|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 19:09:54 GMT 1
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 19:09:54 GMT 1
You reckon? Maybe you're right. But you don't hear/speak homophobia on Telly, Radio, Papers, Magazines and it seems internet forums without consequences. Not even as a group of people in a pub or any other public place. That's my idea of mainstream society, but you might go to different pubs or know of underground society that I don't. Society exists outside of the pubs of Huddersfield msqte. Enlighten me then. Which bit of mainstream society am I missing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2021 19:11:52 GMT 1
Admins can we lock or move these Otium ones please. It's run it's course and nothing is going to change. It'll be a never ending shit show. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by keithAM11532 on Jul 21, 2021 19:23:04 GMT 1
Admins can we lock or move these Otium ones please. It's run it's course and nothing is going to change. It'll be a never ending shit show. Thanks why don't you stop reading it then. |
|
|
|
Post by Teddington Ted on Jul 21, 2021 19:48:00 GMT 1
In a free society they can  whichever religion they choose. All 1.2 billion off them. But they don't get to impose their more unpleasant ideas onto mainstream society. I'd have thought the gammon amongst our message board would be pleased about that since you seem to all believe we're one step away from Sharia law. In any case, someone being a bigot because he was religiously indoctrinated to be one is terrible, but not nearly as bad as a supposed intelligent man of the world venting his bile in a public place. He could be a likeable guy 25% of the time Otium but there's no place on here for the other 75% of him. That's my two cents, and since you all believe in freedom of speech I'm sure you won't mind. Do people who use that term also think its ok to call black people 'chocolate drops'? Just wondering as there doesn't seem to be a difference between two terms, being as they both are based on the colour of someones skin being like a food item and used as a derogative insult. Not that I enjoy pointing out rank hypocrisy and double standards in any way. Jesus wept! This hot spell seems to have addled your tiny mind to new and dangerous levels. Have yourself an ice cream and a lie down. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 19:48:04 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2021 19:48:04 GMT 1
Define character - was Hitler a character, Enoch Powell, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage...? Which bit of racism or homophobia is it okay to be? Oooooooooh, has that nasty Oti been upsetting you again with his words on a forum. Nasty Oti. Let's hope you never have to deal with any real issues in life, you will fold like a pack of cards Your faux childish sarcasm is wasted on me - try harder! |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 19:51:15 GMT 1
Post by morleyterrier on Jul 21, 2021 19:51:15 GMT 1
Oooooooooh, has that nasty Oti been upsetting you again with his words on a forum. Nasty Oti. Let's hope you never have to deal with any real issues in life, you will fold like a pack of cards Your faux childish sarcasm is wasted on me - try harder! just grow up and leave me alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 21, 2021 19:56:04 GMT 1
Do people who use that term also think its ok to call black people 'chocolate drops'? Just wondering as there doesn't seem to be a difference between two terms, being as they both are based on the colour of someones skin being like a food item and used as a derogative insult. Not that I enjoy pointing out rank hypocrisy and double standards in any way. That's so daft as to not really deserve and answer, but anyway Gammon are white. They may get very red with anger but they are white. Black people are the colour of Chocolate (I guess) whether they're laid back or permanently angry and waving the Daily Express around. So it's a fucking ridiculous comparison. Not that I enjoy pointing it out in any way. Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. |
|
King Curtis
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Bacon is good for me
Posts: 4,844
|
Post by King Curtis on Jul 21, 2021 19:56:33 GMT 1
Has a date been set for Otium's Plea Hearing yet?
