Terry cleared.

[pap]

My dad got me the Alan Partridge radio shows on cd for Christmas and i listen to them sometimes when I'm driving round or whatever. In one of them there was this guy who sued someone for calling him a cvnt, but cos he lost it set legal precendents and now anyone could quite legally call him a cvnt...

 

I'm just wondering, is this the same for Ferdinands now?

 

Only in print. He can hold it up to his face...

 

I've listened to the Knowing Me Knowing You radio series too. The chap who can legally be called a cvnt is Conrad Knight. He wrote a book called "A Gent in LA". A reviewer simply changed two letters of the word gent to form the "review". One of the best worked jokes in the series.

 

AP: "So I could write it down on a piece of paper and hold it up to your face"

CK: "That would be perfectly legal. And people do do that"

 

The only thing I like better in that series is Lord Morgan of Glossop.

 

(on pornography)

AP: "But what the argument that such sex degrades women"

LM: "But is it not the case that all sex degrades women.... if it's any good".

[Thedelldays]

anyone watch the clarke carlise thing on racism.

 

very interesting documentary

[St Jim]

http://newsthump.com/2012/07/14/i-cant-be-a-racist-because-some-of-my-best-friends-are-fing-black-cts-insists-john-terry/

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

My guess is it's a pop re-working of Franz Fanon's 'Black Skin, White Mask'. In other words, a piece of identity politics; not racist as such but not helpful. There is, as you say, some evidence that some black boys in particular perform less well educationally because of this identity guff, and there are now quite a few black commentators out there trying to combat it (notably Bill Cosby).

 

It is, in any case, a huge category mistake. It is not 'acting white' to perform well at school; succeeding in school means not simply allowing a white middle class to maintain a near-monopoly over the privileges and benefits that flow from good school education. (Many Asian families worked this out ages ago, and no one accuses them of 'acting white.')

 

You cannot introduce an intellectual slant on this. The term choc ice is a pretty odious and divisive with race at its core. Rio Ferdinand cannot run with the fox and the hounds. If John Terry is held to account then so should he be. That said I find it absolutely ludicrous that today so much money and attention can have been wasted on what is basically name calling. Quite pathetic. If somebody talks like an idiot then that is how they should be judged.

[Verbal]

You cannot introduce an intellectual slant on this. The term choc ice is a pretty odious and divisive with race at its core. Rio Ferdinand cannot run with the fox and the hounds. If John Terry is held to account then so should he be. That said I find it absolutely ludicrous that today so much money and attention can have been wasted on what is basically name calling. Quite pathetic. If somebody talks like an idiot then that is how they should be judged.

 

Could you PLEASE have a go at editing this so that you don't end up arguing in exactly the opposite direction to the one you started out on? Then I could possibly (if you're lucky) answer, knowing what it is you're actually saying. It's either 'divisive and odious' and on a par with Terry's expressed bigotry or it 'is just basically name calling'.

 

Sheesh!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Could you PLEASE have a go at editing this so that you don't end up arguing in exactly the opposite direction to the one you started out on? Then I could possibly (if you're lucky) answer, knowing what it is you're actually saying. It's either 'divisive and odious' and on a par with Terry's expressed bigotry or it 'is just basically name calling'.

 

Sheesh!

 

 

The point I am crudely making is that you attempt to dress up Ferdinand's Choc Ice tweet as some term born out of oppression and 'unhelpful' but not racist is excusing him - one rule for Ferdinand and one for Terry. I would argue that it is every bit as racist as John Terry's unpalatable name calling because it is deeply divisive and designed to be every bit as offensive. In fact when you add humour to a jibe it adds ridicule. I then suggest that however odious, these two footballers are just name calling and arresting them is absurd. I conclude by asking why we cannot just consclude that they are a pir of idiots.

Edited 17 July, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Verbal]

The point I am crudely making is that you attempt to dress up Ferdinand's Choc Ice tweet as some term born out of oppression and 'unhelpful' but not racist is excusing him - one rule for Ferdinand and one for Terry. I would argue that it is every bit as racist as John Terry's unpalatable name calling because it is deeply divisive and designed to be every bit as offensive. In fact when you add humour to a jibe it adds ridicule. I then suggest that however odious, these two footballers are just name calling and arresting them is absurd. I conclude by asking why we cannot just consclude that they are a pir of idiots.

 

This is still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, Sergei. You define 'choc ice' as racist because it is 'unpalatable name calling and deeply divisive'. However, that is not even close to an adequate definition of racism. How is 'choc ice' racist, as opposed to insulting?

[Thedelldays]

isn't it racist if someone takes offence..?

