Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ngozi /Marlene has been on UK Breakfast television this morning complaining that She hasnt been contacted by Buckingham Palace to discuss the incident .

Stop dead naming.

Off-topic post removed.

 

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ngozi /Marlene has been on UK Breakfast television this morning complaining that She hasnt been contacted by Buckingham Palace to discuss the incident .

So what? Why is that an issue for you?

5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

And if someone asked you and you say 'Britain' and the said 'No, where are you REALLY from?" and you replied again "Britain' and they then said 'No, what part of Africa are you from?' How would you feel about that?

That's excatly how this conversation went and for those too lazy to read the whole thread let me remind you again what the conversation was:-

 

 

Lady SH: Where are you from?

NF: Sistah Space. (NF initially got the wrong end of the stick and thought she was asking what charity she was from).

SH: No, where do you come from?

NF: We're based in Hackney. (Again thinking Lady SH was talking about the charity)

SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?

Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records.

SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?

NF: Here, the UK. (The first time she confirms she is British)

SH: No, but what nationality are you?

NF: I am born here and am British. (This should have been enough for Lady SH to take a breather and think hard about the next question, but no..............)

SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?

Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?

SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here? 

NF: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when... (Again confirming she's British)

SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean! (No she's British, she told you this 3 times already)

Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.

 

Clumsy VERY clumsy and definately worth resigning over.

Seems Ngozi was cosplaying at being an African  , adopted an African name and wore African clothes and pretending to be from African and when she directly got asked where she was from, she didn't want to answer because it would be revealed that she is from the U.K with Caribbean descent and nothing to do with Africa and that's why She was hesitant in replying to the question as to where she was from .

27 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Seems Ngozi was cosplaying at being an African  , adopted an African name and wore African clothes and pretending to be from African and when she directly got asked where she was from, she didn't want to answer because it would be revealed that she is from the U.K with Caribbean descent and nothing to do with Africa and that's why She was hesitant in replying to the question as to where she was from .

Absolute nonsense. 

Trolling meme removed.

 

If Britain is serious about creating an anti-racist future, then removing people like Lady Hussey is meaningless.

The truth is there is nothing that can be done to reform the royal family—similar to a slave plantation the only way to modernize it would be to turn it into a museum where we could learn about its horrendous history. The only anti-racist action is to abolish the terrible institution and leave it in the past so that we can create a better future.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-godmother-lady-susan-hussey-racism-scandal-is-not-surprising-to-black-british-people

8 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Seems Ngozi was cosplaying at being an African  , adopted an African name and wore African clothes and pretending to be from African and when she directly got asked where she was from, she didn't want to answer because it would be revealed that she is from the U.K with Caribbean descent and nothing to do with Africa and that's why She was hesitant in replying to the question as to where she was from .

This is where is all gets bizarre in my mind.

 

I'm American of Mexican descent.

 

Now I'm a white Hispanic which means I'm not of native central American stock.

 

So clearly I must be of Spanish roots somewhere in the past, should I therefore pretend to be Spanish?

 

Unlike this lady, I'm pretty comfortable being who I am, I don't need to invent an alter ego.

 

That being said it doesn't excuse what Lady Whatever did

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

If Britain is serious about creating an anti-racist future, then removing people like Lady Hussey is meaningless.

The truth is there is nothing that can be done to reform the royal family—similar to a slave plantation the only way to modernize it would be to turn it into a museum where we could learn about its horrendous history. The only anti-racist action is to abolish the terrible institution and leave it in the past so that we can create a better future.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-godmother-lady-susan-hussey-racism-scandal-is-not-surprising-to-black-british-people

It's certainly impossible to foresee an anti-racist future when the needle for racism is dialled so low that a non-racist question is now deemed racist.   

 

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Stop dead naming.

I presume this was an attempt at humour? 

2 hours ago, James105 said:

It's certainly impossible to foresee an anti-racist future when the needle for racism is dialled so low that a non-racist question is now deemed racist.  

I haven't seen a MORE racist line of questioning from a public figure in years. The big problem is that she no doubt thought it wasn't racist.

So it comes down to a problem based on subjective opinions. The problem is that we can take offence to just about anything if we want to. For example if a Thai person calls me a "farang" and they didn't mean it in an offensive way, should I take offence?

People have different ideas about what is racist, so whose definition should we use and why?

Just now, cmsally said:

So it comes down to a problem based on subjective opinions. The problem is that we can take offence to just about anything if we want to. For example if a Thai person calls me a "farang" and they didn't mean it in an offensive way, should I take offence?

People have different ideas about what is racist, so whose definition should we use and why?

Quite so. All of the dictionary definitions of the 'racist' and 'racism' are about the same, not exactly, but near enough?

The problem is because the word 'racist' is used to widely now,for things that are not 'racist' its kind of lost its actual definitive meaning?

7 minutes ago, cmsally said:

So it comes down to a problem based on subjective opinions. The problem is that we can take offence to just about anything if we want to. For example if a Thai person calls me a "farang" and they didn't mean it in an offensive way, should I take offence?

People have different ideas about what is racist, so whose definition should we use and why?

