To black guy in a black car (Dunstans Road, 5/9/11 6:20am)

[Frankito]

But how do we deal with it...? Serious question, not one I see being asked enough and each time I ask myself I can never quite work it out.

[DJKillaQueen]

You deal with it by zero tolerance. But there are so many manifestations of it that it's perhaps impossible to ever be free of it.

There are subtler forms of prejudice that are exercised in this forum from time to time for example (including sexism) but after my last experience of correctly challenging use of a word to find it then disgracefully mimmicked and ridiculed by a prominent female user of this forum I gave up. I have no time for bullies, esp childish ones like that.

Truth is that most racists, homophobes, misogynists, xenophobes etc are not particularly nice people......but sometimes it takes a while to see that.

[Frankito]

Was the word 'ponce' involved...? Not wanting to open a can of worms here but yes I think I remember that one well...

[DJKillaQueen]

;-) lovely weather this evening isn't it? :))

[Frankito]

Gosh, it's a bit windy but still nice! >:D

[ianr]

> No form or racism or xenophobia is ever acceptable, irregardless of who is perpetuating it.

Cf "No form of ignorant mangling of the language is ever acceptable, regardless of who is perpetuating it."? :)

My serious point is to question the meaning, function and usefulness of this binary acceptable/unacceptable distinction. May sometimes a bland smile, a shake of the head, or an ignoring, leave the world and its future in no worse a state than would an authoritarian response?

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are subtler forms of prejudice that are

> exercised in this forum from time to time for

> example (including sexism) but after my last

> experience of correctly challenging use of a word

> to find it then disgracefully mimmicked and

> ridiculed by a prominent female user of this forum

> I gave up. I have no time for bullies, esp

> childish ones like that.

>

xxxxxxxx

I have just seen this. Are you by any chance referring to your post where you were very upset because somebody had used the word "faggot" on this forum?

And unfortunately hadn't understood that the poster in question was quoting from a very well known Pogues song, "Fairytale of New York", as should have been obvious from the context?

And if it is me you are talking about, which I suspect it is, perhaps you could back up your comments by copying and pasting this alleged "disgraceful mimicking and ridiculing"?

To the best of my recollection, all I said - in response to other people's comments - was "She doesn't know the song", which far from bullying was actually explaining your post. Though I did find it strange that as a DJ (or I assume from your forum name that you are a DJ) you hadn't picked up the reference to:

"You scumbag you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot, Happy Christmas your arse I pray God it's our last."

I have worked as a diversity consultant so am hardly likely to take issue with anybody objecting to the gratuitous use of the term "faggot", however this was a musical reference.

If you are referring to something else completely, perhaps as you have raised it you could let us know what it is.

As for bullying, people can draw their own conclusions from the content and tone of forum members' posts - including yours.

Edited to correct a typo

Edited again to add: It was also pointed out to you at the time, not by me, that "faggot" is Irish slang for a lazy person, and is unrelated to the derogatory term for gay men. Shane MacGowan is of course Irish.

[DJKillaQueen]

No it's nothing to do with that one Sue which is all I think I need to say on that (that thread is there for anyone who really wants to see for themselves rather than reading selective commentary).

[Moos]

I remember the thread, it was the Foie Gras one. I chiefly remember it because after TedMax apologised to you for using the word ponce:

"No, fair enough. If it's an offensive word then I withdraw it.

I meant it to mean "fancy dan, lah-di-dah" (and not seriously, obviously), but as it has other negative connotations then I'll distance myself from it."

you then responded (and only after prompting from another user) with "I think we can be quite clear what 'ponces at the Victoria' meant....and it's always the same suspects, the rubbbish you tolerate on this foum and then try to reason it out with smarmy psuedo semantics. It was meant as a dig at the owners of the Victoria, and most people that use the word pomce mean it in two ways - one as a description of something effeminate and gay - the other as someone that scrounges/ lives off others......Ted has apologised for all the right reasons...geez can we leave it that."

which TedMax took exception to, with:

"Sorry, no. I can't have that. I appreciate you feel under attack but I don't think that's fair.