[Verbal]

isn't it racist if someone takes offence..?

 

If you take offence, it's possibly offensive.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

This is still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, Sergei. You define 'choc ice' as racist because it is 'unpalatable name calling and deeply divisive'. However, that is not even close to an adequate definition of racism. How is 'choc ice' racist, as opposed to insulting?

 

It is quite straightforward; labeling somebody a chocice is designed to be offensive and is tied to race. It implies that they may look like one of 'us' but actually they are one of 'them'. I find it surprising that somebody so quick to identify racism normally cannot recognise such a blatent example of it. Or do you believe that racism can only work one way?

[Turkish]

It is quite straightforward; labeling somebody a chocice is designed to be offensive and is tied to race. It implies that they may look like one of 'us' but actually they are one of 'them'. I find it surprising that somebody so quick to identify racism normally cannot recognise such a blatent example of it. Or do you believe that racism can only work one way?

 

It can not possibly have been a rasist comment as it wasn't made by a white person.

Edited 17 July, 2012 by Turkish

[Verbal]

It is quite straightforward; labeling somebody a chocice is designed to be offensive and is tied to race. It implies that they may look like one of 'us' but actually they are one of 'them'. I find it surprising that somebody so quick to identify racism normally cannot recognise such a blatent example of it. Or do you believe that racism can only work one way?

 

You're really working yourself into quite a self-righteous lather over this. It is identity politics: that is, you act white but you're actually black. It is an accusation, in this context and in this instance made by one black man to another. Now go and google anything more than a half-baked definition of 'racism' and tell me how that possibly works.

 

Having said that, I don't believe identity politics serves anyone well, as I said earlier. It's an excuse for not thinking, and can be far worse.

[Verbal]

It can not possibly have been a rasist comment as it wasn't made by a white person.

 

And that's how you spell it even AFTER you've edited your post?

[Turkish]

And that's how you spell it even AFTER you've edited your post?

 

I'm a lowly, ill-educated white person. However, the usual condescening post from his lordship that he's been making all down this page to other, struggling with an argument on a subject so close to his heart.

[Verbal]

I'm a lowly, ill-educated white person. However, the usual condescening post from his lordship that he's been making all down this page to other, struggling with an argument on a subject so close to his heart.

 

I think it's reasonable to ask for at least a basic standard of non-thickness before discussing something you clearly feel so strongly about you can't even bring yourself to spell it correctly.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You're really working yourself into quite a self-righteous lather over this. It is identity politics: that is, you act white but you're actually black. It is an accusation, in this context and in this instance made by one black man to another. Now go and google anything more than a half-baked definition of 'racism' and tell me how that possibly works.

 

Having said that, I don't believe identity politics serves anyone well, as I said earlier. It's an excuse for not thinking, and can be far worse.

 

I absolutely love it!! 'Identity politics' the term the politically correct give to racism for non whites! Identity politics serves you very well because it helps you justify your hypocrisy.

[Turkish]

I think it's reasonable to ask for at least a basic standard of non-thickness before discussing something you clearly feel so strongly about you can't even bring yourself to spell it correctly.

 

Is it racist to call a black man a bounty bar?

[Jonnyboy]

Turks is more of your Mini-Milk kinda guy (if you catch my drift)

[Verbal]

Is it racist to call a black man a bounty bar?

 

I'd call it weird, wouldn't you? Hard to see rasism (for your benefit) in that.

[saintbletch]

Is it racist to call a black man a bounty bar?

 

Not if you do it with sarcastic exclamation!?

 

There is obviously a race element to the term choc-ice, but for me it wasn't a racist comment.

 

The problem in interpreting racist comment is that it isn't, if you'll excuse me, black and white. There's a lot of grey.

 

You have to take into account intent, whether humour played a significant enough role to justify its use, and as your comment above might have shown, you have to consider the presence or otherwise of an agenda. Controversially I think the majority/minority status of the perpetrator/recipient has to be considered sometimes too.

 

Ferdinand re-tweeted someone else's tweet. Not a defence in itself but an important distinction. And in doing so he re-started the term and commented that it was funny. His intent was to poke fun at Cole's expense. His INTENT was to hurt a black person. His INTENT was not to hurt white people. That he might have done this by implication was I'm sure far away from his thoughts.

 

The motivation behind using a term like choc-ice is about defending a minority position and attempting to stress the value in being part of the minority. It does this by suggesting that being white is in some way 'lesser' but the motivation is some sort of warped positive affirmation of the black 'identity'. As I think Verbal said below, it's flawed logic.

 

The hate in the comment is all aimed at the black man. It's certainly at the expense of casting white people in a lesser light. But there's no explicit or expressed racial hatred toward white people.

