FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should the Ship symbol be removed from Manchester institutions?
Should the Ship symbol be removed from Manchester institutions?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. "
Oh FFS. What next? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
Oh FFS. What next?"
Don't know. Maybe next thing you know The Graun changes it name to something else "to make a clean break from our past". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not sure I understand the ultra-woke mindset. On the one hand they insist that we should all learn about and acknowledge the existence of the sl@ve trade, and on the other hand they insist that we should remove anything that might remind us of it.
Censoring history doesn't seem to me to be a useful way of teaching people about the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure I understand the ultra-woke mindset. On the one hand they insist that we should all learn about and acknowledge the existence of the sl@ve trade, and on the other hand they insist that we should remove anything that might remind us of it.
Censoring history doesn't seem to me to be a useful way of teaching people about the world."
Apparently to the woke, history is binary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. "
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) ..."
I don't see anyone using 'woke' as an insult in this thread. Who are you 'responding' to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"... all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) ...
I don't see anyone using 'woke' as an insult in this thread. Who are you 'responding' to?"
I never said anyone on this thread used woke as an insult , however I am referring to the people who use woke as an insult . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. "
You think enough people who get triggered by these kind of stories in the Guardian will identify the Tories as their party to vote for, that hadn't previous voted conservative?
And that this will be enough for them to win the next election?
I mean, I am certain they will win the next election, but easily offended people who don't understand what "woke" means probably won't be the deciding factor. But then again, maybe there are a lot more of them than I know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
You think enough people who get triggered by these kind of stories in the Guardian will identify the Tories as their party to vote for, that hadn't previous voted conservative?
And that this will be enough for them to win the next election?
I mean, I am certain they will win the next election, but easily offended people who don't understand what "woke" means probably won't be the deciding factor. But then again, maybe there are a lot more of them than I know."
I think it's far to soon to do something so woke, after all its only been thirteen years since sl@very was made illegal in England. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding. "
It wasn't just that initial piece by Simon Hattenstone. Lester Holloway also chipped in too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/21/manchester-city-fans-anti-racist-badge-sl*very (change the * to a for the actual link) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A sailing ship does not mean a link to sl4very. We aren't blind to the fact that it is media pushing this nonsense to distract from real problems. Wage stagnation, high prices, crime, and poor services are all far more important. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding.
It wasn't just that initial piece by Simon Hattenstone. Lester Holloway also chipped in too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/21/manchester-city-fans-anti-racist-badge-sl*very (change the * to a for the actual link) "
An embarrassment to wear the shirt but still wears the shirt?
You genuinely couldn't make that shit up?
Nearly as bad as Just Stop Oil protestors using oil  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding.
It wasn't just that initial piece by Simon Hattenstone. Lester Holloway also chipped in too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/21/manchester-city-fans-anti-racist-badge-sl*very (change the * to a for the actual link) "
Some emotional language in an otherwise we'll written article.
Interesting to get a take from a black man. Is it woke fro a back man to opine on a echo of sl@very? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
What I find interesting is the lack of acknowledgment that many countries over the years have been complicit in the sl@ve trade.
Many African countries, Arab, asian as well as the usual suspects of Europe.
How have so many managed to fly under the radar? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Maybe we could just draw a line under historic sla*ery.. everyone has acknowledged it.. its happened on many continents over many centuries. It aint right, but it's history, acknowledge it and learn from it.
Maybe we can stop wasting our energy ranting about the past and seek to address the ever growing modern sla*ery that still plagues us. Millions still ensla*ed but hey.. it isn't something a "charity" can make money off or addressing it will mean we have to pay a fair price for our goods. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding. "
The writer called for it to be removed right at the end and gave plenty of airtime to suggesting a change and the history.
Fact is the 3 mast ship was quite a common design not specifically for the cotton trade.
No need to change the symbol.
People will find offense where ever they choose.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. "
Perfectly reasonable to ask for the removal of the symbol of they really feel that it directly references sl@very and they are offended by it.
That doesn't mean that it has to be replaced. Even if it does directly reference that activity then there is a benefit in leaving it in place and ensuring that it's acknowledged.
