You’re not right… again. Full stop.
Its an insult. That’s it, nothing more
1 Like
Nor will Starmer
Not answering the question absolutely proves my point.
Racist and you know it. Don’t say no it isn’t, answer the two questions.
Bet he will.
Solid cabinet. Decent first Budget, given the circumstances.
He’ll be fine.
1 Like
Sir Keir’s approval numbers are up 7 points since the Budget.
Phwoar!!!
They’ve shot up to the dizzying heights of -24!!!
5 Likes
It isnt racist. Wiki page above says it isnt racist, others on here say it isnt racist and even quote its origin, twice!
Stop being stubborn and doubling down.on a double down. Learn and move on.
Its like talking to a flat earther.
1 Like
Wiki page once said Bruce Grobbelaars middle name was Goodison
2 Likes
I don’t care what wiki says.
Is it an insult,
Is it based on skin colour?
Do feel free to actually answer two deliciously simple question.
What exactly makes you think that your framing is correct and not subject to questioning?
3 Likes
Erm, just two very simple questions. I’m not framing anything.
And @Noo_Noo learn? Beneath you. But these days, understandable.
1 Like
Horseshit.
“Answer the two simple questions or accept I’ right. Your choice.”
That absolutely is framing.
5 Likes
It’s always hard to tell if you’re trolling.
As has been explained to you many times, gammon refers to behaviour not race.
i.e. if you are white but don’t spew angry, hysterical, bigoted views then no one would consider calling you gammon.
5 Likes
How can you say it does not refer to race and then follow it up with a reference to a skin colour?
I don’t think it is racist, but I can understand how some people may consider it racist.
It clearly refers to race as it is only weaponised against white people.
Is the term used to describe people of colour who may have views you don’t agree with? No! I am sure if the term referred to a person of colour it would be seen as racist.
Again, I do not see it as racist. Factually, white people do get red faced, irrespective of their political leaning. The Left’s hijacking of the term, is in my opinion a bit pathetic. Sadly, this is a common practice used by both parties. How many times can someone dismiss another persons point of view, refer to them as ignorant before they themselves are guilty of ignoring? How many times can someone refer to a person as being a bigot before they themselves are considered a bigot?
Anyhow…. On a side note. I was listening to an interview on Radio 5 live, earlier today. It was with Nihal and James Blunt. JB actually spoke well, he discussed the importance of people accepting that people will have a different point of view and that it is not all black and white.
You arent are you? You’re not accepting you are wrong, learning something from it and moving forward.
Now if you want a serious discussion on that term give a reference that explains how its racist instead of your usual one person and i’m right, you’re wrong view of the world.
You’ll have to explain what you mean by “these days” too. I’m not letting that go.
1 Like
There are points of view and there are facts.
You can have an opinion that the world is flat but it’s factually incorrect and should be corrected.
So the flipside is also true. If you’re opinion is factually incorrect then you should accept it as such. There’s no progress otherwise, only division.
2 Likes
Wait, should we not let the gammon people decide whether it offends them? Because isn’t that what I keep hearing from the west, it doesn’t matter what it’s like in the past, or what I think, as long someone is offended, I need to just go along with it? So let gammon people have their say. Please go out there and interview a few of them at Gammon rallies. Or only some people feelings matter?
1 Like
Interestingly, I saw an article which said that “gammon” is still used in Australian aboriginal English as meaning someone who is a bluffer - talking nonsense as a distraction. A bullshitter, in effect.
The bit I remember from Nicholas Nickleby was Mr Gregsbury, the bent politician who was confronting disgruntled constituents.
He was a tough, burly, thick-headed gentleman, with a loud voice, a pompous manner, a tolerable command of sentences with no meaning in them, and, in short, every requisite for a very good member indeed.
…
‘My conduct, Pugstyles,’ said Mr Gregsbury, looking round upon the deputation with gracious magnanimity—`my conduct has been, and ever will be, regulated by a sincere regard for the true and real interests of this great and happy country. Whether I look at home, or abroad; whether I behold the peaceful industrious communities of our island home: her rivers covered with steamboats, her roads with locomotives, her streets with cabs, her skies with balloons of a power and magnitude hitherto unknown in the history of aeronautics in this or any other nation—I say, whether I look merely at home, or, stretching my eyes farther, contemplate the boundless prospect of conquest and possession—achieved by British perseverance and British valour—which is outspread before me, I clasp my hands, and turning my eyes to the broad expanse above my head, exclaim, “Thank Heaven, I am a Briton!"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.’
So, in that context, it does seem to make sense that Pugstyles is accusing him on “gammoning” on with his bluster rather than letting him confront him.
Gregsbury is pretty much a literary equivalent to Boris Johnson. Make of that what you will.
6 Likes
I thought the fact, as posted, by said defendant(s) was more instructive; “Dickens’s adeptness at capturing the colloquial language of his characters allowed him to use ‘gammon’ effectively to convey the social dynamics and attitudes of his era.”
1 Like
By the way, people of colour can be gammons; I know several of them.
Indeed, I have even been called a gammon on occasion, when I rant about some of the more idiotic aspects of modern life.
5 Likes
Correction required. Stop under selling yourself
7 Likes