Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

How have some individuals got to the point where all they do is whinge and moan and complain about other people without any sense of compassion for those less well off than themselves through no fault of their own?

[beninho]

Get upset?  That would be strange.

I dont really care what you think, obviously.  And I have no issue taking vows in a church or my mum having a cross when she died or a religious ceremony at her funeral.

I do think its curious, how previously you've called people out on saying others are stupid for holding different views, yet you also think others are stupid for holding different views.

Why do you and S_R have so many 'conversations' on here, then? Especially when you clearly agree so rarely?

Generally for the fun of it. Bit of light entertainment. None of it is remotely serious, on my side anyway.

[beninho]

Greg Clarke. What a tw@t.

Not sure which side to laugh at tbh. What a waste of air time. Quite surprised he quit, but he's probably fed up of the lightweight shoite he has to deal with at his time of life. It's become more about making sure you don't say something that could be construed as 'offensive' than one's actual actions.

Who says coloureds anymore?. Anyone involved at any high level should be aware of how to say things. Its the sort of thing my dad would say, he's in his 60s, but he isn't involved in pro football. And Asians and it departments? Come on. This cant be lamed on anyone apart thr idiot who said it.

[navyblueshorts]

Greg Clarke. What a tw@t.

Not sure which side to laugh at tbh. What a waste of air time. Quite surprised he quit, but he's probably fed up of the lightweight shoite he has to deal with at his time of life. It's become more about making sure you don't say something that could be construed as 'offensive' than one's actual actions.

Who says coloureds anymore?. Anyone involved at any high level should be aware of how to say things.  Its the sort of thing my dad would say, he's in his 60s, but he isn't involved in pro football. And Asians and it departments? Come on. This cant be  lamed on anyone apart thr idiot who said it.

He didn't say 'coloureds' as a standalone. Coloured footballers? Me, on occasion, because I haven't a chuffing clue what's allowed these days. I'm not across right-on Tw@tter and other social media etc. I don't give a 4X anymore. No-one knows what to say w/o offending someone. **** it. I'm done w/ it. I'm out. Our IT department is utterly full of Asians (am I even allowed to use that word?) and, no, that is not racist etc or to disrespect their career choices. It's a plain fact. Still, can't make a comment about any group that could be construed as a stereotype, just in case there's a single exception. Sauce for the goose and all that though; anyone claiming I'm 'white' is going to get their teeth knocked out...

**** me, but we need a war to remind people what actually matters. You'd think the current pandemic might have done the same, but of course not; probably because it's not deadly enough.

[Davie]

Oh come on ben - it's ridiculous. It's not THAT many years ago in the grand scheme of things that "black" was frowned upon (after all they aren't really "black" are they?) and "coloured" was the preferred appellation. Then it all changed. Then it changed again. Maybe I'm out of date - it may have changed again in the last 5 minutes, but isn't "people of colour" acceptable again now, but "coloured" isn't? How bloody stupid is that?

Some years ago - maybe even in here or the older BBC 606 site, someone turned on me quite nastily, for using the word "coloured". It wasn't a flippant or unthought comment on my part - I actually considered it and used "coloured" as I thought (at that time) it was the right thing to say - apparently it wasn't, but there was no malice or even "unconscious bias" involved in it - I was genuinely trying to be correct in my terminology but apparently failed so miserably I was roundly chastised by some PC pr!ck

[McLaren]

Ok super lets try something. You tell us a claim from extinction rebellion which you think is bunk and we will check what the literature actually has to say about it. Go slow, one at a time and pick the one you think is most ridiculous first.

OK. How about the claim that the current generation could be the last. Clearly that is utter lovesacks as climate change would need to kill around 1,000,000 people every single day for 20 years.

Or, you could have the claim that 300 species are dying because of climate change every day. However when you ask them to name one, the silence is deafening.

Or, how about the claim that London could be underwater in a generation or that we could all become cannibals. 