 

The biggest issue I have with a comment like choc-ice is that it does nothing to further racial harmony in Britain, but neither is it a piece of racist hatred aimed at white people. It's somewhere in the middle for me. But I can certainly see that for others with different agendas from my own, it might be racist.

[Verbal]

I absolutely love it!! 'Identity politics' the term the politically correct give to racism for non whites! Identity politics serves you very well because it helps you justify your hypocrisy.

 

Suppose you are a white man. You see another white man - let's call him Tim Westwood - acting in a way that makes you accuse him of 'acting black.' Is that racist? Hardly. It may not be kind, but to call it racist is frankly dumb. But it IS playing identity politics. Tim Westwood is being castigated by you for acting in a way that resembles the supposed characteristic behaviour of another ethnic group.

 

Sergei, go and read up on Franz Fanon, who kind of invented this form of identity politics in his writings during the Algerian revolution - especially "Black Skin, White Masks". You might learn something about the origins of this idea. As I say, I'm not giving it the verbal seal of approval - far from it. It's just a good idea, sometimes, to know what you're talking about.

[Turkish]

Suppose you are a white man. You see another white man - let's call him Tim Westwood - acting in a way that makes you accuse him of 'acting black.' Is that racist? Hardly. It may not be kind, but to call it racist is frankly dumb. But it IS playing identity politics. Tim Westwood is being castigated by you for acting in a way that resembles the supposed characteristic behaviour of another ethnic group.

 

Sergei, go and read up on Franz Fanon, who kind of invented this form of identity politics in his writings during the Algerian revolution - especially "Black Skin, White Masks". You might learn something about the origins of this idea. As I say, I'm not giving it the verbal seal of approval - far from it. It's just a good idea, sometimes, to know what you're talking about.

 

I believe the adjective is "wigger" - at least that's what they say on "the street" Now is that word racist?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Not if you do it with sarcastic exclamation!?

 

There is obviously a race element to the term choc-ice, but for me it wasn't a racist comment.

 

The problem in interpreting racist comment is that it isn't, if you'll excuse me, black and white. There's a lot of grey.

 

You have to take into account intent, whether humour played a significant enough role to justify its use, and as your comment above might have shown, you have to consider the presence or otherwise of an agenda. Controversially I think the majority/minority status of the perpetrator/recipient has to be considered sometimes too.

 

Ferdinand re-tweeted someone else's tweet. Not a defence in itself but an important distinction. And in doing so he re-started the term and commented that it was funny. His intent was to poke fun at Cole's expense. His INTENT was to hurt a black person. His INTENT was not to hurt white people. That he might have done this by implication was I'm sure far away from his thoughts.

 

The motivation behind using a term like choc-ice is about defending a minority position and attempting to stress the value in being part of the minority. It does this by suggesting that being white is in some way 'lesser' but the motivation is some sort of warped positive affirmation of the black 'identity'. As I think Verbal said below, it's flawed logic.

 

The hate in the comment is all aimed at the black man. It's certainly at the expense of casting white people in a lesser light. But there's no explicit or expressed racial hatred toward white people.

 

The biggest issue I have with a comment like choc-ice is that it does nothing to further racial harmony in Britain, but neither is it a piece of racist hatred aimed at white people. It's somewhere in the middle for me. But I can certainly see that for others with different agendas from my own, it might be racist.

 

Firstly this was not said to 'poke fun' it was designed to be deeply offensive to somebody who had undermined his brother's case. It plays on race; its a put down suggesting that it is a negative thing to be white. Now how can that not be offensive to white readers of twitter? Now don't get me wrong I really do not give a toss but what I think is damaging is your Verbals of this world who are the first to cry racism, are so hypocritical that they cannot see that it works both ways.

[Thedelldays]

im guessing Verbal is not a choc ice

more like a dark magnum...

Edited 17 July, 2012 by Thedelldays

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Suppose you are a white man. You see another white man - let's call him Tim Westwood - acting in a way that makes you accuse him of 'acting black.' Is that racist? Hardly. It may not be kind, but to call it racist is frankly dumb. But it IS playing identity politics. Tim Westwood is being castigated by you for acting in a way that resembles the supposed characteristic behaviour of another ethnic group.

 

Sergei, go and read up on Franz Fanon, who kind of invented this form of identity politics in his writings during the Algerian revolution - especially "Black Skin, White Masks". You might learn something about the origins of this idea. As I say, I'm not giving it the verbal seal of approval - far from it. It's just a good idea, sometimes, to know what you're talking about.

 

You seem to be ignoring the context of Ferdinand's tweet to suit your argument.

