Joe Brolly

[five points]

You don't get to decide or dictate what terms with historically repressive, violent, racist connotations are deemed offensive and outdated. That's up to them.

Says who exactly?

And only a willfully ignorant person would deny the legitimacy of a repressed people reclaiming or preserving such a term to honour their past struggle.

Where have I denied the legitimacy of the NAACP, or their name?

Now that I think of it, I remember having a similar conversation with you over the n-word, when you were still posting as "foxcommander".

You've the wrong end of the stick. I have never posted as "foxcommander".  I have no memory of even seeing posts by "foxcommander". And I don't recall ever discussing the use of the n-word here or anywhere else. What is there to discuss? Its use is disgusting. And there is no "NAAC for n-words"

[Hound]

Devious and deliberately so, or just ignorant?

Is that directed at me??

I did a random google, I'm sure most are very similar.
I went to the site:
https://www.yourdictionary.com/pansy

Copied the definition without changing it. It credited "Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition "

So you're defending the use of the word by O'Rourke? Well done.

But I note most of the normal posters are leaving this topic alone rather than fighting it out , so I'll follow suit.

[five points]

Now that I think of it, I remember having a similar conversation with you over the n-word, when you were still posting as "foxcommander".

Just found the below.

As if I'd ever rant about "freestater apologists" when I live in ROI. 

Who is "Rossfanny"?

Rossfanny is a complete tool. I bet he fawned until he made himself sick

Top post mate. Too many freestater apologists (the likes of Rossfanny) would have preferred that the people in the o6 sat on their hands and waited to be given equal rights.

It's the lad who can't think for himself - wade in for your distressed buddy. good on you rossfanny
You couldn't even find the ignore button if it was right in front of your crosseyes.

Again - Rossfanny with his snide little remarks. Come out and debate you snivelling little shit.
Give me a good reason why you support the islamification of europe and the introduction of millions of refugees if you're so worried about Pegida and the far right.
Would love to hear your wisdom on the topic.

[J70]

You don't get to decide or dictate what terms with historically repressive, violent, racist connotations are deemed offensive and outdated. That's up to them.

Says who exactly?

Society. The culture.

If you want to make a stand and use the term, go for it.

Given the times we are in, including the leaders in certain countries, you might even get the odd sympathetic ear.

And only a willfully ignorant person would deny the legitimacy of a repressed people reclaiming or preserving such a term to honour their past struggle.

Where have I denied the legitimacy of the NAACP, or their name?

You are asking why YOU can't use the word "coloured" to describe black people when the NAACP has decided to preserve its use in their name. As if your use and their retention of the word in their name are equivalent and both legitimate. They're not. One is the casual use of an outdated term loaded with historical racism, both cultural and institutional. The other is an organization deciding to honour their history as the face of the fight for equality and justice by keeping the word, and preserving the organization's longevity and association with that struggle.

Now that I think of it, I remember having a similar conversation with you over the n-word, when you were still posting as "foxcommander".

You've the wrong end of the stick. I have never posted as "foxcommander".  I have no memory of even seeing posts by "foxcommander". And I don't recall ever discussing the use of the n-word here or anywhere else. What is there to discuss? Its use is disgusting. And there is no "NAAC for n-words"

Fair enough.

[five points]

Says who exactly?

Society. The culture.

I asked exactly.

You are asking why YOU can't use the word "coloured" to describe black people when the NAACP has decided to preserve its use in their name.

I'm not. My (rhetorical) question was somewhat different. Do read back.

[J70]

Says who exactly?

Society. The culture.

I asked exactly.

Not sure what you're looking for here.

Society evolves (thankfully). How often can you EVER place the credit or blame for a change at the feet of a single person or people?

You are asking why YOU can't use the word "coloured" to describe black people when the NAACP has decided to preserve its use in their name.

I'm not. My (rhetorical) question was somewhat different. Do read back.

Ok, from what I can see, you asked why it's racist for you to hypothetically use it when the NAACP "don't consider it racist".

Same answer. And I would say that the NAACP absolutely considers the use of the term racist these days.

