Current Player #29 Benjamin Davis

Wandering Yellow said:
That's your opinion. It's not how it is inferred by many people.

I would never say "paki" isn't an insult for a "pakistani" it's just a shortening, because I know at least some pakistani people will find it offensive.

Find better ways to make your points.
Click to expand...
You’re doing a false comparison though. ‘Gammon’ isn’t generically saying all white people, it’s a certain kind of person, and the colouring of the skin isn’t seen as hereditary, rather due to their political views. It’s like saying someone is ‘red in the face with anger’ is racist.

Also, it’s a white person saying it, which usually seems to make it more acceptable with other racial slurs. For example, if a black person referred to ‘lightskinned’ black people, is that racist?
 
Wandering Yellow said:
That's your opinion. It's not how it is inferred by many people.

I would never say "paki" isn't an insult for a "pakistani" it's just a shortening, because I know at least some pakistani people will find it offensive.

Find better ways to make your points.
Click to expand...
TBH I wouldn't have called you a gammon if I thought you were one - ie I think you're quite young and live in London. I don't really like the term as it seems a bit misandrist and ageist, but I'm not sure white people can be racist to each other?
 
werthersoriginal said:
TBH I wouldn't have called you a gammon if I thought you were one - ie I think you're quite young and live in London. I don't really like the term as it seems a bit misandrist and ageist, but I'm not sure white people can be racist to each other?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is a true "gammon" really, people are mostly pretty complex.

This is way off-topic but generally speaking I think there is too much focus on skin colour in general in the modern climate. White people can be racist to other white people of course - Jews are white and have been persecuted by other white people for much of their history. Germanic people historically were quite racist towards Slavic people. Anglo-Saxon English people were racist toward Celtic Irish or Scottish people.

Skin colours are incredibly broad. A black person is as diverse as an Australian aboriginal, to a west Indian, to someone from London. Which is why I find the idea black-people have some sort of shared history in "black history month" so utterly bizarre.

To me, there is no such thing as "white history", and why would I even want to look at history through such a racial lens? Icelandic people have a totally different history to a Russian, Bulgarian, American etc white person. I know the intentions are to somehow stop racism, but it is real stupidity.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
I don't think anyone is a true "gammon" really, people are mostly pretty complex.

This is way off-topic but generally speaking I think there is too much focus on skin colour in general in the modern climate. White people can be racist to other white people of course - Jews are white and have been persecuted by other white people for much of their history. Germanic people historically were quite racist towards Slavic people. Anglo-Saxon English people were racist toward Celtic Irish or Scottish people.

Skin colours are incredibly broad. A black person is as diverse as an Australian aboriginal, to a west Indian, to someone from London. Which is why I find the idea black-people have some sort of shared history in "black history month" so utterly bizarre.

To me, there is no such thing as "white history", and why would I even want to look at history through such a racial lens? Icelandic people have a totally different history to a Russian, Bulgarian, American etc white person. I know the intentions are to somehow stop racism, but it is real stupidity.
Click to expand...
I do agree with a lot of this. A Sicilian can be darker than a North African but be somehow classed as a different 'race'. And are Jewish people 'white'? They seem to be regarded as such in the US, while Hispanic people aren't. As you say a lot of that sort of classification is nonsense. However there is a shared history of African descent celebrated in Black History Month, which I think is pretty interesting.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
I don't think anyone is a true "gammon" really, people are mostly pretty complex.

This is way off-topic but generally speaking I think there is too much focus on skin colour in general in the modern climate. White people can be racist to other white people of course - Jews are white and have been persecuted by other white people for much of their history. Germanic people historically were quite racist towards Slavic people. Anglo-Saxon English people were racist toward Celtic Irish or Scottish people.

Skin colours are incredibly broad. A black person is as diverse as an Australian aboriginal, to a west Indian, to someone from London. Which is why I find the idea black-people have some sort of shared history in "black history month" so utterly bizarre.

To me, there is no such thing as "white history", and why would I even want to look at history through such a racial lens? Icelandic people have a totally different history to a Russian, Bulgarian, American etc white person. I know the intentions are to somehow stop racism, but it is real stupidity.
Click to expand...
So that’s your views on racism covered. What’s your view on sexism?
 
Steve Gilbert said:
So that’s your views on racism covered. What’s your view on sexism?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that's a dig but in case you are genuinely interested...

I think men are better at some things and women are better at others. We should celebrate our differences rather than demanding complete gender equality in everything.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
Pretty sure that's a dig but in case you are genuinely interested...

I think men are better at some things and women are better at others. We should celebrate our differences rather than demanding complete gender equality in everything.
Click to expand...
Women are better at football than men. Well, the OUFC women are better than me and probably everyone on here!
 
Wandering Yellow said:
Pretty sure that's a dig but in case you are genuinely interested...

I think men are better at some things and women are better at others. We should celebrate our differences rather than demanding complete gender equality in everything.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can say ‘women’ or ‘men’ are better. Some are, some aren’t. Everyone is an individual at the end of the day, a black deaf lesbian woman might be more similar to me in some ways than a different white English male from Oxford. We need to stop grouping people under different identifiers and realise that everyone experiences and sees the world differently
 
HampshireYellow said:
I don’t think you can say ‘women’ or ‘men’ are better. Some are, some aren’t. Everyone is an individual at the end of the day, a black deaf lesbian woman might be more similar to me in some ways than a different white English male from Oxford. We need to stop grouping people under different identifiers and realise that everyone experiences and sees the world differently
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into a big argument but I do wonder what anyone would say men are better at than women, apart from things that involve strength.
 
werthersoriginal said:
I’m not going to get into a big argument but I do wonder what anyone would say men are better at than women, apart from things that involve strength.
Click to expand...

Engaging in pointless and polarising arguments on obscure football fora?



[Disclaimer: no direct evidence to suggest men are more skilled, assumption based on apparent numbers partaking]
 
HampshireYellow said:
I don’t think you can say ‘women’ or ‘men’ are better. Some are, some aren’t. Everyone is an individual at the end of the day, a black deaf lesbian woman might be more similar to me in some ways than a different white English male from Oxford. We need to stop grouping people under different identifiers and realise that everyone experiences and sees the world differently
Click to expand...
The best men will always be better than the best women at sports like cricket, football or rugby due to our objectively different make-ups. That's all I was getting at. There is no use denying objective realities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom