Yeah can’t be bothered getting into this discussion. There’s some merit but it’s also full of holes. The bleedings hearts will have a field day.
That’s not the argument and actually not something you’d ‘know’ about these dolls.
1 Like
They stopped serving John Smit’s at Wetherspoons which I liked a Bitter and served cold being from the continent and so … 
Harrogate has a beautiful Wetherspoon’s btw.
1 Like
Don’t we have a beer thread?
1 Like
Going to need one over summer
I get the feeling Terry will be along in a minute…
this. 100%.
thank you.
the Nazi symbol is the ultimate example of this and i think most of us agree it is too far down the line to bother with, but wouldnt it be good if instead of fearing the symbol, it became a symbol of good fortune as it was originally used…probably too far gone to happen in my lifetime, but wouldnt it be great if in 200 years time people would mention its use as a symbol of hate as though it was some kind of bar room trivia
simiraly, the word Black…imagine if i could describe someone of black skin as a black person, and no one winced…i mean, the word itself isnt offemsive is it? its simply an adjective…’ the guy on the right wing, not the white guy, the black guy, i i cant make out his number, hes played well’
we should take some of these words back.
1 Like
We’re all just people in the end.
1 Like
You can. I don’t think anyone has a problem with describing someone as black. It when it’s used as a pejorative that there’s a problem.
What if someone is offended by you being nice to them?
What if someone is offended by the word ‘hello’?
Shit! What if someone is offended by you walking down the road!
What if?
What if?
WHAT IF!!!
Nah, tell you what. Let’s just stick to scenarios that actually happen rather than ones you’ve invented.
The swastika as a symbol of good luck was reversed.
James Brown said ‘I’m black and I’m proud’.
End of story
It is the argument, and it something we all should know.
As @Limiescouse has said, better than I could, Gollywog dolls were always rooted in racist stereotypes.
We can’t say what the intention was behind them. I’m sure anyone who has ever blacked up in the name of entertainment would claim that they were not being deliberately racist. But racist it was, whether that was the intent or not.
The offender doesn’t get to decide whether the offence someone feels is justified or not.
So by definition, if somebody feels offended, the person responsible for the alleged offence is guilty? Wow, just wow.
I like Mr Fry’s line. “You’re offended, so fucking what?”
Anybody else who wants to talk about the price of a pint in their neck of the woods … 
Depends on the venue here. Weatherspoons £3 Reasonable pub £4 Nice bar £5.
1 Like
Yeah this is absolute tosh. Just cos your using absolutes in your writing doesn’t make it so.
Somebody dressing up as somebody/someone else is racist? Does that include fancy dress parties?
It wasn’t the argument, but you’re determined tell me it was.
Best leave it there.
1 Like
You must be going to the wrong Wetherspoons .
1 Like
You said they weren’t originally racist. I’m saying yes they were, because they were based on racist tropes even back then, regardless of whether the intent of the dolls was racist or not. That’s not an assertion, it’s just a fact.
It is absolutely the argument.
Now we can leave it.
Where do you live if I may ask?
You think that the person causing the offence gets to decide if something is offensive?
You can decide that you don’t care, or the action justifies the offence (which it frequently does). But offence is not negated by you just saying ‘well, I wasn’t trying to be offensive’.
If you think about this for a minute it’s fairly obvious. And if you still don’t get it, there is a fairly simple experiment we can do.