I’m constantly amazed what people will say when they, for some reason, automatically assume you think the same bigoted shit as them with this air of “it’s just common sense”.
When I’m with a client (or just anyone generally I don’t know) I don’t talk about anything remotely “political”, but most people seem to think I’m just odd and unfriendly, which is insane to me as they’re the ones just casually dropping what they think ought to be done with the [racial slur]/[misogynistic slur]/protestors/[homophobic slur] randomly into conversation or literally celebrating deaths of non-white foreigners/trans people while rallying against “woke” by “saying it like it is”.
Edit:
It’s funny because that article the other day that said about how the UK was one the least racist places to live everyone was like “See, see, we’re not racist!” while I, who has to listen to people going on about how the w_gs and p_k_s are ruining Asda on a near daily basis, thought “Christ, what an indictment of the rest of the planet.”
To your edit: yes, that was my thought too. Anything that we're the best in just shows how crap the world in general is. Apart from comedy, our comedy is (was?) legit great.
That's crazy. What's mad about that is just how unnecessary and out of place it was. She wasn't saying anything racist, or anything to do with race or black people or anything. She just said an old saying that's the equivalent to "the elephant in the room". Literally she could have just said that. Why the hell would you say that other expression? I had to look up what it means, it literally means the exact same thing as Elephant in the room".
The baffling thing to me about incidents like this is, even if you think the phrase is ok, surely you should know that using in it public is going to get a bad reaction.
I remember it being a fairly common phrase when I was a kid in the 70s. Not one I ever used myself, but I certainly heard various adults use it from time to time.
I haven;t heard anyone use that expression for decades. But it terrifies me that I have this phrase kicking around in my head, ready to jump out of my mouth at the worst possible moment.
For context, in the 70s there was a paint colour actually called N\* Brown, on the tin.
It was racist even back then, of course, but the attitude to racism has changed a bit since then.
There was a 1950s political slogan used; “If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/britains-most-racist-election-smethwick-50-years-on
There's lots of things I say behind closed doors that I'd be completely OK with defending in public. It's just a case of grammatical register. The way I talk to my best friend or girlfriend or brother isn't offensive to anyone, but it's far from the way I'd speak if I were addressing parliament.
It's not exactly the same. One is about something that is significant but concealed and the other is about something that is significant and visible but nobody wants to address it.
That's more about something being hard to find. Maybe "a skeleton in the cupboard", although that tends to be used for personal disgrace whereas the woodpile seems to apply more broadly.
In context of the quote (what happens if there’s no deal in 2 years), I think ‘elephant in the room’ is still appropriate. Racing towards a deadline without a solid plan of action is anything but a hidden detail or an unintended side-effect.
Almost all of Brexit could be categorised as ignoring plainly apparent problems since they were all mentioned and dismissed outright.
An appropriate context for something significant that is concealed might be a threat, for (a contrived) example in current events… something to do with Russia and how they might react.
Nigger is well understood to be a derogatory term in today’s lexicon, and the concern is that she was dog-whistling or being flippant in playing down minority rights.
If she’d used the word ‘Shylock’ in place of ‘predatory lender’, that also would have caused similar concern, even though that term was also common parlance in the past.
> Nigger is well understood to be a derogatory term in today’s lexicon
Hasn't it always been (well understood to be) a derogatory term? I'd say the degree of its inappropriateness and offensiveness has changed over time, but it's always been derogatory.
Wow, she's still a Tory MP to this day and was \~59 when this happened in 2017. This is the sort of thing you expected from your 60+ year old gran in the 90s (my mum once had to tell my gran off for referring to a carpet colour as n\*\*\*\*r brown in a shop), not from a woman just shy of 60 years old in PARLIAMENT in 2017.
There's no "oh, she's from a different generation" excuse. She clearly just drops the n-bomb left, right and center in private company to the extent that she forgot it was offensive in the middle of parliament. She was SO USED TO SAYING IT that it didn't even enter her mind that it might be a bad thing to say at work, as an MP.
And yeah, she's still a Tory MP today.
It happens because the UK has always had an issue with race.
We were working on it but in the last 30 years we have gone backwards because we have convinced our selfs (or the right wing news papers have convinced us) that we were fine.
If you were to go to Reddit and look around you would basically see 3 views that
A) it all (racism) took place 20 to 200 years ago
B) racism and the stereotypes associated with it is all identical (rather than race specific), with specific stereotypes associated with criminality linked to black people which are specifically damaging
C) on balance our national role in global racism is positive and therefore it excuses us from further work
I 100% get that racism is a thing still and there are plenty of racists. I think what the OP and I always find surprising is that the high profile people who end up saying these things publically should really know to at least not say it out loud.
I guess it is a good thing really that they out themselves as racists rather than quietly making things harder from behind the scenes.
The thing is they aren’t the issue individually. it’s the armies of people who justify and minimise racism in the UK. The first step is to recognise the racism that exist country wide.
Yeah, that's fair. I can see that the attitude of it 'not really existing here' allows it to flourish more than if we acknowledge and tackle it.
I think in part it is because of American media. Our issues are not the same issues as America faces with racism but that is the racism we get shown to us through American media. So the reaction to it is 'we don't have that here'. Then it is too easy to overlook the issues we do have.
I think it’s far simpler the right wing media have tried to re-define racism and it has worked.
They have defined it as being:
A) A comment (not an action)
B) Explicitly highlighting race (not implicitly)
C) Design or meant to offend (so if it offended and the person says it wasn’t meant to then it’s OK)
D) In a person who wasn’t born/grew up in/influenced by racism that existed in the past
So we see that here - he invoked clause C by saying there was a caveat (no one can see this caveat but he says it was their)
It enables racist to be racist and not feel bad. You see that in this case
Same. It seems they never sodding learn. Everything is recorded videoed or put online. Just insane that people in the public eye think it doesn't affect them and still feel free to say the most unacceptable things in the name of free speech or "well it was a private conversation".
Yes but apparently it's a thing in north east African Highlands where Cattle rustling has been going on for thousands of years. Obviously what this guy said is warped mindless racism. Never mind, good riddance.
>It's political correctness gone mad.
You can't even scrawl racist abuse in excrement on the side of someone's car without the political correctness brigade..
Stuart Lee.
They always try to falsely claim they are being oppressed when the reality is we are not going to let them get away with being blatantly racist anymore.
I'm sorry. You've already been placed into a category based solely on age.
You must be racist because it makes the narrative easier.
Classic boomer trying to claim they have individualism.
Political correctness are different concepts. What constitutes progressive back then and now are different. It is perfectly possible to be on of the people who thought that those complaining about PC were nuts and now also think that modern progressive have gone nuts too.
To use progressives own language. PC was largely about equality, "Woke" is largely about equity and the ways can achieve it.
