Benedict Cumberbatch sorry for 'coloured' comment

[Grumfutock]

I wonder how he walks and breathes at the same time!

[FredClogs]

AshVX220 said:

FredClogs said:

Cumbersnots

FredClogs said:

Cumbercock

You really are quite unpleasant aren't you? It must be difficult for you to walk in a straight line with such a massive chip on your shoulder weighing you down.

Hey you forgot Cumberfeltch and Cumberfart let's keep the conversation going, I've got at least a dozen more of these, and they're making me giggle if no one else. I'm glad to see you're all very offended on his behalf though, I'm sure he was called worse at school.

[anonymous-user]

Bumbercatch

ysnatch

tttybot

Dunderthatch

Bomberhatch

Hypertt

Yeah I know I'm really scraping the barrel here.

[anonymous-user]

Guybrush said:

fblm said:

FredClogs said:

There is an explanation from the Chairperson of the NAACP reported as why they haven't changed the name it's not really for me to explain, civil life is all about rubbing along with other people, unless they're toffs and the privileged elite in which case I think they deserve one in the ribs from time to time.

Pathetic.

Classist?

Who cares? Bemused to be lectured on 'civil life' by someone who thinks 'toffs' 'deserve one in the ribs'. Loser.

[SpudLink]

boyse7en said:

Sorry, but as well as missing out that "coloured" had become a phrase not to be used (in my defence, I live in the west country ), I have no idea what BAME stands for? I've never heard of it.

If I were you, I'd not worry about it.

BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) is something made up as this week's PC term for all ethnic minorities together.
I'm not saying it's racist (although I could argue that it is), I just don't like the use of acronyms used to group lists of specific minorities.
This came up recently when a thread on here pointed to a BBC article which referred to (let's see if I can remember this) the LGBTI community. The what?!? I had to look it up.
A PC approved word is used to describe a group, then another word to describe a sub-group, and with every news story another letter is added.
So it used to be that 'coloured' caused no offence in the UK, then someone decided that because of the historical use in other countries it was offensive. So then it was 'black'. But 'black' wasn't inclusive enough, so you start to build up a list of groups that have to be specifically refereed to.
I imagine there are left wing council meetings who start each meeting discussing the submissions from another minority group who object to the fact that they are not specifically referenced in the latest acronym, therefore a budget has to be approved to reprint all official literature so as to ensure no one is offended by a term that was acceptable the previous week.

Sorry, I may be starting to sound like a ranting tabloid article.

[AshVX220]

Grumfutock said:

I wonder how he walks and breathes at the same time!

Indeed.

[Troubleatmill]

Sigh.... There is one at every party.

But - this forum - just like a party - means you can chose to ignore him.

[Ali G]

Chap inadvertently causes offence to to some other chaps.

Chap appologises to those who took offence.

Where is the story?

p.s. the term 'chap' is not intended to exclude any persons of whatever gender or orientation may be prevalent under current mores.

[Derek Smith]

TTwiggy said:

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.

Are you suggesting the charity did not appreciate the furore its comments would cause? That they would be repeated in the press, that BC would be forced into an apology? If you are, then I think you are wrong.

Whether it was merely inept, like BC's statement, or done deliberately to advertise the charity is another matter.

The important point of BC's comments has now been overlooked and ignored. The charity must have known that this might well be the result of their press release. This has, if anything, ensured that many of those in the public eye who could be hurt by negative publicity will be reluctant to say anything on the matter in future. The risks to income would be too great.

The charity has a certain power conferred onto it by the press and media. They want to think carefully in future before they exercise it so publicly.

They have to consider what is more important to them, the right words or the right actions.

BC is a product of his upbringing and environment. It is clear from the rest of his original statement that he is unhappy with the racial prejudice he sees in his business and wants something done about it. Banning words that are used without rancour by many is not the way of going about it.

This charity might well have harmed equal opportunities in BC's field as, had it not been for their ill-considered press release, we might be talking about how unfair it still is for non-whites, rather than talking about words.

Words are just words. It is the intent behind them that is the important factor.

[AshVX220]

FredClogs said:

AshVX220 said:

FredClogs said:

Cumbersnots

FredClogs said:

Cumbercock

You really are quite unpleasant aren't you? It must be difficult for you to walk in a straight line with such a massive chip on your shoulder weighing you down.

Hey you forgot Cumberfeltch and Cumberfart let's keep the conversation going, I've got at least a dozen more of these, and they're making me giggle if no one else. I'm glad to see you're all very offended on his behalf though, I'm sure he was called worse at school.