Furthermore the demands they put forward such as an end to fossil fuel by 2025 are absolutely absurd and unworkable not to mention damaging to the wellbeing of billions of people. 

One of the biggest issues I have with the likes of XR though is the lack of consistency in their arguments. They are only interested in certain aspects of climate change sources and ignore everything that doesn't suit their agenda. I see such groups as being far more harmful to raising the issue of climate change by employing professional deadbeat protestors and failing to act in a civilised way. 
Only last week they turned up at arch climate hypocrite David Attenborough's house and protested against his view that  violent, illegal or disruptive protests should not be allowed.

You know what. Sod it. If you want to remain a climate change denier then so be it.

[Soul Requiem]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

[McLaren]

**** me, but we need a war to remind people what actually matters. You'd think the current pandemic might have done the same, but of course not; probably because it's not deadly enough.

Here is the issue for you, I think the pandemic has reminded people what actually matters and one of the things they have decided matters is using respectful language to refer to people. BLM for example.

[McLaren]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Have I done the same? Because I think it is fairly obvious that referring to someone as "coloured" is obviously racist (whether it is intentional or not).

[beninho]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Offended? Not offended by anything. Strange thibg to say. If I am aware that coloureds isn't the term to use why isn't someone high up in a big company?

[beninho]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Have I done the same? Because I think it is fairly obvious that referring to someone as "coloured" is obviously racist (whether it is intentional or not).

I'm unsure if its racist. I think its very stupid though.

[McLaren]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Have I done the same? Because I think it is fairly obvious that referring to someone as "coloured" is obviously racist (whether it is intentional or not).

I'm unsure if its racist. I think its very stupid though.

Why baulk at calling it racist? For me there are degrees of racist actions and this is a minor one but imagine you are a black or asian person who has to hear this many times a day. I think it would start to feel pretty racist at that point to see a population collectively continue to use that sort of language.

And this is what the gammons on here are missing, navy or davie might think they have not committed a great sin by using the "wrong" word now and again but they forget that if you are the victim of such language you are hearing it from all angles all day. The only way to combat the collective impact of this language is for everyone to take responsibility and not use it themselves.

[superflyweight]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's. You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.

[beninho]

There is difference between people of colour and colourds to describe a group of people.

[Soul Requiem]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

[beninho]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

[JAS]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Have I done the same? Because I think it is fairly obvious that referring to someone as "coloured" is obviously racist (whether it is intentional or not).

I'm unsure if its racist. I think its very stupid though.

Why baulk at calling it racist? For me there are degrees of racist actions and this is a minor one but imagine you are a black or asian person who has to hear this many times a day. I think it would start to feel pretty racist at that point to see a population collectively continue to use that sort of language.

And this is what the gammons on here are missing, navy or davie might think they have not committed a great sin by using the "wrong" word now and again but they forget that if you are the victim of such language you are hearing it from all angles all day. The only way to combat the collective impact of this language is for everyone to take responsibility and not use it themselves.

Ok here’s the thing, ignorance and racism are NOT the same thing. Sometimes they overlap of course they do but calling somebody Racist when infact they just been ignorant is a dangerous path to start going down in my view. When you start labelling people racist who are not racist you will I think end up closing minds rather than opening them.

Is there a definitive reference point that anyone can go to to check whether a word, phrase or action is racist or not. Also if such a reference point does exist is it detailed enough to cover local, national and global differences?

[Soul Requiem]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

I don't no but that isn't particularly relevant.

[beninho]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

I don't no but that isn't particularly relevant.

Its pretty relevant if the query is that people don't know that you dont use the term. I assume that you accept that it is not a term to be used, which is why you dont use it.

[westisbest]

Discussing climate with mac is like discussing religion with an Irishman.

What makes you think an Irishman can't discuss religion? They may not agree w/ your position, but to simply say they can't discuss it is stereotyping for the sake of it. I'm going to assume you're atheist, which is fine, but if so, you're going to struggle to appreciate their position, assuming they're not also atheist.

