly, middle aged, angry, white men. It's what I think of when the term comes up and because of that I do have to occasionally have a word with myself if I start getting annoyed - mostly at other people when driving.
It is however an attitude not a function of skin colour so that could transfer, even if it doesn't quite work if you don't go the colour of a roasted leg of pork.
Some interesting replies here.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned that I think could be relevant is outside forces trying to stir up division. I've heard talk of Russian and Chinese bot farms whose aim is just that. I have no idea if it's true or how big of a problem it might be but I do know that if my aim was to destroy 'the west' stirring the pot on social media would definitely help achieve that goal.
I do know that if my aim was to destroy ‘the west’ stirring the pot on social media would definitely help
Ah, so that's your plan!
I was wondering what you were up to Bill. Or should I say Vladimir?
It is however an attitude not a function of skin colour
For sure. But they so often do achieve that "I'm pink therefore I'm gam" perfect tone, and I don't know how I don't. I mean I'm sure I drink the requisite units of alcohol, I'm definitely old enough. I've soaked up enough sun, I'm fully capable of getting annoyed about stuff, would be if I focused.... Yeah, maybe it is a deeper cultural thing?
I mean I try to laugh but they've had the whip hand this last desperate few years.
I try to be a bit more traditional in my insults when they're required. I do have a few reserved for special cases, but the modern 'name-calling' is so passe.
It's why such lables are always problematic.
If you ask me two questions..
A) Should we have a police force? y/n I'd answer yes.
B) Should we have a free health service at the pont of contact, paid via general taxation? y/n I'd answer yes.
One of my answers is right wing/authoritarian, the other, Left and more liberal.
If we take the average of my answers, from a sample of one (me) ... it makes me a slap bang in the middle 'centrist'.
Of course that does not encompass my whole political opinion, and is a non-representative gross generalisation of my opinions...
..But we humans love to be able to pigeon hole!
Stick a nice neat label on it, and put it in a box, perfect!
A) Should we have a police force? y/n I’d answer yes.
What's right wing about that? Police keep things regulated including dealing with situations most of us would prefer to avoid. A well run society has rules that need enforcement, ideally by positive incentives to do the right thing but not everyone's gonna all the time. It's places like the US where the poor are left to self regulate (i.e. be at the mercy of gangsters), whilst the rich have their own gated communities and private security to keep things calm. That ain't left wing .
A counterpoint from Sonia Sodha:
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/30/rishi-sunak-politics-wretched-but-as-british-indian-i-see-why-his-rise-to-top-matters
I’m inclined to agree that associating a particular skin colour with a particular politics is a form of stereotyping. They’re hardly offensive terms, but all the same I wouldn’t feel comfortable using gammon or coconut to refer to a person.
What’s right wing about that?
It's right wing/authoritarian by its very nature.
That's not to say it's a bad thing assuming it's correctly regulated.
In an ideal world/society, a police force would be completely unnecessary, but people do steal, people do, do things to hurt or otherwise endanger others, so we need laws and legal systems, such as the police and the judiciary to try to control that, and try to discourage that sort of behaviour.
It's nessesary, IMO, but it's also right wing and autoritarian by its very nature.
Until recent years the authoritarian threat came from Labour, especially in its "new" guise. 3000 new criminal offences, ID cards (moot now), and indeterminate sentencing etc.
Corbyn is(was) actually, a text book right wing dictator.
We want freedom and socialism, but not the european kind, only my kind where I have total control is the best way!!
After saying 'no comment' for months, Then he 3-line whipped labour MP's into voting to enable article 50.
We can blame the tories all we want for brexit, but corbyn was also complicit in enabling it for his own personal (failed) agenda.
Until recent years the authoritarian threat came from Labour, especially in its “new” guise. 3000 new criminal offences, ID cards (moot now), and indeterminate sentencing
Absolutely. Included extensive and disturbing surveillance plans, carbon copies of American legislation under different titles and very loose use of powers related to terrorism, abused by councils/any public body to deal with minor matters.
Suppose that's what you get when coming from the legal profession. The we know best drive to micromanage the naughty plebs world.
It’s right wing/authoritarian by its very nature.
It is authoritarian by it's nature but if is not right or left wing. The laws the Police are upholding and the management/governance are right or left wing but the Police don't choose the laws and or the government.
Having no Police force is more Anarchism than left or right wing.