I'm not offended on anyone's behalf at all, I just think you're coming across as a bit of a tool with a chip on your shoulder regarding anyone succesful. You need to get over yourself and maybe engage the old "grey matter" a bit more.

[WinstonWolf]

FredClogs said:

Troubleatmill said:

London424 said:

I can understand somewhat the difficulty...even on an AMERICAN talk show.

http://www.naacp.org/

Took me a while to spot it
Bigger image for those with bad eyes.

Spot what? The bit where is says Founded in 1909

I can see why it's so hard for people to "keep up" with all these changes in acceptable language every 106 years...

To be fair they could change their name, like the Spastic Society did when they changed to Scope, but then again why should they have to just because a few idiots refuse to accept 106 years of cultural evolution?

That's fking brilliant. They're racist

They need to change their name because it's OFFENSIVE now numbnuts.

[jshell]

sub-Saharan Africans refer to themselves as 'black', why can't we just use black? Who actually gets offended?

[Triumph Man]

OpulentBob said:

Bumbercatch

ysnatch

tttybot

Dunderthatch

Bomberhatch

Hypertt

Yeah I know I'm really scraping the barrel here.

You forgot "cuminsnatch"

[FredClogs]

OpulentBob said:

Bumbercatch

ysnatch

tttybot

Dunderthatch

Bomberhatch

Hypertt

Yeah I know I'm really scraping the barrel here.

Cue-Cumberlength

[Grumfutock]

jshell said:

sub-Saharan Africans refer to themselves as 'black', why can't we just use black? Who actually gets offended?

Hang on, I thought 'black' was allowed now?

[Ali G]

FredClogs said:

Hey you forgot Cumberfeltch and Cumberfart let's keep the conversation going, I've got at least a dozen more of these, and they're making me giggle if no one else. I'm glad to see you're all very offended on his behalf though, I'm sure he was called worse at school.

Which, apparently, is fine in your books - or not?

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/name-cal...

[dudleybloke]

Grumfutock said:

Hang on, I thought 'black' was allowed now?

Not if your Spanish.

[unrepentant]

B17NNS said:

You can't keep up with appropriate terminology these days. Black used to be offensive and coloured was acceptable. Now it's the other way round. Strangely, 'people of colour' is fine. If people had listened to the sentiment rather than taken one word out of context they'd have not been offended at all.

Coloured has never been acceptable, nor has people of colour.

[p1esk]

unrepentant said:

B17NNS said:

You can't keep up with appropriate terminology these days. Black used to be offensive and coloured was acceptable. Now it's the other way round. Strangely, 'people of colour' is fine. If people had listened to the sentiment rather than taken one word out of context they'd have not been offended at all.

Coloured has never been acceptable, nor has people of colour.

Admittedly I'm thinking back many years, but I thought 'coloured' was acceptable, then we reached a stage when it no longer seemed to be, and I couldn't see why.

After all, we're not just white or black, there are many 'colours' in between.

In some cases I think the objections come not from 'coloured' or 'black' people themselves, but from white people protesting on their behalf; probably unnecessarily.

[TTwiggy]

Derek Smith said:

TTwiggy said:

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.

Are you suggesting the charity did not appreciate the furore its comments would cause? That they would be repeated in the press, that BC would be forced into an apology? If you are, then I think you are wrong.

Whether it was merely inept, like BC's statement, or done deliberately to advertise the charity is another matter.

The important point of BC's comments has now been overlooked and ignored. The charity must have known that this might well be the result of their press release. This has, if anything, ensured that many of those in the public eye who could be hurt by negative publicity will be reluctant to say anything on the matter in future. The risks to income would be too great.

The charity has a certain power conferred onto it by the press and media. They want to think carefully in future before they exercise it so publicly.

They have to consider what is more important to them, the right words or the right actions.

BC is a product of his upbringing and environment. It is clear from the rest of his original statement that he is unhappy with the racial prejudice he sees in his business and wants something done about it. Banning words that are used without rancour by many is not the way of going about it.

This charity might well have harmed equal opportunities in BC's field as, had it not been for their ill-considered press release, we might be talking about how unfair it still is for non-whites, rather than talking about words.

Words are just words. It is the intent behind them that is the important factor.

My point was that those claiming to be offended were from the 'Twitterati' rather than an actual black rights group. These are the same sort of people who call the police because of something someone said to someone else on Big Brother – i.e the sort best ignored. Yet this forum would have us believe that it's 'PC gone mad' and some sort of socialist attempt to tar everyone with the racist brush (and having been here as long as you have Dereck, you must surely be aware of this?).