I would imagine that most under 50 year olds in  Ireland live their lives as if there is no god just as they live their lives that there is no Santa Claus.
As far as I can tell, it's a real minority who  actively believes in any Christian religion in Northern Europe.  Ireland especially has seen  a massive decline due to all the kiddie fiddling and cover ups.

I’m not religious one bit. No problem with people who are, it’s just not for me.
I’d say there are a good few under 50 who are religious, some that are not.

Each to their own I guess.

I would say most aren't wouldn't you? How many people do you know who are relgious? I don't know a single one, although to be fair it's not something many people would like to admit these days as it's rather like being a flat earther or believing in aliens.

Actually I have known a couple who suffer cognitive dissonance due to the evidence of their job contradicting their indoctrination and a couple others at one of those modern happy clappy churches (which are probably some sort of sex cult) but it's pretty rare these days, at least in my experience to see many people believing such tranpsatlrently laughable myths.

I know quite a few. Some of my family are.
Know some friends to.
I leave them to it. No harm.

[super_realist]

Ok super lets try something. You tell us a claim from extinction rebellion which you think is bunk and we will check what the literature actually has to say about it. Go slow, one at a time and pick the one you think is most ridiculous first.

OK. How about the claim that the current generation could be the last. Clearly that is utter lovesacks as climate change would need to kill around 1,000,000 people every single day for 20 years.

Or, you could have the claim that 300 species are dying because of climate change every day. However when you ask them to name one, the silence is deafening.

Or, how about the claim that London could be underwater in a generation or that we could all become cannibals. 

Furthermore the demands they put forward such as an end to fossil fuel by 2025 are absolutely absurd and unworkable not to mention damaging to the wellbeing of billions of people. 

One of the biggest issues I have with the likes of XR though is the lack of consistency in their arguments. They are only interested in certain aspects of climate change sources and ignore everything that doesn't suit their agenda. I see such groups as being far more harmful to raising the issue of climate change by employing professional deadbeat protestors and failing to act in a civilised way. 
Only last week they turned up at arch climate hypocrite David Attenborough's house and protested against his view that  violent, illegal or disruptive protests should not be allowed.

You know what. Sod it. If you want to remain a climate change denier then so be it.

None of what I said above or at any time in the past states or even implies that I'm a climate change denier. 
As usual you are unable to back up your belief and your capitulation on the subject demonstrates this.

[super_realist]

Get upset?  That would be strange.

I dont really care what you think, obviously.  And I have no issue taking vows in a church or my mum having a cross when she died or a religious ceremony at her funeral.

I do think its curious, how previously you've called people out on saying others are stupid for holding different views, yet you also think others are stupid for holding different views.

I don't ridicule people for having views that are simply different. I ridicule people who have views which are indefensible, immoral, without evidence and indistinguishable from a fairy story.

[JuliusHMarx]

I got one of those new colouring books for grown-ups. All I need now are some pencils of colour.

[navyblueshorts]

**** me, but we need a war to remind people what actually matters. You'd think the current pandemic might have done the same, but of course not; probably because it's not deadly enough.

Here is the issue for you, I think the pandemic has reminded people what actually matters and one of the things they have decided matters is using respectful language to refer to people. BLM for example.

Lovesacks. BLM has/had f-all to do w/ Covid. Are you suggesting that movement wouldn't have occurred had Covid not been a part of the equation when Floyd was killed? No point discussing this issue w/ you as you only see what you want to and your opinion is the only one allowed to be held. Moving on...

[navyblueshorts]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Offended? Not offended by anything. Strange thibg to say. If I am aware that coloureds isn't the term to use why isn't someone high up in a big company?

FFS! Is that what he actually said and how he used the term, or is it just that you're changing the narrative? Why don't you actually quote what he said, instead of a different use/context of that word?