"Gammon" is clearly racial because it's aimed at a subset of a particular racial group. The stereotype just isn't black people. Braverman and Patel are not gammons, no matter what their views. But I don't think it is a racist term because it's not denigrating them because of their race. I don't think "they can just stop hating the EU" is really a sensible counterpoint.
I think the "coconut" insult is a bit more nuanced. As a white person, it's certainly not for me to use. It's also racial, clearly. In the context of the poster at the Palestine march: fwiw the sign strikes me as stupid and fatuous. But I don't think this is properly a matter for the police, nor the "from the river to the sea" chants, nor sectarian songs in Scotland - I think there needs to be a very high bar before police start criminalising political viewpoints. Even stupid ones.
I think the “coconut” insult is a bit more nuanced. As a white person, it’s certainly not for me to use. It’s also racial, clearly. In the context of the poster at the Palestine march: fwiw the sign strikes me as stupid and fatuous. But I don’t think this is properly a matter for the police, nor the “from the river to the sea” chants, nor sectarian songs in Scotland – I think there needs to be a very high bar before police start criminalising political viewpoints. Even stupid ones.
When the whole furore about the Rupa Hug comments exploded, I personally noticed that the only people that I saw criticising her, were white. Nobody of colour that I know, had a problem with her. I appreciate that's purely anecdotal, but that's the experience I have of the issue.
As for the term 'coconut'; again, in my own experience, it's not an issue for any person of colour I know. Yes, it's an insult, but as people have explained here about the term 'gammon', whilst it may indeed refer to a person's race/ethnicity in some regard, it isn't in itself 'racist', if used by a PoC towards another. Because there isn't the situation of power involved. It's more to for with the feeling that there should be a sense of solidarity between people, regarding a shared experience of prejudice. Which makes the actions of Patel and Braverman all the more reprehensible because there's a feeling that they more than others should be mindful of the harm they are causing, and also of the disrespect towards those who suffered injustice, particularly their own ancestors! I'm trying to steer away from using terms such as 'collaborators', but it definitely veers into that kind of territory for many of us. So I'm not finding the coconuts placard offensive; the actions that inspired the placard are the real offences.
Corbyn is(was) actually, a text book right wing dictator.
I've seen some strange things on the internet, that has to be right up there with the very best. <br /><br /><br />
“Gammon” is clearly racial because it’s aimed at a subset of a particular racial group.
Your logical fallacy is: begging the question.
If there were any brown people raging to the point of hysteria about a dozen blokes in a dinghy then they too would be gammons. Though they appear to be thin on the ground for some odd reason.
One cannot stop being white; to slur that would be racist. One can stop being angry; to slur that is (IMHO) to be commended.
Braverman and Patel are not gammons, no matter what their views.
True, but this is unrelated to their skin colour. Rather, they're not of the type to be seen in apoplectic rage.
As for the term ‘coconut’; again, in my own experience, it’s not an issue for any person of colour I know.
Honestly, it's not a term I've even heard since like the 1970s.
If there were any brown people raging to the point of hysteria about a dozen blokes in a dinghy then they too would be gammons. Though they appear to be thin on the ground for some odd reason.
The present government seems full of them. Right up to the office of prime minister.
Braverman and Patel are not gammons, no matter what their views.
True, but this is unrelated to their skin colour. Rather, they’re not of the type to be seen in apoplectic rage.
Are you seriously suggesting that you are unaware of Braverman's, in particular, rants concerning the small boats?
What pale-faced politician expresses greater rage?
Are you seriously suggesting that you are unaware of Braverman’s, in particular, rants concerning the small boats?
Gammon she is, in that case.
If we need a different word, perhaps Burgundy?
Since they come in all shades I find that "bigot" works for me.
If there were any brown people raging to the point of hysteria about a dozen blokes in a dinghy then they too would be gammons.
"Gammon" doesn't just mean "ranter" or even "racist": its meaning is much more than that. It's a stereotype of angry, middle aged, white, ineffectual or powerless British (or probably provincial English, really) men. Rees Mogg, Braverman, Cameron, Orban - none of them are gammons, whatever their political views.
And if you want to hear some ranting about Muslims, you'll hear just as many dodgy comments from British Hindus as British Gammons (if you really want to lead conversation down that route).
It's the same as "Karen" - it's not just a moaner, but a female, middle aged moaner with ideas above her station. The misogynistic aspect of "Karen" can't be stripped out any more than the racial aspect of Gammon can be.