[Verbal]

You seem to be ignoring the context of Ferdinand's tweet to suit your argument.

 

How so?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How so?

 

Ferdinand endorsed the remark to abuse Cole. Any comment on Tim Westwood would not be designed to abuse him and if it was then that too would be a derogatory remark based on race.

[Turkish]

im guessing Verbal is not a choc ice

more like a dark magnum...

 

He's a tiramisu.

[Thedelldays]

He's a tiramisu.

I would say I'm like a Zoom

everyone wants a lick

[saintbletch]

Firstly this was not said to 'poke fun' it was designed to be deeply offensive to somebody who had undermined his brother's case. It plays on race; its a put down suggesting that it is a negative thing to be white. Now how can that not be offensive to white readers of twitter? Now don't get me wrong I really do not give a toss but what I think is damaging is your Verbals of this world who are the first to cry racism, are so hypocritical that they cannot see that it works both ways.

 

I'm white. I read it on Twitter. I'm not offended. I can't tell you why particularly. I can see that it's potentially offensive. But when I read it I see that the INTENT was to hurt a black person.

 

I might call you a smug big-nosed t***. But if I did, I would be aiming to hurt you and not consciously aiming to hurt big-nosed people. They're simply collateral damage in my attempt to make you feel on the outside of the circle of perfect nose-sized people to which I belong. (I do hope you don't have a big nose Sergei Gotsmanov).

 

I could imagine that others might well find the choc-ice term offensive. My position was that I, personally, didn't think it was a racist comment.

 

As for the motivation of what was 'said'. I don't know who originally 'said it'. Do you? the Twitterer's name is obscured in the reports I've read.

 

But when Ferdinand re-tweeted it I think his thought was to certainly hurt Cole by being seen to laugh at a comment that someone else had made that was clearly aimed to upset Cole.

[buctootim]

The terms choc-ice and banana (for Chinese people) is just based on the myopic belief that one person is a better member of their group than another. You see that same 'uber' mentality on this forum all the time, predicated on the belief that people in a group are supposed to behave in a certain way - normally one approved by the person issuing the insult.

[saintbletch]

I would say I'm like a Zoom

everyone wants a lick

 

Dribbles all over your hand before it gets anywhere near a mouth?

[Jonnyboy]

I would say I'm like a Zoom

everyone wants a lick

 

Nah you're defintely a screwball.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I'm white. I read it on Twitter. I'm not offended. I can't tell you why particularly. I can see that it's potentially offensive. But when I read it I see that the INTENT was to hurt a black person.

 

I might call you a smug big-nosed t***. But if I did, I would be aiming to hurt you and not consciously aiming to hurt big-nosed people. They're simply collateral damage in my attempt to make you feel on the outside of the circle of perfect nose-sized people to which I belong. (I do hope you don't have a big nose Sergei Gotsmanov).

 

I could imagine that others might well find the choc-ice term offensive. My position was that I, personally, didn't think it was a racist comment.

 

As for the motivation of what was 'said'. I don't know who originally 'said it'. Do you? the Twitterer's name is obscured in the reports I've read.

 

But when Ferdinand re-tweeted it I think his thought was to certainly hurt Cole by being seen to laugh at a comment that someone else had made that was clearly aimed to upset Cole.

 

Well I am not Matty but it is quite big!

 

I am not offended by the comment as I mentioned but what I dislike is the double standards. Noses are one thing but race is a more sensitive area. It is the one rule for one and one for another that fuels racism.

[Turkish]

I would say I'm like a Zoom

everyone wants a lick

 

im a magnum gold. White on the outside,white in the middle and a cut above most.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The terms choc-ice and banana (for Chinese people) is just based on the myopic belief that one person is a better member of their group than another. You see that same 'uber' mentality on this forum all the time, predicated on the belief that people in a group are supposed to behave in a certain way - normally one approved by the person issuing the insult.

 

No its not its about somebody betraying their 'kind'.

[saintbletch]

Well I am not Matty but it is quite big!

 

Ouch. Ears? I can edit the post.

 

I am not offended by the comment as I mentioned but what I dislike is the double standards. Noses are one thing but race is a more sensitive area. It is the one rule for one and one for another that fuels racism.

 

Agree about double standards. But, and here's the really difficult area for me, I also think that the majority in any society will always come under closer scrutiny.

 

Assuming that we're setting our sights on a perfect world of race equality and harmony, and assuming that we agree that we're not there yet, then because the majority represents the status quo position, then by definition it is the majority that has to give more ground. I think that this can look like double standards, and I'm sure in some cases it is.