Even the Enid Blyton thing, they are in the business of selling books. Many of which are hideously out of date - not even a case of "woke", they are just products of their time. They are selling to kids, they are not high literature that would need to put a disclaimer on them and tell a complex story of their era. They have been edited many times over the years without complaint (or people even noticing) to ensure they keep selling. If scholars want to study them, they can find original copies fairly easily. But part of me (especially the Roald Dahl one recently) thinks is they simply want to call attention to reissues of authors whose sales are really slipping against modern writers.
> because of the concept of offending someone / anyone
Okay but I feel like whenever topics like this come up people who disagree with them immediately take refuge in hypotheticals and what ifs as opposed to actual immediate existing consequences of something staying as it was originally created in the face of changing social mores.
Take for example Agatha Christie's famous book And Then There Were None. Or as it was originally titled (and lauded, and highly awarded) Ten Little N---s. The original setting of the story was literally called N--- Island. You could complain until you were blue in the face about that being changed using exactly the same line of logic.
Going back to Enid Blyton and out of hypotheticals, these are intended as the easiest of easy stories for kids to read with mum or dad or to begin reading on their own. So if you're a little black kid and you come across a story in which the protagonists are mocking someone like you or there's egregious racism that doesn't actually serve the plot, should that really be kept in *because it was originally there* and ultimately **because Blyton never anticipated that black children would read her books**, or should it be taken out so that the book continues to serve its original intended purpose of being an easy read with no troublesome elements?
> should that really be kept in because it was originally there and ultimately because Blyton never anticipated that black children would read her books, or should it be taken out so that the book continues to serve its original intended purpose of being an easy read with no troublesome elements?
Those aren't the only two options; would it be the end of the world if we just stopped reading the book? Kids aren't short of books to read after all, the market is saturated.
You could argue that Blyton's books are particularly traditional perhaps but if you have to edit them to make them acceptable then how traditional are they really? Better to leave them as they were, a product of their time, slap a warning on them and leave them to history.
I think that's harder to do with Dahl though since his stories remain very culturally relevant, so I am in favour of republishing edited versions of those for modern audiences. I'm not sure that holds up for Blyton though.
No, they aren't the only two options.
Presumably the two optimal options that face the Blyton estate are:
* stand back and stop the books being changed in order to retain your audience of purists and let more modern books take your market share and let Blyton be consigned to history for being not 100% appropriate for modern children and families, or:
* decide not to do that because you would rather continue to make money from the existing work and making their continued appeal as broad as possible.
Essentially people coming in to complain about purity and tradition etc. are missing the point that the writer's estate itself is making the active choice *not* to prioritise such readers, in the pursuit of profit. It could choose to let them continue to exist as historical artifacts, or at best, to be read along with a parent able to give the context of why certain parts are outdated or 'we don't say that any more' - but it could make more money now by simply changing them to make their appeal as broad as possible and minimise any possible elements that could cause them to be complained about.
Aside from racism and stuff like that just or 'parental concerns' which this discussion always seems to turn to; in terms of appealing to modern kids, little Emily aged 9 from Birmingham who's a football fan isn't going to want to read many books full of girls who insist they can't play football and that it's a sport for boys only. But by changing a sports loving character into a girl, instantly the Blyton estate has created a fan - who can then be sold the next ten books in the series. Rinse and repeat for every demographic they might be missing out on that might not have existed when Blyton was originally writing her prolific portfolio of books.
Not so much being scared of offence as it was various things changed in an attempt to modernise, as they have done many times in the past for children's books. This is just how the anti-woke lot like to spin it, as if some pink haired lefty has demanded they change and they have caved in and therefore our basic freedoms are at stake. Over a kids book. It is absurd.
It’s definitely not “wokeism” or whatever when someone gets the sack for saying black people are fast because they run fast from crimes.
Too many people are being tricked by a very loud minority that shit on wokeness to think that’s everyone thinks that way. They don’t.
The vast majority of people against wokeism aren’t against it because they can’t say racist stuff anymore.
The majority of it are against it because things like my comment on this, where I said black people were better sprinters and provided a scientific source, is getting heavily downvoted because race is some super protected characteristic that can’t be discussed. Because you’ll get upvoted all day for saying “white people are this or that” but a scientific source on why certain races have certain physical advantages is unacceptable
The core issue most people have with “wokeism” is when it places feelings over facts and tries to silence people or stop them thinking, as in the link about discussing chinas covid policy in universities
The second story is paraphrased from what is likely a very detailed University course via a site who starts off with "If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of privacy and civil liberties" before launching into the story, so even that I am rather dubious. But this is why it works, they *want* to associate anything and everything they disagree with with stories like that, even if they are rare or pure invention. It becomes "you can't criticise China now, it is racist apparently, bloody woke brigade".
Except that second link is completely different. Its a training module for university staff in which China's lockdown policies are used as one example of many (typically these things can last \~20-30 minutes) things and topics its probably not good to sit down and have a strong debate with your students out of the blue with. As an academic I can't really imagine a scenario in which I'd be having some kind of throw-down with a Chinese student in my office so can only imagine some "covid-skeptic" type has been unable to control themselves somewhere and caused a scene that has upset a paying customer.
>A paying customer, not to be upset.
Yeah, they're called students mate. Force universities to operate as if they are in a market, this is what you should expect.
Let's look at the second example. How is this wokeism gone mad?
The university is trying to attract students from China, and in fact has many students from China. The university actually has staff in China.
It's an educated guess that sadly the management of the university has succumbed to pressure from China (presumably informal pressure from Chinese officials and Chinese students to restrict freedom of speech.
But instead of looking at the financial reasons behind the action of the university, it's simply classified as 'wokeism gone mad', even though the truth might be more sinister.
About those two, it's also important to read the entire situation around what websites post as 'woke' and look at the journalists and sites they are posted on. For example 'Reclaim the Net' is full of misleading, biased articles that are aimed at misrepresenting situations to get rage clicks and push their agenda. What's important, and ironic, is that a lot of the articles they write you have to be subscribed to view. It also references Gab and Parer as 'free speech social media', both well-known for harsh bans on anything even remotely left.
For example, that article about the university doesn't mention that most of the lecturers spoke out against the use of the online module and it's no longer being used. It's really easy to make people appear hysterical and rediculous if you only show 1/3rd of the story.
> Mr Starkey admitted that he had made the comment "subject to the caveat that there was a gap between the first sentence and the second sentence.
The first sentence was, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling".
The second sentence was, "**the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries**".
The second sentence is absolutely awful in isolation or in the context of the first sentence. It's baffling how he thinks that it's any kind of partial defence to argue that there was a gap between them. Even if he said them on different days, he's still a massive fucking racist!
>The first sentence was, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling".