A Libdem Councillor was successfully prosecuted for racial harassment for calling a political opponent "coconut" so it would seem there are plenty of people who think it is a racial slur - whatever it is deeply unpleasant.
so it would seem there are plenty of people who think it is a racial slur
Yeah but that was a snowflake Tory councillor who wept uncontrollably as she told a court how much it had upset her to be called a coconut.
Although she didn't actually hear the alledged insult, apparently, and had to rewind a webcast several times to be certain that she had been insulted.
Some of these soft Tory politicians need to grow a pair. It's tough in the rough and tumble of British politics.
It's not really the place for easily offended snowflakes.
A Libdem Councillor was successfully prosecuted for racial harassment
Yes and I think cases like that are very problematic. I think it's very difficult that the police are prosecuting people for political statements that are stupid and offensive but not violent. The police are not to be used as an etiquette squad. It's hard for me to judge, as the insult would not be aimed at me, but would it really cause "distress" or "alarm" in the legal sense?
And the fact that the offender was a BAME person themselves is typical of who ends up at the attention of the police and how the law ends up being enforced against the type of people you'd normally expect to be protected by it.
I also find such cases worrying, causing 'distress' or 'alarm' through words alone is quite vague and open to interpretation. Calling someone a coconut is definitely a dick move but I don't think they should be prosecuted for it. Same goes for calling someone a libtard or gammon.
Since they come in all shades I find that “bigot” works for me.
I think 'Bigot' is an underused term.
And I think this thread has brought me to the realisation that maybe we (I) just shouldn't use 'Gammon'; it's not that I see it as a racist term on par with the others mentioned. But the term describes someone who is a bigot, specifically someone who's bigotry is related to their ethnicity, at it's root is their 'whiteness' and the fear that the privilege which that skin tone once brought by default, is slipping away.
Using the term 'Gammon' does two things that undermine it's own intenet;
1 it lets the target(s) turn it around and cry 'racist' as the term does acknowledge their race as a component, essentially diverting any further discussions into "RW Snowflake" territory, letting them avoid any discussion of their behaviour...
2 the term is perhaps a bit light hearted and comical in nature and maybe serves to minimise the kind of behaviour that is actually being called out.
'Bigot' is a much better term to use when addressing people engaged in bigotry, so I'll stop using 'Gammon' once and for all...
If someone wants to call me a Libtard though, I'll wear it as a badge of honour 😉
The issue is that whatever term you choose you're causing conflict.
You're attacking the person, not the behaviour or the words and that is going to provoke a response, which if people were honest and stopped bullshitting themselves, that's what they want.
They've had an emotional response, amd are responding in kind.
It's why discourse is a mess as it's about point-scoring, not truly challenging the issue.
If someone wants to call me a Libtard though, I’ll wear it as a badge of honour 😉
I'm the same with 'woke'. How can a word that means you are aware of social justice issues be an insult or a bad thing?
I’m the same with ‘woke’. How can a word that means you are aware of social justice issues be an insult or a bad thing?
I guess because some have tried to hijack it as a pejorative. Which I think is unfair, those who are performative and full of shit should be called out for that, but I guess it serves a purpose to try and undermine those who genuinely care.
Connected to the clothing thread; all about signalling to your tribe innit.
Steve Albini
He has not exactly become mild-mannered with age – “However you define ‘woke,’ anti-woke means being a c who wants to indulge bigots,” he wrote recently – but these days he also says things like: “Life is hard on everybody and there’s no excuse for making it harder. I’ve got the easiest job on earth, I’m a straight white dude, f* me if I can’t make space for everybody else.”
Woke and proud.
The issue is that whatever term you choose you’re causing conflict.
And? Are we talking about people averse to conflict?
Bigotry should be tackled head on(IMO), putting your head down and letting bigots carry on is almost as good as patting them on the back.
We've seen it spill over from the internet to real life recently with Braverman's Brownshirts so embolded by rhetoric and online echo chambers that they went looking for a fight at the cenotaph.
I'll acknowledge nobody is ever perfect or free from bias, but those who choose to show their 'isms' out loud and proud in public should expect a bit of pushback and appropriate labelling, as should those who spout it online.
Not saying they don't get and shouldn't get pushback, but attacking the person changes nothing. If that's what you want then cool, go for it, I'm not adverse to a bit of character assassination myself, but I do so fully in the knowledge that I'm not going to change anything and all that will happen is an argument or withdrawal of the other individual.