Is there a reason not to discuss and print the subject in a newspaper? Why would just a conversation win the Tory party an election? Does it actually change anything? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man
over a year ago
Stranraer |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset "
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election. "
Removing a symbol is not going to change the past so what will it achieve. Stop beating yourselves up over actions taken long ago by distant relatives. You are not responsible for their actions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"What I find interesting is the lack of acknowledgment that many countries over the years have been complicit in the sl@ve trade.
Many African countries, Arab, asian as well as the usual suspects of Europe.
How have so many managed to fly under the radar?"
Why should we be concerned about what other countries do or do not acknowledge and on what scale compared to the triangular trade?
Leave the buildings and statues and symbols of sl@very in place. Acknowledge their heritage with a plaque or a statue that puts it in context.
Understand that this country's wealth has, in part, been built on sl@very.
Remember so that it doesn't happen again.
Like the Holocaust. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I find interesting is the lack of acknowledgment that many countries over the years have been complicit in the sl@ve trade.
Many African countries, Arab, asian as well as the usual suspects of Europe.
How have so many managed to fly under the radar?
Why should we be concerned about what other countries do or do not acknowledge and on what scale compared to the triangular trade?
Leave the buildings and statues and symbols of sl@very in place. Acknowledge their heritage with a plaque or a statue that puts it in context.
Understand that this country's wealth has, in part, been built on sl@very.
Remember so that it doesn't happen again.
Like the Holocaust."
Well you won't here this too often but I agree with you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol"
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin."
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though."
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wish so much outrage was expelled toward those countries who use sla* ves this day "
Ultra woke snowflakes like Amnesty International are campaigning to tackle the problem of modern sl@very.
Our friends in the US have the ACLU who campaign tireless against the 13th amendment in the constitution.
There are people trying to do something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wish so much outrage was expelled toward those countries who use sla* ves this day
Ultra woke snowflakes like Amnesty International are campaigning to tackle the problem of modern sl@very.
Our friends in the US have the ACLU who campaign tireless against the 13th amendment in the constitution.
There are people trying to do something. "
What have you got to go “ultra” woke?
To me they are not ultra woke anything
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wish so much outrage was expelled toward those countries who use sla* ves this day
Ultra woke snowflakes like Amnesty International are campaigning to tackle the problem of modern sl@very.
Our friends in the US have the ACLU who campaign tireless against the 13th amendment in the constitution.
There are people trying to do something.
What have you got to go “ultra” woke?
To me they are not ultra woke anything
"
Going by the dictionary definitions of both those words. I think it applies.
Maybe they're just "woke" without the "ultra"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Wish so much outrage was expelled toward those countries who use sla* ves this day "
I imagine then that the UK's intention to remove modern day sl@very protections from the immigrants most likely to need those protections is worthy of outrage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals "
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html"
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals "
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Did they call for it to be removed ... Or was it a discussion about whether it was right to have something on the badge that harks back to sl#very. The piece I just read felt more the like the latter (a discusión) than self flagilation of our past.
To me it's an interesting discussion. While we can't ignore great parts of the UK wealth was via (directly or indirectly) sl@very, at what point do we move from celebrating to recognising to hiding.
It wasn't just that initial piece by Simon Hattenstone. Lester Holloway also chipped in too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/21/manchester-city-fans-anti-racist-badge-sl*very (change the * to a for the actual link)
An embarrassment to wear the shirt but still wears the shirt?
You genuinely couldn't make that shit up?
Nearly as bad as Just Stop Oil protestors using oil "
No, it gets better.
The guy still wears his City shirt despite having issues with the ship on it being linked to the human trade, but clearly nobody's told him that the owner of Manchester City is a Gulf state that's infamous for modern day sl*very most recently during the 2022 World Cup! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist. "
Gammon isn’t racist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved."
Why do you believe that he didn't?
The point I was making was also about the mock outrage at the term "gammon" when compared to "snowflake" or "woke".
Is "gammon" used as a general term to describe all white people or just a specific subset of them who hold particular views?
The gollywog was always derogatory. It was always an exaggeration of ethnic features. It became specifically racist when used openly as a term of abuse applied to any person from that ethnicity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin."
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved.
Why do you believe that he didn't?
The point I was making was also about the mock outrage at the term "gammon" when compared to "snowflake" or "woke".