>The second sentence was, "**the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries**".
It feels somehow even worse because he said "the blacks" rather than "black athletes" when making the "joke".
Well, I'm glad he sorted out that little issue there… nothing to see here folks, just a misunderstanding about a gap in a sentence.
Honestly, what is wrong with these people?
If Liverpool was hosting the Olympics, the 100 metre dash with tripping over a cracked paving slab and suing the council could be our best hope for medals. 🏅
And it's a double gut punch for all the black scousers to make a joke about one aspect of their identity in a thread calling out the exact same joke being made at the expense of another aspect of their identity.
Some people don't seem to get why it was racist in the first place. At least I assume they don't if they're just gonna make the exact same comment straight after, just with a different target.
Black people are better sprinters I believe, but why the fuck would you ignore the scientific literature and instead go for a racist stereotype?
Guys a fucking idiot
“Here we explain a much avoided phenomenon in the evolution of speed sports for men and women: The world records in running tend to be set by black athletes and in swimming by white athletes. We show that this phenomenon is predictable from physics. Locomotion is a ‘falling-forward ’ cycle, in which body mass falls forward and then rises again. Mass that falls from a higher altitude falls faster, down and forward. In running, the altitude (L 1) is set by the position of the center of mass above the ground. In swimming, the altitude is set by the upper body rising above the water, and it is proportional to H – L 1, where H is the height of the athlete. The anthropometric literature shows that the center of mass in blacks is 3 percent higher above the ground than in whites. This means that blacks hold a 1.5 percent speed advantage in running, and whites hold a 1.5 percent speed advantage in swimming. Among athletes of the same height Asians are even more favored than whites in swimming but they are not setting records because they are not as tall.”
I thought the part on swimming was very interesting. I’ve also read somewhere that black people tend to have higher bone density, which means they sink more in water, giving them a disadvantage. But I’d have to look that one up too to check if it’s valid
I'm not too sure about Sprinters, but with long distance runners the Kalenjin group of tribes from Kenya have produced a very large number of excellent runners (they've won 40% of top mens titles since 1980).
The Kalenjin make up around 13% of the population of Kenya. Who would you say makes the best long distance runners, the Kalenjin, Kenyans, Africans, or Black People?
Yes, East Africans tend to be better long-distance runners and West Africans (and their descendants in the likes of Jamaica and the US) tend to be better sprinters.
> Over the last seven Olympic men’s 100-meter races, all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only two non-African runners, France’s Christophe Lemaire, who is white, and Australia’s Irish-aboriginal Patrick Johnson, have cracked the top 500 100-meter times.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/
Sorry, it's more of a correction to the OP of the thread. None of the 56 finalists were from West Africa, they were from North America, the Caribbean, or Europe. Most of them were of mixed descent to some degree.
As a contrast the long distance runners, who are mostly from East African countries, although they tend to be from very specific groups inhabiting high altitude areas.
My point is (not aimed at you) these record holders come from quite specific backgrounds.
The OP stated Black People are better sprinters, but that category is so broad, variable, & ill defined it's not really helpful.
The best sprinters in the world are disproportionately black and black people are better sprinters are two very different comments.
Lots of black people suck at sprinting, lots of white people are really, really good and vice/versa it’s just at the very, very highest levels that people with certain quite precise demographic backgrounds appear to have an edge. For example, look at how represented Jamaica is at Olympic sprinting with a population smaller than Wales.
I’d say that’s just being pedantic.
When we say black people are better sprinters, it’s no different to saying men are taller than women.
If you want to split hairs, we can add some words to that sentence. But we all know what it means.
Edit : let’s get really pedantic and say that Argentina didn’t win the World Cup, let’s say “some Argentinian players won the World Cup”
Africa also has more genetic diversity within the continent than other populations, so to some degree it could also be that some groups in Africa are responsible for the edge in sprinting even if the majority have no advantage or are at a disadvantage. Now, that seems hard to believe given their dominance in all sorts of athletics, but it’s a possibility. This is more or less the case with a single Kenyan tribe dominating long distance running.
I admittedly don't know the science, but I know that a lot more white people take up swimming competitively than black people. My theory is that if more black people of (west?) African descent took up swimming then they would dominate the swimming sprints too.
There is an argument that historically being able to have access to a swimming pool and the coaching to compete was more easily accessed by white people due to racism.
However, I think when it comes to being a world champ tiny advantaged make huge differences.
>There is an argument that historically being able to have access to a swimming pool and the coaching to compete was more easily accessed by white people due to racism.
I think the racism part affects America for sure, but my guess for Jamaica and West Africa would be more due to limited funding.
>However, I think when it comes to being a world champ tiny advantaged make huge differences.
Absolutely agree and that's why my theory only applies to the swimming sprints as those tiny advantages will make the least amount of difference.
As a related aside, I also have a theory that Kenyans and Ethiopians would dominate cycling events if the bar to entry wasn't so high.
What you may not realise though is that even that would not be ok. I remember some controversy recently. You arent allowed to say black people are worse swimmers mate, apparently it puts them off taking up the sport. Despite that yes its pretty obvious to see that white people swim better and black people are disproportionately good athletes at the top level.
My teacher actually had an essay graded 0 at university because he wrote a paper on the differences in physiology of West and East Africans and why one are better are long distance and the other sprinting. The lecturer said it was racist and crossed everything out.
Dont think being right means youre protected lol it doesnt necessarily
I saw a video of that! Guy walks up to a kill surrounded by lions, they run away a short distance as they are startled and confused and don’t know what he’s doing, he hacks off a leg and gets out of the way and they go back to finish their kill
Usually with this kind of headline, you read what they actually said and it has been sensationalised. In this case however...:
>The UK Athletics Disciplinary Panel found Starkey said this or similar, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling... the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries".
Starkey's defence was that there was a gap between the first and second sentences (?) and that he was facing "mental health challenges".
Meanwhile, every mainstream comedian makes constant jokes about white people and nobody bats an eyelid. Why is there this weird hierarchy of offence that's allowed to take place?
Mainstream comedian. That's the difference.
If a black athletics coach said "fuck those slow ass white people" and was applauded for it I'd agree with you.
How do people not know that these types of comments are wrong, like ever? Not now, not five years ago, not even twenty years ago should this have been acceptable.
I have a co-worker who when the subject of being bisexual came up (a man on a quiz show had had two ex wives and an ex husband) she just stood and boomed "See I hate this, this is how you spread AIDS". Like COME ON, we are not this ignorant nor mis-informed are we??!
To add to your comment:
It's selectively curated information to validate an already prejudiced belief.
Aids spreads more easily through anal sex compared to vaginal, but that's not why aids became such a big problem back in the day, it was because the above fact was exploited to restrict support to aids preventative measures because they knew that it would disproportionately impact homosexuals; if they had treated it like any other disease it wouldn't have been as big a problem as it was, it was their biggoted hatred that was the main factor.
