More biased reporting...first, there was Karen,then came Amber and Andrea felt the urge to join in as well.
However, for those who lament the so called suppression of "freedom of speech " Ambers vocabulary will send little pulses through their hearts.....and probably little trickles down the inside of their trousers as a result.....
Can anyone explain why it is offensive to call Abbott a 'coloured woman'.
She is (apparently) biologically a woman, and her skin is dark brown, which is a colour.
I understand that calling her a white woman or a black woman, neither of which terms would accurately describe her colour, would not be offensive.
Has the world gone so crazy?
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:35 pm
by om15
Yes it has Capes, this lot are going full tilt at putting white indigenous people on the back foot on every occasion, urged on by the Gaudian of course who delight in this attack on a middle class white person. I heard Amber Rudd and she was actually supporting Abbott, it is unbelievable.
Miss Dianne gets on line abuse because she is a stupid, racist, incapable socialist that is drawing a substantial salary paid by the tax payer that has to suffer her regular bursts of imbecility.
At the moment we are listening to every excuse in the world why black youths are stabbing each other, (and any passers bye they fancy) because we haven't provided enough play grounds for them. Sadiq Khan did all he could to reduce stop and search because it was racist to prevent black youths from carrying a knife, the predictable surge in knife crime now has to be addressed by emergency measures to increase stop and search, and he is blaming everyone else.
Amber Rudd should not have apologised, she should have told Abbott that she would use whatever words she chooses and to wind her neck in, but no, because Abbott is black and mustn't be offended, however slightly, she apologised.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:20 pm
by 4mastacker
I wonder what Abbott's response would have been if Rudd had called her a "person of sombre hue"? How TF people can vote for her goodness only knows - the proverbial donkey wearing a red rosette - or is it something to do with postal votes??
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:15 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
I think it's offensive that Amber Rudd should either use such a term, or apologise for it, when there are a plethora, nay a myriad of insults which could be directed at the Labour Deputy Leader and can be easily justified. There's no need to bring race, gender, or even political affiliation into it.
Can anyone explain why it is offensive to call Abbott a 'coloured woman'.
She is (apparently) biologically a woman, and her skin is dark brown, which is a colour.
I understand that calling her a white woman or a black woman, neither of which terms would accurately describe her colour, would not be offensive.
Has the world gone so crazy?
Always helpful, to answer your question therefore......cast your mind back to those happy halcyon days of yore.....depending entirely on the pigmentation of your skin that is...and something called.......segregation. The word was prominent at the time.
Not that difficult a question to answer now was it.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:57 am
by Capetonian
Not that difficult a question to answer now was it.
No, not at all, but as usual you didn't manage to answer it, you merely provided an imbecilic and meaningless response incorporating a snide remark.
Not that difficult a question to answer now was it.
No, not at all, but as usual you didn't manage to answer it, you merely provided an imbecilic and meaningless response incorporating a snide remark.
Given your comments on the thread about the lady in question, it was, perhaps, a quantum leap too far in my expectation you would be able to comprehend the correlation contained in my explanation......
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am
by Capetonian
What 'lady' would that be then?
You haven't provided an explanation, but then you never do.
Waiting for your mandatory link to your Bible.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:56 am
by BenThere
Referring to someone as 'a colored woman' is widely considered racist. Referring to her as 'a woman of color' is widely seen as PC-acceptable, with the implication that a white woman lacks color and luster.
I can't for the life of me see the difference, nor why it's a big deal other than to stir up yet more division among us regular folks just trying to make our way through life without all this drama, intolerance and resentment.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:30 pm
by Cacophonix
Saying somebody is coloured in South Africa actually implies that they are of mixed race or of Malay descent. Semantics, history and culture vary all over the world.
Caco
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:36 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
Where reason cannot work, the basis of control is fear. This is particularly prevalent in 2 areas of socialism.
The first is language, which is both continually redefined, and what is "acceptable" is also redefined, until the only safe thing to do is agree and shut up. Women do it a lot too. Female socialists are therefore a nightmare. Female socialists who write for socialist rags are the worst. The Overton Window is a useful concept in understanding this, and Trump's chucking a brick through that window is the reason the MSM are out for his blood.
The second is bureaucracy, where "policy" in practice carries the weight of law, but has two further benefits. You cannot challenge policy in court, and contradicting policies allow the bureaucrats to pick and choose what they allow and who they persecute. The policies do not even have to be deliberately made contradictory, as this happens naturally as bureaucracies get beyond a certain size. All national bureaucracies are waaay past that size. Continual changes of budget, organisation, and leadership make it happen a lot faster.