|
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 19:57:30 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 21, 2021 19:57:30 GMT 1
Do people who use that term also think its ok to call black people 'chocolate drops'? Just wondering as there doesn't seem to be a difference between two terms, being as they both are based on the colour of someones skin being like a food item and used as a derogative insult. Not that I enjoy pointing out rank hypocrisy and double standards in any way. Jesus wept! This hot spell seems to have addled your tiny mind to new and dangerous levels. Have yourself an ice cream and a lie down. Can I have a choc ice? Which coincidentally... |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:00:57 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by El Mel on Jul 21, 2021 20:00:57 GMT 1
Jesus wept! This hot spell seems to have addled your tiny mind to new and dangerous levels. Have yourself an ice cream and a lie down. Can I have a choc ice? Which coincidentally... I've got some minibombom negro's in the freezer, Lidl's finest. |
|
|
|
Post by turbo2 on Jul 21, 2021 20:02:22 GMT 1
So 2.4 billion followers you class as not mainstream. Wow. Eh? Well their bigotry isn't mainstream is it? However many of them there are. Cos we as a society frown on homophobia don't we? So they haven't been able to influence mainstream thinking see? Wow. I’m not homophobic. I’ve already said that on reflection that oti didn’t give the admins much choice. I’m just trying to give a bit of balance. Otis views that you class as homophobic are very mainstream. Personally dislike all religions but the vast majority follow one religion or another You and ted being in denial doesn’t change that |
|
King Curtis
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Bacon is good for me
Posts: 4,844
|
Post by King Curtis on Jul 21, 2021 20:02:49 GMT 1
That's so daft as to not really deserve and answer, but anyway Gammon are white. They may get very red with anger but they are white. Black people are the colour of Chocolate (I guess) whether they're laid back or permanently angry and waving the Daily Express around. So it's a fucking ridiculous comparison. Not that I enjoy pointing it out in any way. Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. Slaps has a point here. Calling people names by comparing their skin colour to a particular food/ thing is unacceptable. That works all ways. So how is the term "Gammon" acceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 20:03:02 GMT 1
That's so daft as to not really deserve and answer, but anyway Gammon are white. They may get very red with anger but they are white. Black people are the colour of Chocolate (I guess) whether they're laid back or permanently angry and waving the Daily Express around. So it's a fucking ridiculous comparison. Not that I enjoy pointing it out in any way. Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. Are you this thick or doing it on purpose? Black people is a race. White people is a race. Gammon is a nickname for a type of person who's always angry. That's not a race. I could make assumptions against a black or white person before they've opened their mouth and that would be prejudice. Calling someone a gammon isn't prejudice because I can only find out that they're a gammon when they've started speaking/shouting and shown me that they are. I understand your desire/M.O to deliberately oversimplify every issue to that point that even a Mail reader can get it, but come on mate for fuck's sake. |
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 20:05:11 GMT 1
Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. Slaps has a point here. Calling people names by comparing their skin colour to a particular food/ thing is unacceptable. That works all ways. So how is the term "Gammon" acceptable? Sweet Baby Jesus |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:06:29 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by turbo2 on Jul 21, 2021 20:06:29 GMT 1
Don't you just love it that over 2 billion people have juat been stereotyped as being homophobic. Only on datm Denial will get you nowhere Pull your head out of the sand |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:07:50 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by El Mel on Jul 21, 2021 20:07:50 GMT 1
What do you call a black person that's always angry?
|
|
|
|
Post by Teddington Ted on Jul 21, 2021 20:07:53 GMT 1
That's so daft as to not really deserve and answer, but anyway Gammon are white. They may get very red with anger but they are white. Black people are the colour of Chocolate (I guess) whether they're laid back or permanently angry and waving the Daily Express around. So it's a fucking ridiculous comparison. Not that I enjoy pointing it out in any way. Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. Mocking black skin: the basis of centuries of repression, persecution and murder. Derogatory terms (beyond the descriptive) that are loaded with the notion of racial inferiority and are inseparable from a litany of socio-economic and personal historical undertones designed to belittle in the modern day. Mocking ‘gammon’ skin: when white blokes get so worked up by the modern world their faces go a bit red. But yeah, pretty much the same thing. |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:08:12 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 21, 2021 20:08:12 GMT 1
Don't you just love it that over 2 billion people have juat been stereotyped as being homophobic. Only on datm Denial will get you nowhere Pull your head out of the sand Denial as presented by a geezer making it up . Know any Muslims? Roman catholics ? All as homophobic as otium ? |
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Jul 21, 2021 20:12:31 GMT 1
What do you call a black person that's always angry? Mike Tyson? |
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 20:12:58 GMT 1
What do you call a black person that's always angry? I dunno Jim Davidson. What do you call a black person that's always angry? Can't wait for the punchline here. |
|
King Curtis
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Bacon is good for me
Posts: 4,844
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:17:01 GMT 1
Post by King Curtis on Jul 21, 2021 20:17:01 GMT 1
Slaps has a point here. Calling people names by comparing their skin colour to a particular food/ thing is unacceptable. That works all ways. So how is the term "Gammon" acceptable? Sweet Baby Jesus What's he got to do with it? Is he a gammon too? |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:18:39 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by El Mel on Jul 21, 2021 20:18:39 GMT 1
What do you call a black person that's always angry? I dunno Jim Davidson. What do you call a black person that's always angry? Can't wait for the punchline here. Seriously. What do you call a black person thats always angry? They must have a name, right? |
|
|
|
Post by morleyterrier on Jul 21, 2021 20:20:03 GMT 1
For fucks sake, for you fucking hand-wringers posting on here, yes you fucking absolute idiots.