[navyblueshorts]

Ben has done his usual and decided he's offended by something inconsequential because he wrongly thinks it makes him look caring.

Have I done the same? Because I think it is fairly obvious that referring to someone as "coloured" is obviously racist (whether it is intentional or not).

I'm unsure if its racist. I think its very stupid though.

Why baulk at calling it racist? For me there are degrees of racist actions and this is a minor one but imagine you are a black or asian person who has to hear this many times a day. I think it would start to feel pretty racist at that point to see a population collectively continue to use that sort of language.

And this is what the gammons on here are missing, navy or davie might think they have not committed a great sin by using the "wrong" word now and again but they forget that if you are the victim of such language you are hearing it from all angles all day. The only way to combat the collective impact of this language is for everyone to take responsibility and not use it themselves.

Nice insult there, Mac. You could define the word 'hypocrisy' by simply stating in the dictionary, 'See McClaren, 606v2' .

[navyblueshorts]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's.  You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.  

Oh, really? Is that so? Pray tell me where that's been made clear? Or am I (and others) meant to absorb it from the ether? Maybe that's one positive to come out of this - an accepted way to address others. Like so much though, it comes down to tone etc and being called a racist (a la Mac) for using a term one thought was OK and from a position of trying to be considerate is NOT going to move the argument onwards.

[navyblueshorts]

There is difference between people of colour and colourds to describe a group of people.

Correct. Amazing, and I don't believe Clarke did the latter, did he, which has been your position so far.

[navyblueshorts]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

Will.you.give.this.up??? You're re-interpreting to fit your own agenda.

[beninho]

“I don’t know why but I look at what happens to high profile female footballers, high profile coloured footballers, and the abuse they take on social media, which is a free for all.

“Women and black players take terrible vile abuse from racist and misogynists. Why would you voluntarily sign up for that abuse?”

I still stand by stupid rather then racist, but to say coloured footballers while in front of mps is pretty stupid. Is it a resigning offence, considering the black people involved in football i can see the issue.

[beninho]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

Will.you.give.this.up??? You're re-interpreting to fit your own agenda.

He said coloured instead of black. Not really reinterpreting anything.

[beninho]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8935395/amp/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Greg-Clarke-worn-red-nose-twirling-bow-tie.html

Martin Samuel may be daily mail journalist but the column is good.

[McLaren]

Navy

Do you really think gammons have historically suffered the same plight as black people?

[ralphjohn69]

Navy

Do you really think gammons have historically suffered the same plight as black people?

Irrelevant point, if you can't see the hypocrisy in using one term which is offensive to a group of people while in the same sentence condemning the use of another then quite frankly you're an idiot who loses all credibility when 'debating' these issues.

[superflyweight]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's.  You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.  

Oh, really? Is that so? Pray tell me where that's been made clear? Or am I (and others) meant to absorb it from the ether? Maybe that's one positive to come out of this - an accepted way to address others. Like so much though, it comes down to tone etc and being called a racist (a la Mac) for using a term one thought was OK and from a position of trying to be considerate is NOT going to move the argument onwards.

I didn't call anyone racist, I suggested that to use that term now betrays ignorance and a lack of engagement. You seem to be suggesting that without a wall chart and handy pocket-sized ready reckoner that it is impossible to use appropriate language to describe people when in reality it doesn't take a huge amount of reading or listening to understand what is appropriate.

I can have some sympathy for someone who has just become 'out of touch' (Christ, both my parents stumble over these issues all the time) but for someone in Clarke's position it's unforgiveable - particualrly as he was talking about diversity when he made the comments and is expected to lead the FA's approach to improving diversity in the game.

[Pal Joey]

Clarke's an absolute nincompoop. Or to use the original Latin phrase: non compos mentis (not of right mind)

[Soul Requiem]

It's the inconsistency that is sometimes confusing. With regards to certain words I understand the furore, for instance I wouldn't consider using the N word in any circumstances but you then have phrases which have been decided to be offensive whilst others are acceptable. I wouldn't say person of colour because it sounds stupid and far too similar to coloured, one is deemed ok but the other not.