Is "gammon" used as a general term to describe all white people or just a specific subset of them who hold particular views?
The gollywog was always derogatory. It was always an exaggeration of ethnic features. It became specifically racist when used openly as a term of abuse applied to any person from that ethnicity."
I love how you try to belittle it as 'mock outrage'. How do I know he didn't pen the term? The guy say it himself in the article, you should probably read what you link.
You should also try telling the lady who invented the 'Golliwog' character that it was always derogatory, she created it as a 'loveable character'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon "
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat. "
You’re in the UK, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist. "
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat.
You’re in the UK, "
Yeah, and my point is that your point about anyone being able to be labelled a "gammon" regardless of skin colour, race or religion makes absolutely no sense when it takes such a niche national-specific knowledge of the term and its double meaning to even use it comprehensibly about other people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat.
You’re in the UK,
Yeah, and my point is that your point about anyone being able to be labelled a "gammon" regardless of skin colour, race or religion makes absolutely no sense when it takes such a niche national-specific knowledge of the term and its double meaning to even use it comprehensibly about other people.
"
I couldn’t care less what it means elsewhere, you’re in the UK , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?"
Gammon is an explicitly racist term used in reference to old fat white blokes who turn red with fury or burn too easily on their holidays in Gran Canaria.
It's literally applicable to NOBODY else. NO other social demographic. NO other race. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?"
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it."
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat.
You’re in the UK,
Yeah, and my point is that your point about anyone being able to be labelled a "gammon" regardless of skin colour, race or religion makes absolutely no sense when it takes such a niche national-specific knowledge of the term and its double meaning to even use it comprehensibly about other people.
I couldn’t care less what it means elsewhere, you’re in the UK , "
Totally besides the point, stop acting like a child blowing raspberries.
I cannot care less what it means to you. To me and many others it's racist. If you don't believe the same, that's your prerogative.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ? "
Are you saying I'm virtue signalling because I'm not white and hence shouldn't be making comments about whether a term is racist towards white people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ? "
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Wrong, the word has ‘evolved’ (just like woke apparently) you can be any colour , race or religion and be be a gammon
Wrong, because pretty much NOBODY outside of the UK even knows what "gammon" means.
To everyone else in the world, pork is just pork. We don't give weird names to porcine cuts of meat.
You’re in the UK,
Yeah, and my point is that your point about anyone being able to be labelled a "gammon" regardless of skin colour, race or religion makes absolutely no sense when it takes such a niche national-specific knowledge of the term and its double meaning to even use it comprehensibly about other people.
I couldn’t care less what it means elsewhere, you’re in the UK ,
Totally besides the point, stop acting like a child blowing raspberries.
I cannot care less what it means to you. To me and many others it's racist. If you don't believe the same, that's your prerogative. "
It isn’t racist, the word (like woke apparently) has different meanings, Braverman, Priiti Patel and to a lesser extent Sunak have all displayed gammon traits |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Just to note, we're speaking about whether a term is racist or not. Where the f*ck does virtue signalling come into it??"
Just another dead cat derailing strategy from professional wind-up artists on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that."
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems "
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is."
You don’t ‘hold’ the general consensus, it isn’t racist, it’s just a description of a persons behaviour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is."
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
You don’t ‘hold’ the general consensus, it isn’t racist, it’s just a description of a persons behaviour "
Of course I don't hold the general consensus. That's why we're having a discussion.
It's a description of a person's pink hue. Specifically a middle-aged white person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”. "
Resorting to personal insults, not a good look, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
You don’t ‘hold’ the general consensus, it isn’t racist, it’s just a description of a persons behaviour
Of course I don't hold the general consensus. That's why we're having a discussion.
It's a description of a person's pink hue. Specifically a middle-aged white person."
It was, the word has evolved (just like woke apparently) do you use the literally meaning of the word woke? Or do you think it’s meaning has changed to suit people’s agenda |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
You don’t ‘hold’ the general consensus, it isn’t racist, it’s just a description of a persons behaviour
Of course I don't hold the general consensus. That's why we're having a discussion.
It's a description of a person's pink hue. Specifically a middle-aged white person.
It was, the word has evolved (just like woke apparently) do you use the literally meaning of the word woke? Or do you think it’s meaning has changed to suit people’s agenda "
You keep saying (apparently) like you don't believe the meaning of the word woke has changed.