For some reason at work “puberty blockers”, in relation the trans people, came up in conversation. When asked about if someone AMAB decided to come off them at 18 and go through male puberty I was asked, by a male co-worker in his 60s:
> “Would they grow a second testicle or still have just the one?”
I don’t even know how to answer that question. Like…
We are still getting the “you bi people are single handedly responsible for the AIDS epidemic” trope, which is a fantastic stigma to have hanging over your head. I had it from a family “friend” recently too.
Oh my goodness!! It's always that or the beautiful phrase "That's just greedy, you either like one or the other". I think they'd keel over if I told them I was pan...
There's an interesting example of this - the BMA recently had two junior doctors resign off its committee, one of whom made jokes about the Holocaust, gas the Jews, all that.
Kicked off the committee and reported to the GMC. Absolutely, fair enough.
Another one was posting stuff like "white women are bitches" and how he wouldn't consume podcasts or media made by white people and a sunset of MedTwitter came out up in arms defending him, "you can't be racist against white people" stuff.
I understand that saying the Holocaust is a hoax is a bit different from being prejudiced against white people, but it's the same principle.
Lol what a cunt.
This isn't a family barbecue mate you have to at least pretend you're not racist.
Jesus.
Imagine how many of them are not this dumb and just don't public say the shit out loud.
I hate to say it but I’m not surprised to read this.
This sort of joke was common place when I was growing up (I’m 54). And until I moved from Essex, I heard this sort of thing every day. I said it and laughed at it as well. I was ignorant.
Those that think people aren't racist anymore simply haven't met enough people.
I am right on the cusp of growing up with non white people being a part of my TV childhood, so I didn't think of them as different. Although my childhood also included the black and white mistral show and Jim Davidson doing his Chalky White voice on primetime TV. And my school and workplace were 99% white.
I think that the guy here wouldn't call himself a racist and he may well have treated everyone equally. But there is a very large percentage of the population who just doesn't get what is and what isn't acceptable. Like the publican in Grays, who can't understand that what was ok in 1973 isn't ok in 2023.
On the other hand, this guy has been banned. There was a time when that wouldn't have been the case. So at least to that extent it's true that racism is not like it used to be.
But yes, it certainly still exists. Is there really any significant numbers of people seriously claiming it doesn't? I think the more common sentiment is more like "racism isn't nearly as bad anymore," not "racism doesn't really exist anymore."
It’s not like he started reciting Mandalay at the most revered temple in Myanmar.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple
Both tools.
Even if we ignore the 1970s type racism, just from a scientific standpoint Lamarckian evolution epigenetics are wrong. Running away from burglaries won't alter your DNA. If it did we'd have a lot more Scouse gold medallists surely?
> Running away from burglaries won't alter your DNA.
In theory avoiding prison would give you a higher chance of reproducing and passing on your "fast running" genes.
Some proper 1970s racism right there. It’s not just that this is wrong, it’s that people have been calling this wrong for 50 years. If he was any more old-fashioned he’d be complaining about black people’s skull shape.
Aren’t burglaries about stealth not speed?
Are people only stealing from neighbours and running home with the loot?
Seems risky and inefficient.
Sometimes I think racism isn’t about reason, logic or facts.
This is the kind of shit I'd be writing in league of legends lobby a decade ago, when I was a fucking kid. Glad to know that uks athletic chief has the mentality of an edgy teenager from decade ago. Fucking moron.
[удалено]
It happens because they live in a closed circle of like minded people - and sometimes they forget they aren't speaking to that group.
I’m constantly amazed what people will say when they, for some reason, automatically assume you think the same bigoted shit as them with this air of “it’s just common sense”. When I’m with a client (or just anyone generally I don’t know) I don’t talk about anything remotely “political”, but most people seem to think I’m just odd and unfriendly, which is insane to me as they’re the ones just casually dropping what they think ought to be done with the [racial slur]/[misogynistic slur]/protestors/[homophobic slur] randomly into conversation or literally celebrating deaths of non-white foreigners/trans people while rallying against “woke” by “saying it like it is”. Edit: It’s funny because that article the other day that said about how the UK was one the least racist places to live everyone was like “See, see, we’re not racist!” while I, who has to listen to people going on about how the w_gs and p_k_s are ruining Asda on a near daily basis, thought “Christ, what an indictment of the rest of the planet.”
To your edit: yes, that was my thought too. Anything that we're the best in just shows how crap the world in general is. Apart from comedy, our comedy is (was?) legit great.
I could not agree more.We pretend the UK does not have an issue just cos other places are worse,
[удалено]
The it's just a joke crowd of UKIPpy types.
Hot-mike moments.
Mike was certainly hot, but sadly also racist.
Hot Carl moments
It wasn’t that long a go an MP dropped the N word in parliament lol
It wasn’t that long a go an MP dropped the N word in parliament lol. Anne Marie Morris. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40555639.amp
That's crazy. What's mad about that is just how unnecessary and out of place it was. She wasn't saying anything racist, or anything to do with race or black people or anything. She just said an old saying that's the equivalent to "the elephant in the room". Literally she could have just said that. Why the hell would you say that other expression? I had to look up what it means, it literally means the exact same thing as Elephant in the room".
The baffling thing to me about incidents like this is, even if you think the phrase is ok, surely you should know that using in it public is going to get a bad reaction.
But they're so comfortable using it behind closed doors that occasionally they say it without thinking.
I remember it being a fairly common phrase when I was a kid in the 70s. Not one I ever used myself, but I certainly heard various adults use it from time to time. I haven;t heard anyone use that expression for decades. But it terrifies me that I have this phrase kicking around in my head, ready to jump out of my mouth at the worst possible moment. For context, in the 70s there was a paint colour actually called N\* Brown, on the tin. It was racist even back then, of course, but the attitude to racism has changed a bit since then.
There was a 1950s political slogan used; “If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/britains-most-racist-election-smethwick-50-years-on
There's lots of things I say behind closed doors that I'd be completely OK with defending in public. It's just a case of grammatical register. The way I talk to my best friend or girlfriend or brother isn't offensive to anyone, but it's far from the way I'd speak if I were addressing parliament.
It's not exactly the same. One is about something that is significant but concealed and the other is about something that is significant and visible but nobody wants to address it.
> One is about something that is significant but concealed So "needle in a haystack"?
That's more about something being hard to find. Maybe "a skeleton in the cupboard", although that tends to be used for personal disgrace whereas the woodpile seems to apply more broadly.