[navyblueshorts]

Such like language like referring to people as gammon. Rare to see such mind blowing hypocrisy within the same sentence.

Do you call black people coloureds?

Will.you.give.this.up??? You're re-interpreting to fit your own agenda.

He said coloured instead of black. Not really reinterpreting anything.

Yes, but the use of the term matters. He didn't refer to them, en masse, as a 'group of coloureds', which is what you're implying. He referred to them as 'coloured footballers'. The former is very different IMO. Language matters, but many either don't get that or think that some silly false equivalence in two completely different usages is quite alright as long as it suits their purposes.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Do you really think gammons have historically suffered the same plight as black people?

No-one is listening to you, Mac. 'Gammon' is a deliberate, stereotypical insult used because you're have some issues and can't see that doing so spoils your own argument/position. Give it a rest. No-one said there was a historical equivalence between the two, especially when one 'group' has apparently only just sprung into existence. You don't get to waive hypocrisy just because you fancy.

[navyblueshorts]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's.  You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.  

Oh, really? Is that so? Pray tell me where that's been made clear? Or am I (and others) meant to absorb it from the ether? Maybe that's one positive to come out of this - an accepted way to address others. Like so much though, it comes down to tone etc and being called a racist (a la Mac) for using a term one thought was OK and from a position of trying to be considerate is NOT going to move the argument onwards.

I didn't call anyone racist, I suggested that to use that term now betrays ignorance and a lack of engagement.  You seem to be suggesting that without a wall chart and handy pocket-sized ready reckoner that it is impossible to use appropriate language to describe people when in reality it doesn't take a huge amount of reading or listening to understand what is appropriate.  

I can have some sympathy for someone who has just become 'out of touch' (Christ, both my parents stumble over these issues all the time) but for someone in Clarke's position it's unforgiveable - particualrly as he was talking about diversity when he made the comments and is expected to lead the FA's approach to improving diversity in the game.  

Did I mention 'racist'? Don't think so. You said "you'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.", which get's my goat as it implies anyone that isn't aware of this is ignorant. Literally, maybe, but that's not how it's used or perceived by the targets of that.
Yes, I agree that Clarke should probably have known better, given the demographic in pro football and especially now, but the pathetic hand wringing that's followed is astonishing. Still, it's clear that words speak louder than any actions just now and I'm sure Clarke is happy to be out of it all.

[superflyweight]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's.  You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.  

Oh, really? Is that so? Pray tell me where that's been made clear? Or am I (and others) meant to absorb it from the ether? Maybe that's one positive to come out of this - an accepted way to address others. Like so much though, it comes down to tone etc and being called a racist (a la Mac) for using a term one thought was OK and from a position of trying to be considerate is NOT going to move the argument onwards.

I didn't call anyone racist, I suggested that to use that term now betrays ignorance and a lack of engagement.  You seem to be suggesting that without a wall chart and handy pocket-sized ready reckoner that it is impossible to use appropriate language to describe people when in reality it doesn't take a huge amount of reading or listening to understand what is appropriate.  

I can have some sympathy for someone who has just become 'out of touch' (Christ, both my parents stumble over these issues all the time) but for someone in Clarke's position it's unforgiveable - particualrly as he was talking about diversity when he made the comments and is expected to lead the FA's approach to improving diversity in the game.  

Did I mention 'racist'? Don't think so. You said "you'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.", which get's my goat as it implies anyone that isn't aware of this is ignorant. Literally, maybe, but that's not how it's used or perceived by the targets of that.
Yes, I agree that Clarke should probably have known better, given the demographic in pro football and especially now, but the pathetic hand wringing that's followed is astonishing. Still, it's clear that words speak louder than any actions just now and I'm sure Clarke is happy to be out of it all.

