Benedict Cumberbatch sorry for 'coloured' comment

[dudleybloke]

We need militant black guy to comment on the matter

http://youtube.com/#/watch?v=HwVCMWLFKDk

Nsfw sweaty bits so be careful.

[TTwiggy]

el stovey said:

Why is everyone up in arms about "PC fools" and "hand wringing lefties"? There hasn't been many complaints or a national outcry at the comment Cumberbatch made. No media witch hunt or Facebook campaign to have him banned from whatever.

All the BBC article pointed to was a comment from an anti racism charity saying the term was outdated.

You beat me to this. Nobody has cried 'I'm offended', a charity has simply pointed out that the term is outdated. For some reason, Cumberbatch has chosen to respond with an essay. Only he knows why. Meanwhile, PH goes into predictable 'PC gone mad, in my day you could call a spade a spade' meltdown.

In short, nothing to see here, move along.

[Ganglandboss]

McWigglebum4th said:

FredClogs said:

Eton educated ponce can't converse with people in the real world - not news, no surprise.

Oh look our lefty pet is outraged at someone might be prejudiced against someone


While insulting someone because they went to Eton

This.

My nan (see how I use the caahncil term to describe my father's mother?) worked at a hat factory in Manchester and lived in a council house. She is one of the most pleasant and charitable people you could meet, and she would never look down on somebody because of the colour of her skin. She still refers to black people as coloured, as she believes that is the polite way to describe black people. Similarly, she once showed us the palm cross she got from church, and told us how a very nice 'mongol' lad at church gave it to her. I found it quite funny, and told her we're not supposed to use that word to describe people with Down's Syndrome these days. She genuinely couldn't understand that people consider mongol to be offensive, because that's what her generation always referred to them has, and that's the point - there was no malicious intent.

Those that are criticising Cumberbatch are not looking at the context or the intent - they only care that he used one particular word. His comment was as far from racist as you can get:

“I think as far as coloured actors go, it gets really different in the UK, and a lot of my friends have had more opportunities here [in the US] than in the UK, and that's something that needs to change,”

“Something's gone wrong, we're not representative enough in our culture of different races and that really does need to step up a pace.”

His choice of word is most likely a result of his upbringing, which he cannot choose - much like the colour of somebody's skin. Those that are getting offended by this really need to wind their neck in.

[Grumfutock]

I have just read this on the tinternet:

His comments were quickly criticised online and charity Show Racism the Red Card said that he had "highlighted the issue of appropriate terminology".

So how are we meant to know when a word, possibly one that we were taught to use as kids, is now out of date? Is there a government link to 'appropriate terminology' that is updated regularly?

Surely they must have bigger things to focus on than being offended by this or are they just using it as a tool to keep a story close to their hearts in the news?

[Mr_B]

TTwiggy said:

Mr_B said:

TTwiggy said:

Mr_B said:

Does anyone here actually think he is a vile racist, or just someone that said something a bit clumsy to a very faux overreaction by the likes of PH's permanently offended band of warriors of Zygalski and Fred Blogs ?

I believe that I have a bit of a reputation for lefty-pinko-liberalism, but I would concede that this does seem like a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

That said, I am however surprised that someone of Cumberbatch's age and intelligence wasn't aware that 'coloured' is a very outdated term that should no longer be used.

The insatiable demand these days for a groveling apology and expectation that people must almost cower as they do is is truly pathetic, something which was exampled a few weeks back when a scientist was almost in tears during his silly apology for wearing a stylised shirt which featured some women on it.
Say sorry, admit it's outdated and clumsy, but those intent on making more to this than is really there are just as bad as any real racist and do more damage than good.

I don't know who it was that demanded such a lengthy apology - do you? Is it not possible that his 'people' got together and came up with something far too long-winded on his behalf, simply to justify their positions as 'PR handlers'?

It's more the expectation that he should offer a sad groveling apology. He used a word without the intent in which perhaps it has become loaded with. No one thinks he used it with nasty intent, his apology should reflect it's a nothing and no one was offended.

[TTwiggy]

Grumfutock said:

I have just read this on the tinternet:

His comments were quickly criticised online and charity Show Racism the Red Card said that he had "highlighted the issue of appropriate terminology".

So how are we meant to know when a word, possibly one that we were taught to use as kids, is now out of date? Is there a government link to 'appropriate terminology' that is updated regularly?

Surely they must have bigger things to focus on than being offended by this or are they just using it as a tool to keep a story close to their hearts in the news?

Most of us have managed to keep up to date (at least 20 years up to date) with the correct word(s) to use. It's not difficult.

Also, why the constant use of 'offended'? The charity didn't say it was offended, or that his words were offensive, simply that it was outdated.

[TTwiggy]

Mr_B said:

It's more the expectation that he should offer a sad groveling apology. He used a word without the intent in which perhaps it has become loaded with. No one thinks he used it with nasty intent, his apology should reflect it's a nothing and no one was offended.

The nature and verbosity of his apology was under his control. Nobody 'demanded' anything of him.

[TankRizzo]

FredClogs said:

Eton educated ponce can't converse with people in the real world - not news, no surprise.

Try harder next time, this is way too obvious.

