Oh My Golli

The fact of the matter is boo,s kids will grow up to think there better than black people.Thats exactly why I hate pats chat.

@sceptical guy wrote:

@Mr Harp wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

I’ve heard terms like blacklist and blackleg denounced as racist :roll:

The John Seymour article from the Guardian (a paper I really don’t like) quoted by Mr Harp is over the top – assuming that if any kids obtained a golly, they were being absorbed into the racist culture of the adult world.

Read Boo’s posts to see the answer to this – I admire Boo, she’s got real down-to-earth common sense amng other good qualities (waiting for the cheque early next week, please, Ms Boo).

I am genuinely unsure about gollies. They are associated with racism, but they do have a past associated with the innocent world of childhood. My golly brooch never once struck me as about black people, really!

The good thing about this thread, apart from its interest (thanks to Ms K) is that both sides dislike racism. That’s a very different mood form when I was young in the late medieval period, when racial feeling was pretty intense.

We’re all agreed that it’s a question of perception – our differences arise from how we understand that perception. 8)

Did you read the link? Or did your dislike of the Guardian cloud your view, so that when you did read it, your mind had already been made up beforehand anyway. That’s the impression I get. A strange statement to make actually.

Ironically you play right into the authors hand and the main thrust of his article, which clearly bypassed you. You flippantly, with no obvious logic, dismiss his view as “over the top”, a piece he had clearly researched, merely because your viewpoint does not match his. That in turn suggests it is not about “perception” at all.

You then importantly point out a definite answer amongst many other posts, when what you actually should have said is “I agree with so and so and this is my perception as well”.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, I actually read the link, and I disagreed with the argument that children were being integrated into a world of race.

I pointed to Boo’s comments to show why this isn’t necessarily the case.

I’ve no doubt that the author has researched his article. So what? The research was based on his values – so is almost all research.

Sorry for not liking the Guardian – it was a paper I gave up in 1973 because i felt its approach was misleading me – I never touched the Daily Torygraph, but when I occasionally peeped into its pages (other than grisly murder stories and explicit rape cases) I found it was similarly misinforming its readers. It took me a couple of years before I found a reliable paper.

I am allowed to disagree with the writer, I assume? and I am writing my own opinions and giving my own views on the post in question – not the ones you want me to write.

You’re free to tell me how I should phrase my views, and you’re free to laugh your head off when i don;t phrase them to what you think the thread should be about – but tough. That’s not the way jc works – or life, either. Sorry.

If I disagreed with an article I would attempt to argue why. You didn’t. You then oddly added you don’t like the Guardian without also giving a reason. Rather than beating about the bush I’ll tell you what my “perception” of your previous post was.

Some numpties on this site spend all their energy letting everyone else know on this site all their imagined JC status and those they also deem to have JC status. Petty point scoring. That is exactly how it read to me. My “perception” that is. Thanks for also letting me know how life works…

:lol:

@sceptical guy wrote:

I did argue why – Boo was used as a counterpoint. Didn’t see the necessity for anything else.

I gave the reason I didn’t like The Guardian as a paper – I particularly dislike the Guardian mindset. I think I’m allowed to. If you want to discuss why, set up a thread, and I may respond to it. If you don’t want to discuss why, that’s fair enough – you’re not udner any compulsion, and I’m not going to use it as a reason to denounce you lol

If you think it’s about status on jc boards, you want your head examined for one reason.

There is no status on jc boards.

As Rab Nesbitt said of class in Govan, ‘there’s nae class in Govan’ :)

and there’s nae class on the jc boards

we’re all the same here – who we are in real life doesn’t matter, we’re all entitled to our views.

There are people here who are really wide of the mark in their comments (me among them at times), some are nasty, but that’s fine, that what the boards are.

Some are very arrogant, I guess I may be perceived by some as one of those, but strange as it may seem, so may you!

Doesn’t matter – we’re all actually equal in here. We have to fight our corner, or decide not to fight it.

:)

Glad I helped you out in showing you how life works….any time, Mr Harp! :)

Another odd rambling response. Written as if you are chatting to a four year old. Which merely reaffirms my suspicions about you in particular. Sticking to the main point though, you made an odd post that grandly informed everyone else what YOUR final conclusion is. Your evidence for that final conclusion was to name one other chatter.

As for JC boards not being run on “status”, another numptie who claims to be open minded and uses school yard language like “get your head examined”. As he grandly informs everyone else.

Why would you flippantly dismiss the views of everyone else, speak for everyone else, unless you assumed you had JC status, compared to to others? Which you clearly do.

read posts more carefully, Mr Harp, rather than use them for cheap debating points.

I’ll write what I like, not what you want me to write. If you don’t see them as relevant – fine. Care I?

My status in jc is either fragile or, often, zilch.

If you had been around longer, you would know that. That’s not being patronising (you seem to be very patronising btw!), just that I’ve had more experience here than you – and of life, my dear.

Take care or I’ll set Claire on you lol

Hmmm..interesting article.

It’s pure emotional vitriol rather than argument, but it ‘s useful, as it shows a black woman who is insulted by gollies. That is to be taken seriously. And the term ‘wog’ is deeply offensive, that’s for sure, whatever its origins.

so…time for her to grow up? or is it time for everyone else to be aware of the racism whihc she suffers from???

One person is not enough to convince – and the Pulitzer prize winning self-righteous and preachy Grauniad (hahaha – all the broadsheets win prizes) is not a convincing enough name for most to accept that she is representative.

But she could be representative, and that is important!

How do we find out?

Simple solution – how many black people in the country feel that the gollies are insulting? I’ll bow to that.