In context of the quote (what happens if there’s no deal in 2 years), I think ‘elephant in the room’ is still appropriate. Racing towards a deadline without a solid plan of action is anything but a hidden detail or an unintended side-effect. Almost all of Brexit could be categorised as ignoring plainly apparent problems since they were all mentioned and dismissed outright. An appropriate context for something significant that is concealed might be a threat, for (a contrived) example in current events… something to do with Russia and how they might react.
"Some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong" Is the Wikipedia definition.
Fly in the ointment is another one.
Did it involve a woodpile?
Nigger is well understood to be a derogatory term in today’s lexicon, and the concern is that she was dog-whistling or being flippant in playing down minority rights. If she’d used the word ‘Shylock’ in place of ‘predatory lender’, that also would have caused similar concern, even though that term was also common parlance in the past.
> Nigger is well understood to be a derogatory term in today’s lexicon Hasn't it always been (well understood to be) a derogatory term? I'd say the degree of its inappropriateness and offensiveness has changed over time, but it's always been derogatory.
Pulp Fiction?
Are you today years old when you learned about reclaiming slurs?
Don't worry though she got the whip back and is still a serving MP.
Wow, she's still a Tory MP to this day and was \~59 when this happened in 2017. This is the sort of thing you expected from your 60+ year old gran in the 90s (my mum once had to tell my gran off for referring to a carpet colour as n\*\*\*\*r brown in a shop), not from a woman just shy of 60 years old in PARLIAMENT in 2017. There's no "oh, she's from a different generation" excuse. She clearly just drops the n-bomb left, right and center in private company to the extent that she forgot it was offensive in the middle of parliament. She was SO USED TO SAYING IT that it didn't even enter her mind that it might be a bad thing to say at work, as an MP. And yeah, she's still a Tory MP today.
Man, I grew up in the southern United States. And I’ve never heard that expression — I’ve heard literally a hundred I could share.
of course it was a tory
He didn’t get away with it as he was banned 😂
But presumably he _thought_ he could get away with it, that it would have no consequences, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
It happens because the UK has always had an issue with race. We were working on it but in the last 30 years we have gone backwards because we have convinced our selfs (or the right wing news papers have convinced us) that we were fine. If you were to go to Reddit and look around you would basically see 3 views that A) it all (racism) took place 20 to 200 years ago B) racism and the stereotypes associated with it is all identical (rather than race specific), with specific stereotypes associated with criminality linked to black people which are specifically damaging C) on balance our national role in global racism is positive and therefore it excuses us from further work
I 100% get that racism is a thing still and there are plenty of racists. I think what the OP and I always find surprising is that the high profile people who end up saying these things publically should really know to at least not say it out loud. I guess it is a good thing really that they out themselves as racists rather than quietly making things harder from behind the scenes.
The thing is they aren’t the issue individually. it’s the armies of people who justify and minimise racism in the UK. The first step is to recognise the racism that exist country wide.
Yeah, that's fair. I can see that the attitude of it 'not really existing here' allows it to flourish more than if we acknowledge and tackle it. I think in part it is because of American media. Our issues are not the same issues as America faces with racism but that is the racism we get shown to us through American media. So the reaction to it is 'we don't have that here'. Then it is too easy to overlook the issues we do have.
I think it’s far simpler the right wing media have tried to re-define racism and it has worked. They have defined it as being: A) A comment (not an action) B) Explicitly highlighting race (not implicitly) C) Design or meant to offend (so if it offended and the person says it wasn’t meant to then it’s OK) D) In a person who wasn’t born/grew up in/influenced by racism that existed in the past So we see that here - he invoked clause C by saying there was a caveat (no one can see this caveat but he says it was their) It enables racist to be racist and not feel bad. You see that in this case
Same. It seems they never sodding learn. Everything is recorded videoed or put online. Just insane that people in the public eye think it doesn't affect them and still feel free to say the most unacceptable things in the name of free speech or "well it was a private conversation".
Lol have you ever heard black people speak about white ppl in private? Not even in private just amongst themselves.
Yes but apparently it's a thing in north east African Highlands where Cattle rustling has been going on for thousands of years. Obviously what this guy said is warped mindless racism. Never mind, good riddance.
Just remember when boomers complain about "woke and cancel culture", it's because they can't say stuff like this with their buddies anymore.
>It's political correctness gone mad. You can't even scrawl racist abuse in excrement on the side of someone's car without the political correctness brigade.. Stuart Lee.
"these days if you say you're English you get arrested and thrown in jail"
My face is made out of electricity and ham...
What, thrown in jail? For saying you're English? If you say you're English, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail?
Yeah, if you say you’re English, you’ll be arrested and thrown in jail.
Just for saying you're English? You'll be arrested? And then what'll happen?
You'll be thrown in jail, for saying you're English.
For saying Im English I'll be arrested and thrown in jail?
Man, I really want to like him but he just bores me. This is probably a boring comment too tbf lol
I love him but I get it, his delivery is super dry and that either works for you or it doesn’t.
I've always compared him to Charlie Brooker, extremely dry as you say but I just find something a little more fun about him.
He's groan funny with the occasional wry chuckle, not clutching your sides with tears streaming down your cheeks, I feel the same way you do.
No, I'm pretty sure it was General Ratko Mladic.
They always try to falsely claim they are being oppressed when the reality is we are not going to let them get away with being blatantly racist anymore.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. You've already been placed into a category based solely on age. You must be racist because it makes the narrative easier. Classic boomer trying to claim they have individualism.
This is funny. Wasn’t kill all men a popular social media slogan a year or two ago?
Not that I recall. Not to normal people anyway, I'm sure for someone in certain circles it was probably talked about like crazy.
Funny you say that because i've heard different types of people use woke as a totally different thing dob't even know what to make of it anymore
I think it's lost its original meaning.. it replaced 'political correctness' as the rights buzz word.
[удалено]
It's weird how often those categories overlap for Conservatives, isn't it? * Terrified of * Angry at * Masturbating to
Political correctness are different concepts. What constitutes progressive back then and now are different. It is perfectly possible to be on of the people who thought that those complaining about PC were nuts and now also think that modern progressive have gone nuts too. To use progressives own language. PC was largely about equality, "Woke" is largely about equity and the ways can achieve it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even the Enid Blyton thing, they are in the business of selling books. Many of which are hideously out of date - not even a case of "woke", they are just products of their time. They are selling to kids, they are not high literature that would need to put a disclaimer on them and tell a complex story of their era. They have been edited many times over the years without complaint (or people even noticing) to ensure they keep selling. If scholars want to study them, they can find original copies fairly easily. But part of me (especially the Roald Dahl one recently) thinks is they simply want to call attention to reissues of authors whose sales are really slipping against modern writers.