How many Posters on here do you truly believe are either racist or homophobic?. Let me answer this for you, you absolute cretins. It's fucking none, zero, nobody, fucking none.
Now fuck off and post on the BBC website where you will be entertained and leave the rest of us alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 21, 2021 20:23:35 GMT 1
Oh right. So that explains it. One term thats meant to be derogatory against a particular race of person by likening them to a type of food is fine. The other doing the exact same thing is outrageously offensive. Thanks for pointing that out. Are you this thick or doing it on purpose? Black people is a race. White people is a race. Gammon is a nickname for a type of person who's always angry. That's not a race. I could make assumptions against a black or white person before they've opened their mouth and that would be prejudice. Calling someone a gammon isn't prejudice because I can only find out that they're a gammon when they've started speaking/shouting and shown me that they are. I understand your desire/M.O to deliberately oversimplify every issue to that point that even a Mail reader can get it, but come on mate for fuck's sake. Well no,, thats not it is it. Gammon is a term ONLY ever used against white people when you are quite happy to use their skin colour to insult them... 'you look like a gammon'. If you think thats any different from calling a black person a chocolate drop.. 'you look like a chocolate drop' , then you need to explain it much better than that feeble attempt. What I have a desire to do, is to point out a piece of rank hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:30:19 GMT 1
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 20:30:19 GMT 1
I dunno Jim Davidson. What do you call a black person that's always angry? Can't wait for the punchline here. Seriously. What do you call a black person thats always angry? They must have a name, right? That's it? That's the punchline. I guess you'd call them a gammon. Cos it's state of mind/anger rather than a race thing. You could call them a black gammon but that could get confused with the board game. |
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jul 21, 2021 20:41:47 GMT 1
Are you this thick or doing it on purpose? Black people is a race. White people is a race. Gammon is a nickname for a type of person who's always angry. That's not a race. I could make assumptions against a black or white person before they've opened their mouth and that would be prejudice. Calling someone a gammon isn't prejudice because I can only find out that they're a gammon when they've started speaking/shouting and shown me that they are. I understand your desire/M.O to deliberately oversimplify every issue to that point that even a Mail reader can get it, but come on mate for fuck's sake. Well no,, thats not it is it. Gammon is a term ONLY ever used against white people when you are quite happy to use their skin colour to insult them... 'you look like a gammon'. If you think thats any different from calling a black person a chocolate drop.. 'you look like a chocolate drop' , then you need to explain it much better than that feeble attempt. What I have a desire to do, is to point out a piece of rank hypocrisy. I'd take the other fella's advice. You need a lie down. Who's ever said 'you look like a gammon' based on their skin tone? Nobody cares if you LOOK like a gammon, only if you behave/think/spout off like one. You can be the colour of a tomato but not be a gammon and literally never have anyone accuse you of such. It's a state of mind and it's a nickname for people of a particular mindeset, not a nickname for people of a particular colour. Whereas if you called someone a chocolate drop it's purely about colour cos there's no other characteristics that it refers to. Anyway you've answered my previous question. You're not doing it on purpose. (I think). Now you can reply by doubling down on your 'there's no difference between chocolate drop and gammon' nonsense because you can't admit that you've gone on the offensive without defending your queen. I've been here before with you too many times. I already know what's coming next. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jul 21, 2021 20:44:13 GMT 1
I dunno Jim Davidson. What do you call a black person that's always angry? Can't wait for the punchline here. Seriously. What do you call a black person thats always angry? They must have a name, right? It doesn’t need a name. Black men have been stereotyped as being angry for centuries. Also, see: uppity. The term gammon comes from Dickens in Nicholas Nickleby (though not the oldest reference) “The time had been, when this burst of enthusiasm would have been cheered to the very echo; but now, the deputation received it with chilling coldness. The general impression seemed to be, that as an explanation of Mr. Gregsbury’s political conduct, it did not enter quite enough into detail; and one gentleman in the rear did not scruple to remark aloud, that, for his purpose, it savoured rather too much of a 'gammon' tendency. The meaning of that term—gammon,' said