And because the basis is not reason, it is impossible to reason with it, so don't waste your energy. You have two options, avoid it or destroy it. Passive resistance by individuals won't destroy it, one needs weight of numbers. Bear in mind that the loss of freedom and resources that a majority of people can stomach before they are prepared to actively resist is more than you personally can take, and that you live in a democracy. If you thought you lived in a Republic with written down protected freedoms, such as free speech, go back and reread the sentence about language. Then remember that the Soviet Union ran with all the mechanisms of a democracy; elections, law courts, etc. If you wish to avoid it, you need to get where it is too difficult for the apparatus of Government to be bothered about you, and deep rural historically works best. However, remember what happened to the kulaks.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:18 pm
by Capetonian
To add to Caco's comment, the Coloureds in South Africa are a recognised racial grouping and refer to themselves as Coloured people. The term is not derogatory, nor was it in Apartheid days. Those are my terms of reference and if others disagree so be it, but in my view to refer to someone as 'coloured' is not insulting. I would refer to the Abbott woman as 'black' because for me a coloured person is mixed race.
I do appreciate that terms such as half-caste, half-breed and so on are derogatory but 'coloured' should be perfectly acceptable. I shall continue to use it and if others don't like it, tough.
I think Caco and I have debated this before, but the Cape Malays are a different and purer racial grouping, descended from the Malay slaves imported by the Dutch from Indonesia when it was a colony of theirs. They do not consider themselves as 'coloured' and they do find the term insulting if applied to them. At least, in my experience.
Sadly, there is some truth in this :
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You Call me “White boy,” “Cracker,” “Honkey,” “Whitey,” “Caveman” … and that’s OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink … You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma’uled A l-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET. If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we’d be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month , we’d be racists. If we had any organization for only whites to “advance” OUR lives we’d be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships you know we’d be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were “White colleges” THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud. But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:20 pm
by Fox3WheresMyBanana
Busting the Overton Window again. As I said, much of left wing politics doesn't stand up to reason. Unfortunately, that piece is not selective enough. It includes things which are reasonable, such as scholarships for disadvantaged groups. It's very important to challenge only on sound ground.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:09 am
by Slasher
A while back I was investigating the possible premise that the Daily Mail was left-leaning. I found this:
I like a good catfight just as much as the next man but would it be fair to conclude that Hopkins is probably the only knowledgeable reporter at that rag? Are there any others there of similar calibre, and is it generally perceived that there is no real political bias and the Mail is merely an accurate reporting medium?
A while back I was investigating the possible premise that the Daily Mail was left-leaning. I found this:
I like a good catfight just as much as the next man but would it be fair to conclude that Hopkins is probably the only knowledgeable reporter at that rag? Are there any others there of similar calibre, and is it generally perceived that there is no real political bias and the Mail is merely an accurate reporting medium?
Well today is April1st........ so well done on your effort to comply with tradition .......sadly, there is one teensy essential missing from your effort.... which is called humour.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:08 pm
by Capetonian
As if you'd know about humour. I'm surprised the word is even in your armoury.
As if you'd know about humour. I'm surprised the word is even in your armoury.
Oh dear...making allowances for your own limitations and confusion regarding the English language, such as aliens and invaders to name but two, and because uz Guardain reedurs like to help less able members of society, even not really, only pretending to be, South Africans, an armoury is where guns, and bullets and things that go "bang ! " and kill people are stored.....in contrast to which, a vocabulary iz where words are stored*....depending on your level of educashun of course.
* Words are also stored in big books known as dictionaries and thesaurus ( isis ) .....
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:33 pm
by Sisemen
“Armoury” is perfectly correct for someone who uses words as weapons in the class war. Unfortunately they’re used for scatter effect rather than precision shots. A lot of ammunition is used for little or no effect.
Re: Is the Guardian a biased rag?
Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 9:23 pm
by Capetonian
I watched BBC Watchdog earlier with about a third of the programme devoted to the 'scandal' of under 18s being able to buy knives over the counter or by mail order, even though it is against the law. In some cases the requisite age checks were not performed.
Slap on the wrist to those retailers then, but inhibiting sales is not the solution. This is the wrong approach. Trying to prevent crime by inhibiting sales of knives is like trying to ban forks to stop obesity or King Canute trying to turn back the tide.
Anyone can get hold of a lethal knife, chisel, screwdriver, or pair of scissors, from a kitchen, a restaurant, a friend, or a relative.
What is needed is education and opportunity for young people, proper policing, stop and search of the most likely to commit such crimes (of course that's now racist and non-PC even if most knife crime is committed by blacks - and I emphasize blacks, not Asians or Muslims) , and a fast track judiciary service and severe sentencing.