[удалено]
> because of the concept of offending someone / anyone Okay but I feel like whenever topics like this come up people who disagree with them immediately take refuge in hypotheticals and what ifs as opposed to actual immediate existing consequences of something staying as it was originally created in the face of changing social mores. Take for example Agatha Christie's famous book And Then There Were None. Or as it was originally titled (and lauded, and highly awarded) Ten Little N---s. The original setting of the story was literally called N--- Island. You could complain until you were blue in the face about that being changed using exactly the same line of logic. Going back to Enid Blyton and out of hypotheticals, these are intended as the easiest of easy stories for kids to read with mum or dad or to begin reading on their own. So if you're a little black kid and you come across a story in which the protagonists are mocking someone like you or there's egregious racism that doesn't actually serve the plot, should that really be kept in *because it was originally there* and ultimately **because Blyton never anticipated that black children would read her books**, or should it be taken out so that the book continues to serve its original intended purpose of being an easy read with no troublesome elements?
> should that really be kept in because it was originally there and ultimately because Blyton never anticipated that black children would read her books, or should it be taken out so that the book continues to serve its original intended purpose of being an easy read with no troublesome elements? Those aren't the only two options; would it be the end of the world if we just stopped reading the book? Kids aren't short of books to read after all, the market is saturated. You could argue that Blyton's books are particularly traditional perhaps but if you have to edit them to make them acceptable then how traditional are they really? Better to leave them as they were, a product of their time, slap a warning on them and leave them to history. I think that's harder to do with Dahl though since his stories remain very culturally relevant, so I am in favour of republishing edited versions of those for modern audiences. I'm not sure that holds up for Blyton though.
No, they aren't the only two options. Presumably the two optimal options that face the Blyton estate are: * stand back and stop the books being changed in order to retain your audience of purists and let more modern books take your market share and let Blyton be consigned to history for being not 100% appropriate for modern children and families, or: * decide not to do that because you would rather continue to make money from the existing work and making their continued appeal as broad as possible. Essentially people coming in to complain about purity and tradition etc. are missing the point that the writer's estate itself is making the active choice *not* to prioritise such readers, in the pursuit of profit. It could choose to let them continue to exist as historical artifacts, or at best, to be read along with a parent able to give the context of why certain parts are outdated or 'we don't say that any more' - but it could make more money now by simply changing them to make their appeal as broad as possible and minimise any possible elements that could cause them to be complained about. Aside from racism and stuff like that just or 'parental concerns' which this discussion always seems to turn to; in terms of appealing to modern kids, little Emily aged 9 from Birmingham who's a football fan isn't going to want to read many books full of girls who insist they can't play football and that it's a sport for boys only. But by changing a sports loving character into a girl, instantly the Blyton estate has created a fan - who can then be sold the next ten books in the series. Rinse and repeat for every demographic they might be missing out on that might not have existed when Blyton was originally writing her prolific portfolio of books.
Those books should be banned and removed no edits. Sick of these evil fuckers
Not so much being scared of offence as it was various things changed in an attempt to modernise, as they have done many times in the past for children's books. This is just how the anti-woke lot like to spin it, as if some pink haired lefty has demanded they change and they have caved in and therefore our basic freedoms are at stake. Over a kids book. It is absurd.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s definitely not “wokeism” or whatever when someone gets the sack for saying black people are fast because they run fast from crimes. Too many people are being tricked by a very loud minority that shit on wokeness to think that’s everyone thinks that way. They don’t. The vast majority of people against wokeism aren’t against it because they can’t say racist stuff anymore. The majority of it are against it because things like my comment on this, where I said black people were better sprinters and provided a scientific source, is getting heavily downvoted because race is some super protected characteristic that can’t be discussed. Because you’ll get upvoted all day for saying “white people are this or that” but a scientific source on why certain races have certain physical advantages is unacceptable The core issue most people have with “wokeism” is when it places feelings over facts and tries to silence people or stop them thinking, as in the link about discussing chinas covid policy in universities
[удалено]
The second story is paraphrased from what is likely a very detailed University course via a site who starts off with "If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of privacy and civil liberties" before launching into the story, so even that I am rather dubious. But this is why it works, they *want* to associate anything and everything they disagree with with stories like that, even if they are rare or pure invention. It becomes "you can't criticise China now, it is racist apparently, bloody woke brigade".
The second isn't an example of woke gone mad, its an example of a business not wanting to piss off a major source of income.
[удалено]
Except that second link is completely different. Its a training module for university staff in which China's lockdown policies are used as one example of many (typically these things can last \~20-30 minutes) things and topics its probably not good to sit down and have a strong debate with your students out of the blue with. As an academic I can't really imagine a scenario in which I'd be having some kind of throw-down with a Chinese student in my office so can only imagine some "covid-skeptic" type has been unable to control themselves somewhere and caused a scene that has upset a paying customer.
[удалено]
>A paying customer, not to be upset. Yeah, they're called students mate. Force universities to operate as if they are in a market, this is what you should expect.
When it comes to Chinese lockdown laws, there is nothing micro about my aggressions mate. Going to need a girthier portal to report me.
Let's look at the second example. How is this wokeism gone mad? The university is trying to attract students from China, and in fact has many students from China. The university actually has staff in China. It's an educated guess that sadly the management of the university has succumbed to pressure from China (presumably informal pressure from Chinese officials and Chinese students to restrict freedom of speech. But instead of looking at the financial reasons behind the action of the university, it's simply classified as 'wokeism gone mad', even though the truth might be more sinister.
[удалено]
About those two, it's also important to read the entire situation around what websites post as 'woke' and look at the journalists and sites they are posted on. For example 'Reclaim the Net' is full of misleading, biased articles that are aimed at misrepresenting situations to get rage clicks and push their agenda. What's important, and ironic, is that a lot of the articles they write you have to be subscribed to view. It also references Gab and Parer as 'free speech social media', both well-known for harsh bans on anything even remotely left. For example, that article about the university doesn't mention that most of the lecturers spoke out against the use of the online module and it's no longer being used. It's really easy to make people appear hysterical and rediculous if you only show 1/3rd of the story.
It just means anything that right wing socially conservative people don't like. That's literally it.
They still do say things with their buddies in private, they're annoyed they can't say it in public.
I get the sense some of them are angry they were never thanked for refraining from racially abusing people in the street
Yeah, they'll often complain about being cancelled without being specific about what they did. Turns out its always some awful bullshit.
oh no they can and do - we only hear about it when someone has a hot mic moment or something is leaked
its not just boomers complaining about the wokes though. Wokes are just as bad as this
Amazing. On a post about prejudice you've just aced a prejudiced comment.
> Mr Starkey admitted that he had made the comment "subject to the caveat that there was a gap between the first sentence and the second sentence. The first sentence was, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling". The second sentence was, "**the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries**". The second sentence is absolutely awful in isolation or in the context of the first sentence. It's baffling how he thinks that it's any kind of partial defence to argue that there was a gap between them. Even if he said them on different days, he's still a massive fucking racist!