BTW, I don't use that word. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”.
Resorting to personal insults, not a good look, "
Don't look at me, look at yourself resorting to implied racism by asking a non-white person if he's offended by the term "gammon" or if he's virtue-signalling when he objects to "gammon" as being racist, because clearly discussing whether a term is racist towards white people can only be done by white people such as yourself.
I'm not stupid. I know what kind of game you are trying to play. That's why you haven't dared to reply to my question calling you out on this. You think you can just ignore and blank me out and pretend nobody noticed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?"
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”.
Resorting to personal insults, not a good look,
Don't look at me, look at yourself resorting to implied racism by asking a non-white person if he's offended by the term "gammon" or if he's virtue-signalling when he objects to "gammon" as being racist, because clearly discussing whether a term is racist towards white people can only be done by white people such as yourself.
I'm not stupid. I know what kind of game you are trying to play. That's why you haven't dared to reply to my question calling you out on this. You think you can just ignore and blank me out and pretend nobody noticed. "
You resorted to personal insults, which is fine, and you’re taking rubbish, the term gammon isn’t racist , it is all over social media . Does it offend you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ? "
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely. "
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely.
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon "
The N word is all over social media, as are plenty of other terms. What exactly are you getting at? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely.
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon
The N word is all over social media, as are plenty of other terms. What exactly are you getting at?"
"IF EVERYONE DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT'S FINE!!!" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it.
It isn’t, does it offend you ? Or are you virtue signalling ?
It doesn't offend me because I've not been called it. I'm also not offended on behalf of others.
Of I was called it, I'd see that person as racist but I wouldn't cry over it, I'm thicker skinned than that.
So you’re virtue signalling . To me, a gammon is a person who uses woke as an insult and loses their shit when they read stories about Manchester discussing using ships on their emblems
Do you know the meaning of virtue signalling?
It doesn't matter what it means to you, it matter what the general consensus is.
Give it up lol. Do you know the proverb about playing chess with a pigeon?
“Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.”.
Resorting to personal insults, not a good look,
Don't look at me, look at yourself resorting to implied racism by asking a non-white person if he's offended by the term "gammon" or if he's virtue-signalling when he objects to "gammon" as being racist, because clearly discussing whether a term is racist towards white people can only be done by white people such as yourself.
I'm not stupid. I know what kind of game you are trying to play. That's why you haven't dared to reply to my question calling you out on this. You think you can just ignore and blank me out and pretend nobody noticed.
You resorted to personal insults, which is fine, and you’re taking rubbish, the term gammon isn’t racist , it is all over social media . Does it offend you? "
Is being offended a prerequisite for calling out unnecessary usage of loaded terms for passive-aggressive snarky attacks on someone you disagree with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely.
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon
The N word is all over social media, as are plenty of other terms. What exactly are you getting at?"
I can assure you it isn’t , anyway , I am off to watch the boxing, you can spend your Saturday night losing your shit over the word gammon and people discussing Manchester using ships on their emblems |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely.
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon
The N word is all over social media, as are plenty of other terms. What exactly are you getting at?
I can assure you it isn’t , anyway , I am off to watch the boxing, you can spend your Saturday night losing your shit over the word gammon and people discussing Manchester using ships on their emblems "
I can assure you it is.
BTW, I haven't 'lost my shit' once, nice try though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Let me get this right. A word started as a racist word but has evolved to be non-racist?
It was never racist , do you agree that the words can evolve ?
It was always racist.
Of course words can evolve? That doesn't mean they can be used. Black people evolved a certain N word but that doesn't mean it can be used in a derogatory manner.
I think you need to go away and do some reading, genuinely.
I have, the word is all over social media, you can post it anywhere, you don’t get censored for it, why? It describes a persons behaviour , anyone can be a gammon
The N word is all over social media, as are plenty of other terms. What exactly are you getting at?
I can assure you it isn’t , anyway , I am off to watch the boxing, you can spend your Saturday night losing your shit over the word gammon and people discussing Manchester using ships on their emblems "
I hope whoever you support loses and gets RKO-ed.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved.
Why do you believe that he didn't?
The point I was making was also about the mock outrage at the term "gammon" when compared to "snowflake" or "woke".