[Mr GrimNasty]

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

[GadgeS3C]

TTwiggy said:

You beat me to this. Nobody has cried 'I'm offended', a charity has simply pointed out that the term is outdated. For some reason, Cumberbatch has chosen to respond with an essay. Only he knows why. Meanwhile, PH goes into predictable 'PC gone mad, in my day you could call a spade a spade' meltdown.

In short, nothing to see here, move along.

I'm sure you realise how offensive that comment in quotes is.

[TTwiggy]

GadgeS3C said:

TTwiggy said:

You beat me to this. Nobody has cried 'I'm offended', a charity has simply pointed out that the term is outdated. For some reason, Cumberbatch has chosen to respond with an essay. Only he knows why. Meanwhile, PH goes into predictable 'PC gone mad, in my day you could call a spade a spade' meltdown.

In short, nothing to see here, move along.

I'm sure you realise how offensive that comment in quotes is.

If typing 'calling a spade a spade' were offensive, then the forum would filter it. But as the word refers to a garden implement, it doesn't.

[AgentOrange]

Surely it is counter productive to focus on the terminology he used rather than the point he was making (which is what really matters)? Instead of the story being an insightful point from a high profile individual, we have a non-story that ends up causing debate over a word rather than the real issue; better opportunities in the US rather than the UK for coloured/non-whites/ethnic minorities/whatever.

The charity should have contacted CB privately if they wanted to point out terminology issues whilst publicly endorsing his point that 'something needs to change'.

[Grumfutock]

TTwiggy said:

Grumfutock said:

I have just read this on the tinternet:

His comments were quickly criticised online and charity Show Racism the Red Card said that he had "highlighted the issue of appropriate terminology".

So how are we meant to know when a word, possibly one that we were taught to use as kids, is now out of date? Is there a government link to 'appropriate terminology' that is updated regularly?

Surely they must have bigger things to focus on than being offended by this or are they just using it as a tool to keep a story close to their hearts in the news?

Most of us have managed to keep up to date (at least 20 years up to date) with the correct word(s) to use. It's not difficult.

Also, why the constant use of 'offended'? The charity didn't say it was offended, or that his words were offensive, simply that it was outdated.

Well if we want to nit pick, which apparently you do, then actually they said this:

"The term 'coloured' is now outdated and has the potential to cause offence due to the connotations associated with the term and its historical usage."

So how do you keep updated? Who tells you what is OK now but not tomorrow? Personally I had no idea that 'coloured' was now so 'outdated and potentially offensive'

[McWigglebum4th]

FredClogs said:

On an "AMERICAN" talk show?

Black is fine, Irish is fine, Dog is fine (if correctly applied) Colored is not - if on an American talk show and talking about black people - I mean really it's not rocket science.

I'm deeply offended by the term black

Come on white trash send me my compensation

[dudleybloke]

Well I'm from the black country not the coloured country.

[Mr_B]

TTwiggy said:

Mr_B said:

It's more the expectation that he should offer a sad groveling apology. He used a word without the intent in which perhaps it has become loaded with. No one thinks he used it with nasty intent, his apology should reflect it's a nothing and no one was offended.

The nature and verbosity of his apology was under his control. Nobody 'demanded' anything of him.

Nope, not in writing , but you might make a case for the expectation of today that's placed on people to. I'd say that was the case here because of the subject. The scientist case I exampled shows how stupid things have got.

[TTwiggy]

Grumfutock said:

Well if we want to nit pick, which apparently you do, then actually they said this:

"The term 'coloured' is now outdated and has the potential to cause offence due to the connotations associated with the term and its historical usage."

So how do you keep updated? Who tells you what is OK now but not tomorrow? Personally I had no idea that 'coloured' was now so 'outdated and potentially offensive'

Well, it we're picking nits, what they are saying is it has the 'potential to cause offence'. That reads like a guideline to me (in the same was as saying, 'In Thailand, it may cause offence to point at a picture of the king')

As to who tells you what words are ok to use, I have no idea, I simply know that despite being middle aged, I know that 'coloured' is outdated and might cause offence.

[anonymous-user]

Well I'm more offended than any of you because I'm a better person, obv.

[FredClogs]

Mr GrimNasty said:

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

_George Orwell.

Holding/grasping onto the freedom to insult as some kind of defense against tyranny is a ridiculous argument, we're not talking about speaking truth to power here, these words are policed because of the damage they do to ordinary folk, because they segregate and subjugate people at the bottom of society they don't protect anyone's freedoms and they do no damage to those at the top.

I've attracted much derision from people in this thread for calling Cumbersnatch out as one of the establishment and a ivory towered toff, but when it comes to the language of slave traders and apartheid then that's open season? Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

[Sonic]

Grumfutock said:

I have just read this on the tinternet:

His comments were quickly criticised online and charity Show Racism the Red Card said that he had "highlighted the issue of appropriate terminology".

So how are we meant to know when a word, possibly one that we were taught to use as kids, is now out of date? Is there a government link to 'appropriate terminology' that is updated regularly?

Surely they must have bigger things to focus on than being offended by this or are they just using it as a tool to keep a story close to their hearts in the news?

Heard this on the radio this morning and was surprised by his overly verbose response and the faux outrage from the media.

If somebody could however inform me of the current fashionable politically-correct term for a person of colour that would be most appreciated to avoid any such embarrassment for myself in the future.