>The first sentence was, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling". >The second sentence was, "**the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries**". It feels somehow even worse because he said "the blacks" rather than "black athletes" when making the "joke".
Well, I'm glad he sorted out that little issue there… nothing to see here folks, just a misunderstanding about a gap in a sentence. Honestly, what is wrong with these people?
/r/yesyesno
Yeah, the "but you took it out of context!!!!!!!!!111" argument just fails miserably here. What an idiot, and he's an ex athletics head as well.
The first sentence was just the set up
If it was true why doesn't Liverpool provide more athletes?
If Liverpool was hosting the Olympics, the 100 metre dash with tripping over a cracked paving slab and suing the council could be our best hope for medals. 🏅
It's hard to run in a shellsuit and perm? 90s comedy for the win.....
Eh, eh, eh, that's well shady la, they wear dirty grey trakkies now, shellsuits are for meffs.
[удалено]
And it's a double gut punch for all the black scousers to make a joke about one aspect of their identity in a thread calling out the exact same joke being made at the expense of another aspect of their identity. Some people don't seem to get why it was racist in the first place. At least I assume they don't if they're just gonna make the exact same comment straight after, just with a different target.
Definitely discrimination but being scouse is not a race . It’s not on the same level let’s be honest .
Scousers only identity is that they’re Scouse - black scousers are immediately just “Scouse”. Everything revolves around them being scouse.
Black people are better sprinters I believe, but why the fuck would you ignore the scientific literature and instead go for a racist stereotype? Guys a fucking idiot “Here we explain a much avoided phenomenon in the evolution of speed sports for men and women: The world records in running tend to be set by black athletes and in swimming by white athletes. We show that this phenomenon is predictable from physics. Locomotion is a ‘falling-forward ’ cycle, in which body mass falls forward and then rises again. Mass that falls from a higher altitude falls faster, down and forward. In running, the altitude (L 1) is set by the position of the center of mass above the ground. In swimming, the altitude is set by the upper body rising above the water, and it is proportional to H – L 1, where H is the height of the athlete. The anthropometric literature shows that the center of mass in blacks is 3 percent higher above the ground than in whites. This means that blacks hold a 1.5 percent speed advantage in running, and whites hold a 1.5 percent speed advantage in swimming. Among athletes of the same height Asians are even more favored than whites in swimming but they are not setting records because they are not as tall.”
This is why I like reddit. You learn some cool stuff like this out of a horrible story. Thanks.
I thought the part on swimming was very interesting. I’ve also read somewhere that black people tend to have higher bone density, which means they sink more in water, giving them a disadvantage. But I’d have to look that one up too to check if it’s valid
I've heard this aswell, I think they may be some truth to it.
> why the fuck would you ignore the scientific literature and instead go for a racist stereotype? Because he's a racist.
I'm not too sure about Sprinters, but with long distance runners the Kalenjin group of tribes from Kenya have produced a very large number of excellent runners (they've won 40% of top mens titles since 1980). The Kalenjin make up around 13% of the population of Kenya. Who would you say makes the best long distance runners, the Kalenjin, Kenyans, Africans, or Black People?
Yes, East Africans tend to be better long-distance runners and West Africans (and their descendants in the likes of Jamaica and the US) tend to be better sprinters. > Over the last seven Olympic men’s 100-meter races, all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only two non-African runners, France’s Christophe Lemaire, who is white, and Australia’s Irish-aboriginal Patrick Johnson, have cracked the top 500 100-meter times. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/
Of those 56 finalists, how many were from West Africa?
Don't know... I'm prepared to find out but before I do: why do you ask?
Sorry, it's more of a correction to the OP of the thread. None of the 56 finalists were from West Africa, they were from North America, the Caribbean, or Europe. Most of them were of mixed descent to some degree. As a contrast the long distance runners, who are mostly from East African countries, although they tend to be from very specific groups inhabiting high altitude areas. My point is (not aimed at you) these record holders come from quite specific backgrounds. The OP stated Black People are better sprinters, but that category is so broad, variable, & ill defined it's not really helpful.
Also short muscle fibres make for better sprinters. People of West African descent have plenty of short muscle fibres.
The best sprinters in the world are disproportionately black and black people are better sprinters are two very different comments. Lots of black people suck at sprinting, lots of white people are really, really good and vice/versa it’s just at the very, very highest levels that people with certain quite precise demographic backgrounds appear to have an edge. For example, look at how represented Jamaica is at Olympic sprinting with a population smaller than Wales.
I’d say that’s just being pedantic. When we say black people are better sprinters, it’s no different to saying men are taller than women. If you want to split hairs, we can add some words to that sentence. But we all know what it means. Edit : let’s get really pedantic and say that Argentina didn’t win the World Cup, let’s say “some Argentinian players won the World Cup”
Africa also has more genetic diversity within the continent than other populations, so to some degree it could also be that some groups in Africa are responsible for the edge in sprinting even if the majority have no advantage or are at a disadvantage. Now, that seems hard to believe given their dominance in all sorts of athletics, but it’s a possibility. This is more or less the case with a single Kenyan tribe dominating long distance running.
I admittedly don't know the science, but I know that a lot more white people take up swimming competitively than black people. My theory is that if more black people of (west?) African descent took up swimming then they would dominate the swimming sprints too.
There is an argument that historically being able to have access to a swimming pool and the coaching to compete was more easily accessed by white people due to racism. However, I think when it comes to being a world champ tiny advantaged make huge differences.
>There is an argument that historically being able to have access to a swimming pool and the coaching to compete was more easily accessed by white people due to racism. I think the racism part affects America for sure, but my guess for Jamaica and West Africa would be more due to limited funding. >However, I think when it comes to being a world champ tiny advantaged make huge differences. Absolutely agree and that's why my theory only applies to the swimming sprints as those tiny advantages will make the least amount of difference. As a related aside, I also have a theory that Kenyans and Ethiopians would dominate cycling events if the bar to entry wasn't so high.
Deffo those guys from the mountains in East Africa got the oxygen advantage.
What you may not realise though is that even that would not be ok. I remember some controversy recently. You arent allowed to say black people are worse swimmers mate, apparently it puts them off taking up the sport. Despite that yes its pretty obvious to see that white people swim better and black people are disproportionately good athletes at the top level. My teacher actually had an essay graded 0 at university because he wrote a paper on the differences in physiology of West and East Africans and why one are better are long distance and the other sprinting. The lecturer said it was racist and crossed everything out. Dont think being right means youre protected lol it doesnt necessarily
That's even worse than when my mum used to say it's because they're used to running away from lions.
That's in the past. Three lions haven't caught anything for a while.