 

This in no way excuses racial hatred on either side. But for me, the majority has a greater responsibility to help change the situation. Again that in no way suggests that minorities do not need to work to change the status quo, because they do.

[Saint in Paradise]

Whatever happened to the time when "Sticks and stones can break my bones but

names can never hurt me" ???

 

Quite sad how things have gone over the last years and I speak as someone who has been called all kinds of

names that were meant to be offensive towards myself.

 

.

[Verbal]

Ferdinand endorsed the remark to abuse Cole. Any comment on Tim Westwood would not be designed to abuse him and if it was then that too would be a derogatory remark based on race.

 

How does this supposed 'context' alter a word of what I've said?

 

Are you really saying that Westwood being accused of acting black is racist? Again, I can't tell, because of your habit of arguing both ways at the same time. Could you read your second sentence again and see if you can edit it into a single point rather than two contradictory ones?

[Turkish]

How does this supposed 'context' alter a word of what I've said?

 

Are you really saying that Westwood being accused of acting black is racist? Again, I can't tell, because of your habit of arguing both ways at the same time. Could you read your second sentence again and see if you can edit it into a single point rather than two contradictory ones?

 

but if he was called a "wigger" would that be racist?

[Verbal]

I would say I'm like a Zoom

everyone wants a lick

 

Well done. You've done something useful on here for a change: proved that calling people various kinds of frozen dessert is not exactly heart-bleedingly offensive in the bigger scheme of things.

[Thedelldays]

Well done. You've done something useful on here for a change: proved that calling people various kinds of frozen dessert is not exactly heart-bleedingly offensive in the bigger scheme of things.

it is if I meant to insult your race

[Verbal]

im a magnum gold. White on the outside,white in the middle and a cut above most.

 

Wouldn't it have to be something in a tub?

[Verbal]

it is if I meant to insult your race

 

From whose point of view? Is your race mine?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How does this supposed 'context' alter a word of what I've said?

 

Are you really saying that Westwood being accused of acting black is racist? Again, I can't tell, because of your habit of arguing both ways at the same time. Could you read your second sentence again and see if you can edit it into a single point rather than two contradictory ones?

 

You normally come across as quite intelligent. The context is all importantbecause one would be an observation and the other an insult. If you cannot see that race is being used to insult somebody then there is no point arguing.

[Verbal]

You normally come across as quite intelligent. The context is all importantbecause one would be an observation and the other an insult. If you cannot see that race is being used to insult somebody then there is no point arguing.

 

'Context', as you put it, makes your case look not just feeble, but seriously and morally vacuous. Contrast the 'contextual' language of "what, what ni**er", as the racist attackers stabbed, beat and murdered Stephen Lawrence, with the sad but trivial spectacle of one millionaire black man accusing another millionaire black man of being a "choc ice". They're equivalent - the same?!

 

I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in your world, or your head, if you genuinely think that.

[Thedelldays]

so if i said verbal looks like a chocolate biscuit

that would be fine..?

[Verbal]

so if i said verbal looks like a chocolate biscuit

that would be fine..?

 

As I said earlier, you've actually helped demonstrate that such an 'insult' hardly even qualifies, and makes the accuser - in this case, you - just look a bit pathetic.

 

Thanks.

[Thedelldays]

As I said earlier, you've actually helped demonstrate that such an 'insult' hardly even qualifies, and makes the accuser - in this case, you - just look a bit pathetic.

 

Thanks.

so, if my black mate went to the police and said so and so called him a big black dirty chocolate biscuit......they will point and laugh at him and tell to stop being sensitive..?

 

or will they record it as an incident/crime..

 

take that one step further...if the accused was across the road...would they just stand there pro go over to find out..?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

'Context', as you put it, makes your case look not just feeble, but seriously and morally vacuous. Contrast the 'contextual' language of "what, what ni**er", as the racist attackers stabbed, beat and murdered Stephen Lawrence, with the sad but trivial spectacle of one millionaire black man accusing another millionaire black man of being a "choc ice". They're equivalent - the same?!

 

I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in your world, or your head, if you genuinely think that.

 

So all cases of racism have to be at the very extreme end? Are there not varying degrees of racism?

 

You are clearly struggling to understand that if you stated that Tim Westwood was 'acting black' that is merely an observation but in the case of Rio Ferdinand he is trying to insult Ashley Cole by using his race. No this is not Stephen Lawrence but it is racism. It implies that he is not one of us but one of them. As I say I really do not care about it but I do get irritated by the hypocrisy. Its is quite laughable that you start quoting some fella writing about the Algerian uprising in the 60's to declare that it was something called 'Identity politics' - its amazing how sharp you are at picking up on the most subtle forms of racism normally.