The internet is the least likely place to effect change in people's beliefs. And those asshats dishonouring the cenotaph have always existed, the difference today is they have social media which helps them to mobilise more effectively rather than in smaller numbers than before. They're not more or less emboldened, just more connected.
I guess because some have tried to hijack it as a pejorative.
Agreed, but if I choose to take my meaning of it rather than their intent, smile and thank them for the compliment, it's pretty effective at deflating the bluster.
To be clear, it's a not word I actively use to describe my self. But if someone throws it at me because I (for example) challenge them for using a racial or misogynist slur, then I'm not going to get upset by it. Owning it undermines any power it has as a pejorative.
Aye, being mixed race most insults as an adult are very much like water off a ducks back.
There's very little that holds any meaning, speaks more to the character of individual, it's why I said I'm not opposed to a bit of character assassination, because sometimes that's all you've got as some people are clearly incapable of reasonable discussion or are simply mentally compromised so good faith discourse is pointless.
But, if they're open then I find name calling doesn't work. Having had to have a fair few discussions with peers & juniotlrs over the years about such topics it's been an education.
Brexit, the LGBTQ community and race have all been flashpoints in my career that I've had to deal with for context.
Your point reminds me of when the Army tried that with the 'snowflake' moniker in a recruiting campaign, didn't land well at all. Probably more to do with it being quite a bland concept.
Not saying they don’t get and shouldn’t get pushback, but attacking the person changes nothing
I'd agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it's always OK to punch a Nazi.
I’d agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it’s always OK to punch a Nazo
Mate, I would have allowed a mounted cavalry charge on those ****s at the cenotaph.
Brexit, the LGBTQ community and race have all been flashpoints in my career that I’ve had to deal with for context
A couple of years as a families and welfare officer* was an eye opener for me. Some of the soldiers in our unit were from very broken backgrounds and all those issues (less Brexit, which hadn't happened) were factors. My successor had to support one of the first transgender SNCOs through the process at a time (early 2000s) when there was precious little support or understanding.
*Part time, because I was also squadron 2IC, acting OC, Ops officer, MTO, USO etc, etc. Soon after I left there was a reorg and all those jobs got properly staffed. Thankfully.
I’d agree with that, but I will go to my grave thinking that it’s always OK to punch a Nazi.
I reckon it depends in the context. Over the years I have on occasions had a reasonable amount of interaction with NF/BNP members, including working alongside them.
Two things in particularly have struck me. Firstly how very far from stupid many of them are, and secondly how much progress you can make by actually engaging with them. Challenging them really isn't that difficult and many of their false conclusions are based on very real and genuine grievances.
Although I would like to think that I would be willing to do a lot more than punch them should the circumstances require it.
Aye, welfare SNCO for a bit as well, so I hear you. Brexit stirred up all sorts of shit, it forced very biased politics down the necks of 18-20 year olds and absolutely played on their existing biases.
One platoon commander really struggled as the class divide was huge and he just couldn't relate to the troops and some of their positions when we had to deal with fallout.
My advice was simple, play a straight bat, no titles, just line the actions/words/behaviour alongside the values and standards and service test.
One platoon commander really struggled as the class divide was huge.
Being an ex ranker LE officer was great in that regard. You could relate to the troops and also educate the Ruperts!
I reckon it depends in the context. Over the years I have on occasions had a reasonable amount of interaction with NF/BNP members, including working alongside them.
I think the only time I've genuinely been enraged by those sorts was not long after burying three of our own, couple of us nipped into the local Tesco in rig for breakfast and in the doorway/entry bit was some blokes fundraising for one of those low rent charities that 'supports' veterans.
Trying to give us his pitch, to which we replied no thanks, he then made a comment 'of course you won't, you prefer to look after your own kind' which I took to be directed at me and to Wanj (a mate) who is Kenyan.
Lost my shit with them, rather embarrassingly, whilst in rig. I wanted to ****ing tear them apart.
Kinda wish I did as it turned out the charity was a scam and they were members of the EDL.
Still got me a talking to from the boss and a couple of weekend duties which was fair.
Being an ex ranker LE officer was great in that regard. You could relate to the troops and also educate the Ruperts!
Yeah, I'd have killed for an LE but you know how it is unless you're in HQ you get the young un's, his replacement was better, working class but had good parents and mentors and encouraged at school. Related much better to the troops which made life considerably easier.