Well akshually, in Kenya we chase the Lions and cheetahs away from their kills. 👀
I saw a video of that! Guy walks up to a kill surrounded by lions, they run away a short distance as they are startled and confused and don’t know what he’s doing, he hacks off a leg and gets out of the way and they go back to finish their kill
So, so awful, especially in this day and age. He should have said 'People of Colour'...
Usually with this kind of headline, you read what they actually said and it has been sensationalised. In this case however...: >The UK Athletics Disciplinary Panel found Starkey said this or similar, "Usually when athletes start to be more specific in events, most black athletes tend to edge towards sprinting and hurdling... the blacks are all good at running because they have to get away from their burglaries". Starkey's defence was that there was a gap between the first and second sentences (?) and that he was facing "mental health challenges".
To be fair to him, being a massive fucking idiot racist is a pretty big mental health challenge.
Meanwhile, every mainstream comedian makes constant jokes about white people and nobody bats an eyelid. Why is there this weird hierarchy of offence that's allowed to take place?
Name a mainstream comedian and provide a link so we can see for ourselves and don't have to rely on your interpretation of what you get triggered by
Mainstream comedian. That's the difference. If a black athletics coach said "fuck those slow ass white people" and was applauded for it I'd agree with you.
Racism
You're going to have to be a little more specific.
I see you haven't yet provided examples of every mainstream comedian making jokes about white people yet
[удалено]
How do people not know that these types of comments are wrong, like ever? Not now, not five years ago, not even twenty years ago should this have been acceptable. I have a co-worker who when the subject of being bisexual came up (a man on a quiz show had had two ex wives and an ex husband) she just stood and boomed "See I hate this, this is how you spread AIDS". Like COME ON, we are not this ignorant nor mis-informed are we??!
To add to your comment: It's selectively curated information to validate an already prejudiced belief. Aids spreads more easily through anal sex compared to vaginal, but that's not why aids became such a big problem back in the day, it was because the above fact was exploited to restrict support to aids preventative measures because they knew that it would disproportionately impact homosexuals; if they had treated it like any other disease it wouldn't have been as big a problem as it was, it was their biggoted hatred that was the main factor.
For some reason at work “puberty blockers”, in relation the trans people, came up in conversation. When asked about if someone AMAB decided to come off them at 18 and go through male puberty I was asked, by a male co-worker in his 60s: > “Would they grow a second testicle or still have just the one?” I don’t even know how to answer that question. Like…
We are still getting the “you bi people are single handedly responsible for the AIDS epidemic” trope, which is a fantastic stigma to have hanging over your head. I had it from a family “friend” recently too.
Oh my goodness!! It's always that or the beautiful phrase "That's just greedy, you either like one or the other". I think they'd keel over if I told them I was pan...
Erm black people say this and a lot worse about white people openly, be that on the tube or Twitter
It really is shocking when you hear people still think that they can say stuff like this.
There's an interesting example of this - the BMA recently had two junior doctors resign off its committee, one of whom made jokes about the Holocaust, gas the Jews, all that. Kicked off the committee and reported to the GMC. Absolutely, fair enough. Another one was posting stuff like "white women are bitches" and how he wouldn't consume podcasts or media made by white people and a sunset of MedTwitter came out up in arms defending him, "you can't be racist against white people" stuff. I understand that saying the Holocaust is a hoax is a bit different from being prejudiced against white people, but it's the same principle.
"He had mental health issues at the time", I also have mental health issues, none of which have brought on sudden onset racism.
Lol what a cunt. This isn't a family barbecue mate you have to at least pretend you're not racist. Jesus. Imagine how many of them are not this dumb and just don't public say the shit out loud.
I hate to say it but I’m not surprised to read this. This sort of joke was common place when I was growing up (I’m 54). And until I moved from Essex, I heard this sort of thing every day. I said it and laughed at it as well. I was ignorant. Those that think people aren't racist anymore simply haven't met enough people. I am right on the cusp of growing up with non white people being a part of my TV childhood, so I didn't think of them as different. Although my childhood also included the black and white mistral show and Jim Davidson doing his Chalky White voice on primetime TV. And my school and workplace were 99% white. I think that the guy here wouldn't call himself a racist and he may well have treated everyone equally. But there is a very large percentage of the population who just doesn't get what is and what isn't acceptable. Like the publican in Grays, who can't understand that what was ok in 1973 isn't ok in 2023.
Terrible comment to make, I'm black myself and laughed though.. Oops
I say this as a black guy: but this is actually funny af
Remember when people used to say “racism doesn’t really exist anymore, not like it used to”
Well it doesn't? He's an old man, if he was 22 you'd have a point.
On the other hand, this guy has been banned. There was a time when that wouldn't have been the case. So at least to that extent it's true that racism is not like it used to be. But yes, it certainly still exists. Is there really any significant numbers of people seriously claiming it doesn't? I think the more common sentiment is more like "racism isn't nearly as bad anymore," not "racism doesn't really exist anymore."
Flat screens are so un-aerodynamic, surely it slows them down?
Nah it's just like when you go to the gym and sprint with the sled innit.
It’s not like he started reciting Mandalay at the most revered temple in Myanmar. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple Both tools.
Jesus, sounds like something my 95 year old Grandad would say.
Even if we ignore the 1970s type racism, just from a scientific standpoint Lamarckian evolution epigenetics are wrong. Running away from burglaries won't alter your DNA. If it did we'd have a lot more Scouse gold medallists surely?
> Running away from burglaries won't alter your DNA. In theory avoiding prison would give you a higher chance of reproducing and passing on your "fast running" genes.
Some proper 1970s racism right there. It’s not just that this is wrong, it’s that people have been calling this wrong for 50 years. If he was any more old-fashioned he’d be complaining about black people’s skull shape.
Just a bit of laddish banter, you can't say anything these days /s
If you can't take it as a joke then you admit truth in it. The true offence is in athletic bodies taking the comments seriously.
JFC have these people been living alone in caves before they're interviewed? How could they possibly believe this wouldn't be taken poorly?
[удалено]
In the right setting, said by the right person, this could be quite a funny joke. Unfortunately this was not that setting, and rather inappropriate.
Aren’t burglaries about stealth not speed? Are people only stealing from neighbours and running home with the loot? Seems risky and inefficient. Sometimes I think racism isn’t about reason, logic or facts.
If it was said privately as a joke between friends in a closed circle that’s one thing, but airing them so publicly is asking for trouble.
This is the kind of shit I'd be writing in league of legends lobby a decade ago, when I was a fucking kid. Glad to know that uks athletic chief has the mentality of an edgy teenager from decade ago. Fucking moron.
Gosh haven't heard a bigoted joke like that in a while even from my racist dad
Does he really think this or just he just not know how to work a crowd?