I don't know anything about the people at the vic _ I've had one glass of coke in there since it opened. I wasn't taking notes about peoples sexuality as I did so.

The word was meant to mean "over-fancy" as i stated, and also not serious in any case. You alerted me to a derogatory meaning of the world so I withdrew it. I have not apologised for a slur, insult or similar because it was not one."

You never responded to this post at all, nor acknowledged that you had misinterpreted him, and wrongly accused him. So if anyone behaved disgracefully in this episode, it was you.

Here's the whole thread, if anyone is interested. Foie Gras thread. The "ponce" bit starts on page 6.

[Huguenot]

Nevertheless, ianr's point remains.

It's not practical to draw binary distinctions between what is or isn't accceptable. Convictions, words, behaviours and intentions are inherently woolly concepts.

'Meaning' must be derived by social convention - and social convention relies on finding an appropriate balance between all these various factors.

In the case DJKQ is referring to, it was clear that the 'racists, homophobes, misogynists, xenophobes' in question were none of the above.

One isolated use of a multipurpose word had been taken out of context, and as the saying goes, those who seek offence will find it everywhere.

I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that those people concerned by skinheads are necessarily associating them with racism - there were plenty of violent 'skinheads' where I grew up in the shires that didn't have access to non-caucasian targets, so they found plenty of others.

There were also some very friendly ones too... ;-)

[Huguenot]

Cross post

[RosieH]

No.

No no no.

Sweet mother of fuck, not this again. Veiled hints and innuendo can piss right off. If someone's a racist, homophobic, misogynist, xenophobe, tell them so. Then at least they can defend themselves. Or be found guilty as charged by an EDF kangaroo court. Otherwise, can we please, and for all time, put this ridiculous notion back in the box.

[Jeremy]

Let's face it, this thread was a ticking timebomb from the very first post.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it's nothing to do with that one Sue which is

> all I think I need to say on that (that thread is

> there for anyone who really wants to see for

> themselves rather than reading selective

> commentary).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I could not find the thread, otherwise I would have posted the link.

If you are making accusations about other forum members, it would be better if you were clear and upfront about who and what you are referring to.

[JamieF]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> possible. I do wish that some people would be more

> polite and thoughtful in the way they post though,

> before assuming the OP is a pot calling the kettle

> black.

The irony of this comment the words rich and hypocritcal come to mind.

[Jeremy]

Right back at you, Jamie.

[northlondoner]

Fight ! Fight !

[l.scott]

*streams to youtube*

[Annette Curtain]

* lob *

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126b/50619419.jpg

[LadyDeliah]

Frankito Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But how do we deal with it...? Serious question,

> not one I see being asked enough and each time I

> ask myself I can never quite work it out.

By telling them to go fu%k themselves?

[DJKillaQueen]

*sorry to disappoint but there will be no fight this time round, involving plastic water bottles or otherwise*

[Moos]

Communicating is always good. I do agree that fighting is a poor way to do it.

[Huguenot]

I think most of us are aware that clothes carry a certain amount of symbology and associations.

It's perfectly human that this arouses a strong subconscious reaction, that generates certain type of behaviours dependent upon your personality.

It strikes me that if you dress in such away that you affiliate yourself with a far-right white supremacist group then you can't really be surprised at the responses you generate.

In a part of society already pre-disposed to casual violence it's likely that this might manifest itself in physical attacks.

I'm not sure what the story is here?

[Moos]

Laughter! Seems Huguenot doesn't agree with me about fighting.

[Huguenot]

No, no - I'm not a fan of fighting at all.

I'm just thinking that moaning about people attacking someone for their attire is a bit wood for trees.

The problem is that there's a culture that believes causal violence is acceptable full stop. I don't think it's likely to be solved by 'communicating' or 'gaining an understanding' with each other about the relative merits of a shaven head.

I guess in one sense peaceful conflict resolution is a triumph of intellect over evolution.

Hence most 'fighters' are (by definition) too stupid to do this, so rationalising with them is unlikely to help.