If someone finds a statement offensive then that statement was offensive. That is the dictionary definition. There is no definition which allows the offender to determine the offensiveness, or otherwise, of their comment.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If someone finds a statement offensive then that statement was offensive.

No? Offensive is subjective. If someone finds a statement offensive it is they who are offended. One cannot be offended on behalf of others. 

So what if someone is offended. It is up to that person to deal with whatever ails them. 

Being offended is a sly way of trying to curtail free speech.

 

Just now, VocalNeal said:

No? Offensive is subjective. If someone finds a statement offensive it is they who are offended. One cannot be offended on behalf of others. 

So what if someone is offended. It is up to that person to deal with whatever ails them. 

Being offended is a sly way of trying to curtail free speech.

 

Show me a dictionary definition which supports your view. While not all claims of offense have merit, the right to claim offense is exclusively that of the victim. The offender never gets to claim the victim doesn't have this right.

 

Again, show me a credible link supporting your view.

Why is the offended a victim? They are simply a person who has chosen to be offended. 

How can there be a link to a personal point of view. 

 

1 minute ago, VocalNeal said:

Why is the offended a victim? They are simply a person who has chosen to be offended. 

How can there be a link to a personal point of view. 

 

There is the dictionary definition and there is wrong.

"Why do we take Offence?

One of the most common reasons people take offense is insecurity. Insecurities are based on one's self-concept, ideas and feelings about self (Coon & Mitterer, 2009). When the self-concept is challenged, one will question perceptions of self and insecurities ensue."

https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/the-psychology-of-offense/

 

So basically we have to pander to people's insecurities. 

" Your eyes look very green today" (context - it's St. Patrick's day----> I take offence because I think he's suggesting I'm an Irish nationalist)

 

" You are looking a bit pale today"  (context - I think she is using this as a traditional British understatement, therefore I take offence because she probably means I look like death warmed up!)

 

"That colour suits you sooooo.... well " (context - I think she is being sarcastic (another great British trait) , so she really means I look terrible, somewhat resembling a Xmas tree-----> result = I take offence) 

 

So if I want to play the victim I guess it pretty much depends on me. Victimhood is starting to look like a profession !

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There is the dictionary definition and there is wrong.

Being offended is like being allergic. You can't be allergic on other people behalf.

7 minutes ago, cmsally said:

"Why do we take Offence?

One of the most common reasons people take offense is insecurity. Insecurities are based on one's self-concept, ideas and feelings about self (Coon & Mitterer, 2009). When the self-concept is challenged, one will question perceptions of self and insecurities ensue."

https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/the-psychology-of-offense/

 

So basically we have to pander to people's insecurities. 

It's called decency.

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

I think she is being sarcastic (another great British trait)

Very interesting

Just now, VocalNeal said:

Being offended is like being allergic. You can't be allergic on other people behalf.

If you can't use English in the context of its dictionary meaning you aren't making sense.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

It's called decency.

Probably called politeness. Another disappearing trait.

1 minute ago, VocalNeal said:

Very interesting

British sarcasm in this context -

 

"I can absolutely see you are from the East end of London."

Translated for non- Brits "I never would have guessed you were from the East end of London in a million years"

 

"I absolutely adore your accent".

Translated for non- Brits " every sound that exits your mouth sounds like fingernails going down a blackboard"

 

"Your outfit is simply so unique and colourful"

Translated " You seem to have had a power outage while you were choosing your clothes and you certainly don't own a mirror."

 

 

15 minutes ago, cmsally said:

"Why do we take Offence?

One of the most common reasons people take offense is insecurity. Insecurities are based on one's self-concept, ideas and feelings about self (Coon & Mitterer, 2009). When the self-concept is challenged, one will question perceptions of self and insecurities ensue."

https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/the-psychology-of-offense/

 

So basically we have to pander to people's insecurities. 

That's not really what the article said is it? Inability to form complex solutions to social issues is a trait of the far right.

Edited December 3, 20223 yr by ozimoron

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

If someone finds a statement offensive then that statement was offensive. That is the dictionary definition. There is no definition which allows the offender to determine the offensiveness, or otherwise, of their comment.

So the term 'causing offense', by this definition, does not address if it is good or bad but talks only of the state of mind of the offended. Therefore causing offense can be a good thing. Communicating truth. Helpful and can have a good and positive outcome.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Show me a dictionary definition which supports your view. While not all claims of offense have merit, the right to claim offense is exclusively that of the victim. The offender never gets to claim the victim doesn't have this right.

 

Again, show me a credible link supporting your view.

Actually, Stephen Fry summed this up perfectly in this quote:

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f***** what."

 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

 

If we went down your road then what is to stop me from saying I'm offended by the nonsense you post and demanding certain actions be taken?  

On twitter its says she recorded the conservation and thats how she could recite it, is this true or a fib?

On 12/1/2022 at 9:28 AM, RuamRudy said:

Did you actually read the transcript? It wasn't a misused word we are discussing. She was massively offensive in her relentless probing of a British born woman, seemingly determined to to force the woman to say that she is not anglo-saxon.

you have a recording do you?