Mr. Gregsbury, 'is unknown to me. If it means that I grow a little too fervid, or perhaps even hyperbolical, in extolling my native land, I admit the full justice of the remark. I am proud of this free and happy country. My form dilates, my eye glistens, my breast heaves, my heart swells, my bosom burns, when I call to mind her greatness and her glory.” This explanation is a little disingenuous though - it has been popularised recently both before and after the referendum and is probably best illustrated by that montage of angry men from Question Time. It’s not racist, but it is lazy and divisive. Sadly, the lexicon of the right, weaponised by appalling people, such as “snowflake”, “virtue signalling”, “woke” etc has legitimised the counter thrust of “gammon”. Personally, if I read or hear someone using shite like “woke” I automatically think they are not worth listening to. Feel very much the same about gammon, even if that person will be more aligned to my views. Insult by shorthand reflects an unthinking person. |
|
|
|
OTIUM
Jul 21, 2021 20:46:31 GMT 1
Post by turbo2 on Jul 21, 2021 20:46:31 GMT 1
Denial will get you nowhere Pull your head out of the sand Denial as presented by a geezer making it up . Know any Muslims? Roman catholics ? All as homophobic as otium ? How am I making it up?. It’s in their scripture. And yes I know loads of Muslims and RCs. I find the vast majority are brainwashed I was actually raised RC. But I’ve enough about me to decide it’s a right load of bollocks once of a reasonable age. |
|
|
|
Post by Teddington Ted on Jul 21, 2021 20:48:19 GMT 1
This page of the thread highlights exactly the problem in this country today.
Terms like ‘chocolate drops’ to describe black people, ‘jokes’ about choc ices and ‘negro’ ice cream and an angry intervention arguing that no one is racist.
Racism isn’t all about high level abuse & violence, it’s this low-level normalisation of derogatory terms to belittle people based on their physical characteristics. If it isn’t called out it it only emboldens the knuckle draggers further.
Sadly, you can’t educate the ignorant and rather than acknowledge their own prejudice they simply get angry and lash out. It’s a character trait based on insecurity, small-mindedness and fear of what they cannot/will not understand.
It’s pitiful and pathetic in equal measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by gammon on Jul 21, 2021 20:50:32 GMT 1
Well no,, thats not it is it. Gammon is a term ONLY ever used against white people when you are quite happy to use their skin colour to insult them... 'you look like a gammon'. If you think thats any different from calling a black person a chocolate drop.. 'you look like a chocolate drop' , then you need to explain it much better than that feeble attempt. What I have a desire to do, is to point out a piece of rank hypocrisy. I'd take the other fella's advice. You need a lie down. Who's ever said 'you look like a gammon' based on their skin tone? Nobody cares if you LOOK like a gammon, only if you behave/think/spout off like one. You can be the colour of a tomato but not be a gammon and literally never have anyone accuse you of such. It's a state of mind and it's a nickname for people of a particular mindeset, not a nickname for people of a particular colour. Whereas if you called someone a chocolate drop it's purely about colour cos there's no other characteristics that it refers to. Anyway you've answered my previous question. You're not doing it on purpose. (I think). Now you can reply by doubling down on your 'there's no difference between chocolate drop and gammon' nonsense because you can't admit that you've gone on the offensive without defending your queen. I've been here before with you too many times. I already know what's coming next. Gammon ain't racist. Chocolate drop is. Calling a black person a chocolate drop is a comment that says nothing except you've got brown skin. Gammon is far more subtle.ive had my name for years now,not cos I'm white but cos I'm like a gammon. Connotations of being pig-like (cos of my cunty views) are more important than being white. And I'm not really white - when I'm rolling around in my own shit oinking my stinking views, my dead-eyed face is pink and spittle-flecked with a kind of inarticulate rage. It's a basic kind of meat and I'm a basic kind of guy. Much better,more nuanced skewering of my piggy cuntiness than chocolate drop is of anything. |
|
whichever religion they choose. All 1.2 billion off them. But they don't get to impose their more unpleasant ideas onto mainstream society. I'd have thought the gammon amongst our message board would be pleased about that since you seem to all believe we're one step away from Sharia law. In any case, someone being a bigot because he was religiously indoctrinated to be one is terrible, but not nearly as bad as a supposed intelligent man of the world venting his bile in a public place. He could be a likeable guy 25% of the time Otium but there's no place on here for the other 75% of him. That's my two cents, and since you all believe in freedom of speech I'm sure you won't mind.