Is "gammon" used as a general term to describe all white people or just a specific subset of them who hold particular views?
The gollywog was always derogatory. It was always an exaggeration of ethnic features. It became specifically racist when used openly as a term of abuse applied to any person from that ethnicity.
I love how you try to belittle it as 'mock outrage'. How do I know he didn't pen the term? The guy say it himself in the article, you should probably read what you link.
You should also try telling the lady who invented the 'Golliwog' character that it was always derogatory, she created it as a 'loveable character'."
If you feel that when the term "gammon" is used it refers to you and everyone of your ethnicity; men, women and children whatever views they hold, then it is racist. Is that what you think?
If the author didn't coin the phrase then why is it entitled: "I'm the one who coined the term gammon – and now I deeply regret it"?
You're absolutely correct that the character in the children's book was held with great affection and is actually more a story about how someone who may be considered outwardly ugly shouldn't be assumed to be inwardly so.
That's the point though. Upton described her Golliwog as "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome".
That's derogatory by any reading. Hence the physical representation is intended as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved.
Why do you believe that he didn't?
The point I was making was also about the mock outrage at the term "gammon" when compared to "snowflake" or "woke".
Is "gammon" used as a general term to describe all white people or just a specific subset of them who hold particular views?
The gollywog was always derogatory. It was always an exaggeration of ethnic features. It became specifically racist when used openly as a term of abuse applied to any person from that ethnicity.
I love how you try to belittle it as 'mock outrage'. How do I know he didn't pen the term? The guy say it himself in the article, you should probably read what you link.
You should also try telling the lady who invented the 'Golliwog' character that it was always derogatory, she created it as a 'loveable character'.
If you feel that when the term "gammon" is used it refers to you and everyone of your ethnicity; men, women and children whatever views they hold, then it is racist. Is that what you think?
If the author didn't coin the phrase then why is it entitled: "I'm the one who coined the term gammon – and now I deeply regret it"?
You're absolutely correct that the character in the children's book was held with great affection and is actually more a story about how someone who may be considered outwardly ugly shouldn't be assumed to be inwardly so.
That's the point though. Upton described her Golliwog as "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome".
That's derogatory by any reading. Hence the physical representation is intended as such."
You're first statement is nonsensical.
You're second statement - clickbait. He says himself than it was coined 180 years before him.
Upton did indeed say those things but was showing that even though the Golliwog was ugly it shouldn't be hated as in fact it was a loveable character. A bit of context please ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Something doesn't have to refer to 'all' of a particular race to be racist. The term is specifically aimed at one race, its also intended to be derogatory. So it is racist, there's no doubt about it."
I have only seen or heard it used in the context of the middle aged white men getting apoplectic to the point where their skin changes colour over some "outrage" such an article discussing if a symbol on a building may be representative of sl@very.
It's a niche definition of racist though. Can't think of another term used in a similar way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
This is from the man who coined the phrase:
'Now, I don’t think anyone genuinely believes “gammon” is racist. No one has ever found “Gammons Go Home” daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials “Generation Snowflake” is delicious.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gammon-brexiteers-angry-white-men-middle-age-immigration-a8352141.html
That man didn't coin the phrase but even if he did, it doesn't matter what he personally meant by it.
The 'Golliwog' character wasn't meant to be racist either but I think it's generally accepted that it evolved.
Why do you believe that he didn't?
The point I was making was also about the mock outrage at the term "gammon" when compared to "snowflake" or "woke".
Is "gammon" used as a general term to describe all white people or just a specific subset of them who hold particular views?
The gollywog was always derogatory. It was always an exaggeration of ethnic features. It became specifically racist when used openly as a term of abuse applied to any person from that ethnicity.
I love how you try to belittle it as 'mock outrage'. How do I know he didn't pen the term? The guy say it himself in the article, you should probably read what you link.
You should also try telling the lady who invented the 'Golliwog' character that it was always derogatory, she created it as a 'loveable character'.
If you feel that when the term "gammon" is used it refers to you and everyone of your ethnicity; men, women and children whatever views they hold, then it is racist. Is that what you think?
If the author didn't coin the phrase then why is it entitled: "I'm the one who coined the term gammon – and now I deeply regret it"?