Just like the UNCF still exists to help African Americans get to university and still uses the term "negro" in its name when that word has also been consigned to the past in terms of respectable, acceptable use in everyday language.

[five points]

Society evolves (thankfully). How often can you EVER place the credit or blame for a change at the feet of a single person or people?

This has nothing to do with historic or recent change.  I asked you who legislated that only certain people get to decide or dictate "what terms with historically repressive, violent, racist connotations are deemed offensive and outdated". You have only answered in the most vague and amorphic terms. I suspect you've no answer.

what I can see, you asked why it's racist for you to hypothetically use it when the NAACP "don't consider it racist".

No I didn't.  My comment was specific and not in the least cryptic. You're only acting the maggot with your selective quote, as you did with your failed attempt to smear me as being another poster.

[J70]

Society evolves (thankfully). How often can you EVER place the credit or blame for a change at the feet of a single person or people?

This has nothing to do with historic or recent change.  I asked you who legislated that only certain people get to decide or dictate "what terms with historically repressive, violent, racist connotations are deemed offensive and outdated". You have only answered in the most vague and amorphic terms. I suspect you've no answer.

No I don't have an answer beyond what I've given you. Neither do you. Or if you, then please enlighten us, including why you deem it illegitimate (assuming you do, of course).

what I can see, you asked why it's racist for you to hypothetically use it when the NAACP "don't consider it racist".

No I didn't.  My comment was specific and not in the least cryptic. You're only acting the maggot with your selective quote, as you did with your failed attempt to smear me as being another poster.

Then you better spell out exactly what you're talking about given that I can't seem to grasp it.

On foxcommander, my accusation was based on a very similar posting style and opinions.

You are adamant its not you. I said "fair enough".

This place has a long history of people reappearing under other names. They'll continue to be called out.

[five points]

]

Then you better spell out exactly what you're talking about given that I can't seem to grasp it.

I said

[And if the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People don't consider the term 'Coloured People' racist, why should I?

And you grasped enough of it to try to smear me by mischaracterising it.

On foxcommander, my accusation was based on a very similar posting style and opinions.

It took me three seconds to google that name and find a series of their quotes that are distinctly different from everything I have posted here over ten years, not least their apparently habitual confrontation and bad language

You could easily have done that research yourself. The fact that you chose not to rather exposes your talk of calling out others

[J70]

]

Then you better spell out exactly what you're talking about given that I can't seem to grasp it.

I said

[And if the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People don't consider the term 'Coloured People' racist, why should I?

And you grasped enough of it to try to smear me by mischaracterising it.

On foxcommander, my accusation was based on a very similar posting style and opinions.

It took me three seconds to google that name and find a series of their quotes that are distinctly different from everything I have posted here over ten years, not least their apparently habitual confrontation and bad language

You could easily have done that research yourself. The fact that you chose not to rather exposes your talk of calling out others

Ok, on top of accepting your claim you are not foxcommander when I said "fair enough", I apologize for accusing you of being him.

Back to the point, I am still not seeing how my distinguishing between your hypothetical use of "coloured" and that of the NAACP is illegitimate.

[five points]

... your hypothetical use of "coloured" ...

More mischaracterisation.


(bangs head against wall)

[J70]

... your hypothetical use of "coloured" ...

More mischaracterisation.


(bangs head against wall)

"And if the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People don't consider the term 'Coloured People' racist, why should I?"

Bangs head indeed.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

The snowflakes are out with their pitchforks again. This is a complete non issue.
However besides that point it's worth noting that Joe got the boot for telling Pat to stop pulling his arm, in comparison to CO'R saying something that a lot of people are actually offended by. Some chance of him getting the sack too

[J70]

O'Rourke quite clearly didn't mean any offense to gay people and, to me, doesn't deserve to lose his position or anything like that. However, the point about casual prejudice is perfectly valid. Its not just about intent. Its also about those on the receiving end of negative stereotyping.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Nothing to do with prejudice. He's talking about the game turning into a game full of pansies because the players are getting on like premier league footballers hitting the deck for nothing and trying to win handy frees and con the ref. What he said is right and i agree with him. Furore over nothing.