You did mention "racist" in your post so stick that up your b0llocks.

Your goat might be got, but I don't tihnk it's a stretch to suggest that someone using terminology almost 30 years after it became outdated is displaying an unhealthy amount of ignorance.  The following is a quote by Gareth from The Office in 2001 which not only illustrates the difference between generations but also highlights his own use of outdated terminolgy.  If it was widely known to be outdated in 2001 to the extent it could be used for comedic purposes, then to not know it's outdated 19 years later is ignorant:

"My dad, for example, he's not as cosmopolitan or as educated as me and it can be embarrasing you know. He doesn't understand all the new trendy words - like he'll say 'poofs' instead of 'gays', 'birds' instead of 'women', 'darkies' instead of 'coloureds'."

[super_realist]

Ignorant or naive? The term coloured is something more associated with America. It was never really a widespread term in the UK where we more often used the term "black"

[Pal Joey]

At the moment we have to say "indigenous" here ("aboriginal" is on the way out) but I notice there is a trend towards "person of the First Nation community" and even specifying the tribe (or clan); for example "Gadigal woman" or just "Gadi woman" for short.

There a lots and lots of tribes and many variations in spelling. Heaven forbid if you accidentally call someone "Arakwal" instead of "Awabakal"... even if their ancestors did move around alot.

Also noted that for the National Architecture Awards - the relevant group or clan where the building is located - is also accredited as the location in addition to the (modern) street address.

[navyblueshorts]

The term "coloured" has been widely considered not to be appropriate since at least the 80's.  You'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.  

Oh, really? Is that so? Pray tell me where that's been made clear? Or am I (and others) meant to absorb it from the ether? Maybe that's one positive to come out of this - an accepted way to address others. Like so much though, it comes down to tone etc and being called a racist (a la Mac) for using a term one thought was OK and from a position of trying to be considerate is NOT going to move the argument onwards.

I didn't call anyone racist, I suggested that to use that term now betrays ignorance and a lack of engagement.  You seem to be suggesting that without a wall chart and handy pocket-sized ready reckoner that it is impossible to use appropriate language to describe people when in reality it doesn't take a huge amount of reading or listening to understand what is appropriate.  

I can have some sympathy for someone who has just become 'out of touch' (Christ, both my parents stumble over these issues all the time) but for someone in Clarke's position it's unforgiveable - particualrly as he was talking about diversity when he made the comments and is expected to lead the FA's approach to improving diversity in the game.  

Did I mention 'racist'? Don't think so. You said "you'd have to be going out of your way to embrace ignorance to use it now.", which get's my goat as it implies anyone that isn't aware of this is ignorant. Literally, maybe, but that's not how it's used or perceived by the targets of that.
Yes, I agree that Clarke should probably have known better, given the demographic in pro football and especially now, but the pathetic hand wringing that's followed is astonishing. Still, it's clear that words speak louder than any actions just now and I'm sure Clarke is happy to be out of it all.

You did mention "racist" in your post so stick that up your b0llocks.

Your goat might be got, but I don't tihnk it's a stretch to suggest that someone using terminology almost 30 years after it became outdated is displaying an unhealthy amount of ignorance.  The following is a quote by Gareth from The Office in 2001 which not only illustrates the difference between generations but also highlights his own use of outdated terminolgy.  If it was widely known to be outdated in 2001 to the extent it could be used for comedic purposes, then to not know it's outdated 19 years later is ignorant:

"My dad, for example, he's not as cosmopolitan or as educated as me and it can be embarrasing you know. He doesn't understand all the new trendy words - like he'll say 'poofs' instead of 'gays', 'birds' instead of 'women', 'darkies' instead of 'coloureds'."

I did; you're correct. Missed it when checking it too fast before. Apologies. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you had suggested that, but that McClaren was directly implying such. Trouble with these sort of conversations via a text-only medium - hard to be clear enough and easy for others to misread/misinterpret. If it's all the same to you though, I won't stick anything up my b0llocks.