I've often wondered about all those various 'veteran' charities you see set up at supermarket doors (excepting the two obvious ones) and whether any of the cash actually makes it where it should.
It's often the percentage that varies. And I'm sure that's the same with many charities whatever the cause.
But I'm only familiar with my niche area, there are some wholesome people that work in that space, but also some chancers.
Always worth a Google, if it's not clear or apparent how they allocate their resources then avoid is my advice.
Some may also not be charities, they could be CIC so can play the system that way.
Calling someone a coconut is definitely a dick move
By whose standards? It's not a term I use personally, but I understand why it is used. It's meant to be insulting, but to make the subject consider their actions, which could potentially have negative impact on people of similar culture/ethnicity.
By my standards I guess. Throwing around insults never helps dialogue IMO
By whose standards? It’s not a term I use personally, but I understand why it is used
Isn't it an insult which implies a person of one skin tone displays the traits of another which are deemed to be undesirable? Isn't implying the characteristics of another skin colour are undesirable racist?
This is a question not a statement. These things are complicated aren't they!
True. But sometimes you just have call a **** a ****. Because they're a **** and someone should tell them in case they weren't aware.
😁
By my standards I guess. Throwing around insults never helps dialogue IMO
But what qualifies you as a an individual, to judge? And what about the context in which such a term might be used?
Isn’t it an insult which implies a person of one skin tone displays the traits of another which are deemed to be undesirable? Isn’t implying the characteristics of another skin colour are undesirable racist?
No, if the term is being used by one person of colour towards another, especially of similar ethnicity and culture. Because there's no structure of 'power' behind it.
True. But sometimes you just have call a * a *. Because they’re a **** and someone should tell them in case they weren’t aware.
Exactly.
I'm giving my opinion, surely that makes me completely qualified. I'm not out here telling people not to use it or that it should be banned.
Context is important though. I say things to my friends that I'd never dream of saying to stranger or someone I didn't know well.
Moreover,
In seriousness, it's cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought "I know, this will change their mind?" No, it's for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
In fact, it's not important for the target of your ire to hear your insult. Have you never been driving and hinted that another driver may be well practised in the art of onanism or had carnal knowledge of their maternal parent? Why do it? They can't hear you. But it gets it out of your system. When I first started driving I promised myself I wouldn't succumb to road rage, net result is I was getting out of the car at the end of a journey absolutely incandescent; today someone cuts me up or whatever, I go "argh, you stupid fuc- " etc and it's done, thrown away, dealt with and I can enjoy the rest of my journey.
In seriousness, it’s cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought “I know, this will change their mind?” No, it’s for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
Which is a point I was making way up there. Tiresome when people insist on claiming the moral high ground as if they're an agent for change when they're simply getting their anger and frustration off their chest.
Both are fair, but don't lie to yourself about why you're doing it.
I’m giving my opinion, surely that makes me completely qualified.
Not really, not on its own. With wider context, possibly, but that's not apparent here. Qualification depends on knowledge, experience and personal identity. IE; a person of colour can be qualified to comment on whether or not a term such as 'coconut' is appropriate within the context of criticism of another or similar identity, but others may not be. Take the 'N word' for example. Much has been discussed regarding the use of such a term, but ultimately, only those who are the subject of such a term, get to decide on its appropriateness.
The less firey ‘Uncle Tom’ which is a very pejorative US term, no?
Sure, but again; context. That's not a term I've heard used here in the UK for a very long time, I have to say, and personally, it's not one for me to comment on as I'm not Black/of African origin. As a result of this discussion, I'm reminded of the term 'Bounty bar', which was popular when I was young. Similar meaning.
In seriousness, it’s cathartic. Did anyone in the history of ever insult someone because they thought “I know, this will change their mind?” No, it’s for the benefit of the insulter rather than the insultee. If you reach that point, the conversation is already concluded.
I disagree. For the very reason you yourself stated earlier. If someone needs challenging, then that challenge should in theory be done in a respectful and as unconfrontational manner as possible, but the world isn't perfect. Sometimes, people need calling out.
Thread diversion there brownperson; unnecessary as skin colour, ethnicity and racial origins are not the subject of the thread
So to take your example, I as a white guy cant have any opinion on the 'N word'? I'm not disagreeing just making sure I understand you
skin colour, ethnicity and racial origins are not the subject of the thread
Gammon is certainly about skin colour.
But in any case, conversations often meander. Let this one take its course. If it’s boring, it'll wither. If it's against forum rules, mods will act.