You're absolutely correct that the character in the children's book was held with great affection and is actually more a story about how someone who may be considered outwardly ugly shouldn't be assumed to be inwardly so.
That's the point though. Upton described her Golliwog as "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome".
That's derogatory by any reading. Hence the physical representation is intended as such.
You're first statement is nonsensical.
You're second statement - clickbait. He says himself than it was coined 180 years before him.
Upton did indeed say those things but was showing that even though the Golliwog was ugly it shouldn't be hated as in fact it was a loveable character. A bit of context please ?? "
The author's use of the phrase is what is why started its use now and the root of the term that we're discussing.
Dickens' term wasn't used since and, ironically with respect to the mock outrage, means "bogus” or ”disingenuous”.
I put Upton's writing in context in the second last paragraph.
I gave you the direct description of Golliwog's physical characteristics as written by Upton. If you feel that was not a negative one then fine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist. "
Do children get described as "gammon"? Women? What about men just minding their own business?
Does the term get used outside of men getting outraged about particular matters like discussions about if certain symbols may or may not have something to do with the triangular trade? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"In the latest escalation of its self-flagellation campaign regarding historic links to sl*very, The London Guardian (successor to the original Manchester Guardian) recently gave column space to commentators calling for the removal of the ship symbol that appears in many logos and crests of Manchester institutions such as both footballs clubs (City and United) and the Town Hall crest.
The reason was given as "these ships represent sl*ve ships, and Manchester's maritime links to the cotton trade which relied on sl*very for labour".
Should Manchester remove the ship image from all of its existing institutional logos and crests? How far can it be credibly claimed that a simple ship image is definitely representing a sl*ve ship or the Atlantic sl*ve trade?
I personally think this is wokery gone too far. Stuff like this is going to be what wins the Tories the next general election.
I am from Manchester, live in Manchester , the ships will not be removed, all this article has done is trigger a few ‘gammons ‘ (I use this term in response to woke being used as an insult ) , they (the gammons) are far too easily upset
And referring to people as "gammons" isn't an insult lol
Actually it is and it's racist.
You are using a derogatory terms for the colour of some ones skin.
Sort of. Doesn't it refer to the colour of their skin when enraged by some minor "outrage" such as "wokism"? Isn't it more a slight on their behaviour and attitudes than their specific ethnicity alone.
It's certainly intended to be derogatory though.
I personally think it's racist. It specifically refers to the hue of 'a white mans' cheeks when enraged.
I've had this discussion on here in the past but the people who use it don't really care. Damn liberals
Fancy that, someone who threw a strop about supposedly being "group bullied" on here yesterday returns to defend a racist term as simply being "derogatory, but not actually racist".
Who'd have thunk it? I take one look at his profile picture and I can very well see why he doesn't think "gammon" is racist.
How is "gammon" racist? Does it refer to all white people or only those of a certain subset and who hold and express certain views on certain topics?
Gammon is an explicitly racist term used in reference to old fat white blokes who turn red with fury or burn too easily on their holidays in Gran Canaria.
It's literally applicable to NOBODY else. NO other social demographic. NO other race. "
Nor to women or children or happy white blokes.
It is certainly derogatory. It's a criticism of the behaviour of a certain demographic, isn't it?
I've never heard it used to people getting sunburned, only ranting incoherently. Sunburned white folk tend to described as lobsters. I guess that is racist as it can be more generally applied to a ethnicity, although it doesn't seem to upset people. In fact, this forum is the only place I have encountered anyone angrily proclaiming that the term "gammon" is racist. Perhaps the Telegraph and Mail too, but I don't take a lot of those opinion pieces any more seriously than those in the Guardian. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I find interesting is the lack of acknowledgment that many countries over the years have been complicit in the sl@ve trade.
Many African countries, Arab, asian as well as the usual suspects of Europe.
How have so many managed to fly under the radar?
Why should we be concerned about what other countries do or do not acknowledge and on what scale compared to the triangular trade?
Leave the buildings and statues and symbols of sl@very in place. Acknowledge their heritage with a plaque or a statue that puts it in context.
Understand that this country's wealth has, in part, been built on sl@very.
Remember so that it doesn't happen again.
Like the Holocaust."
There are some people trying to remove that from history as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