I didn't watch 'The Office'. Clips I saw of it were about as 'funny' as cancer. My point stands - you're assuming all should be aware of en vogue terminology and that anyone who isn't up to lightspeed (as you clearly are) is ignorant, which is insulting to those that aren't so right on and/or just go about their everyday business of demonstrating that they actually treat everyone as equals, rather than just blather on about what is, or isn't discriminatory language.

[navyblueshorts]

At the moment we have to say "indigenous" here ("aboriginal" is on the way out) but I notice there is a trend towards "person of the First Nation community" and even specifying the tribe (or clan); for example "Gadigal woman" or just "Gadi woman" for short.

There a lots and lots of tribes and many variations in spelling. Heaven forbid if you accidentally call someone "Arakwal" instead of "Awabakal"... even if their ancestors did move around alot.

Also noted that for the National Architecture Awards - the relevant group or clan where the building is located - is also accredited as the location in addition to the (modern) street address.

What fun that must be.

[Pal Joey]

At the moment we have to say "indigenous" here ("aboriginal" is on the way out) but I notice there is a trend towards "person of the First Nation community" and even specifying the tribe (or clan); for example "Gadigal woman" or just "Gadi woman" for short.

There a lots and lots of tribes and many variations in spelling. Heaven forbid if you accidentally call someone "Arakwal" instead of "Awabakal"... even if their ancestors did move around alot.

Also noted that for the National Architecture Awards - the relevant group or clan where the building is located - is also accredited as the location in addition to the (modern) street address.

What fun that must be.

You're kidding right? It scrambles my brain actually. (as intended)

[navyblueshorts]

At the moment we have to say "indigenous" here ("aboriginal" is on the way out) but I notice there is a trend towards "person of the First Nation community" and even specifying the tribe (or clan); for example "Gadigal woman" or just "Gadi woman" for short.

There a lots and lots of tribes and many variations in spelling. Heaven forbid if you accidentally call someone "Arakwal" instead of "Awabakal"... even if their ancestors did move around alot.

Also noted that for the National Architecture Awards - the relevant group or clan where the building is located - is also accredited as the location in addition to the (modern) street address.

What fun that must be.

You're kidding right? It scrambles my brain actually. (as intended)

I was definitely kidding .

Actually, doesn't insistence on the use of 'First Nation' sound a little bit "We're better than you; we were here first". See, it's easy to get offended...

[Pal Joey]

Definitely.

It's a North American term originally so you could call it a form of appropriation. Which defeats the purpose or misconstrues the meaning, imo.

I thought "aboriginal" was fine given that it implies someone 'from the land' or 'inhabiting the land' itself. Don't see how that could offend anyone.
In fact, I consider myself aboriginal and indigenous having been born here. A spiritual connection if you will. It's quite a proud feeling... and an irrefutable reality as well.

[McLaren]

Navy

Do you really think gammons have historically suffered the same plight as black people?

Irrelevant point, if you can't see the hypocrisy in using one term which is offensive to a group of people while in the same sentence condemning the use of another then quite frankly you're an idiot who loses all credibility when 'debating' these issues.

In order to say I am being hypocritical you must be equating the use of gammon and coloured to some degree?

[super_realist]

Navy

Do you really think gammons have historically suffered the same plight as black people?

Irrelevant point, if you can't see the hypocrisy in using one term which is offensive to a group of people while in the same sentence condemning the use of another then quite frankly you're an idiot who loses all credibility when 'debating' these issues.

In order to say I am being hypocritical you must be equating the use of gammon and coloured to some degree?

Mac, something can be offensive to someone without having to equate it to or put it on the same level of offence as  another so called offensive word. 
Why is everything so black and white with you? You never seem capable of reading between the lines.

[McLaren]

Super

Lets not beat around the bush, do you really think gammon is in the same league as calling someone coloured?

[Sponsored content]