The LGBT++ lot realised that years ago, that is why they put the + on the end. Without it they would have more letters than that tourist trap on Anglesey. They realised just how bloody stupid they would look without it.I'm inclined to the view that society and etiquette have fragmented to such a degree that it is almost impossible to 'shock' UK society in general by one's sexual orientation, beliefs or lifestyle. So one has to push further and harder to get that 'look at me' moment that some folk crave.
That is patently not the case, we can use self-referential terms all the time and not be offensive because we are not offending ourselves but which if used against us in an insulting manner we would find hugely offensive.Which gets to the heart of the issue.
A word is either offensive or it isn’t offensive.
The problem is, how do you legislate the offence?That is patently not the case, we can use self-referential terms all the time and not be offensive because we are not offending ourselves but which if used against us in an insulting manner we would find hugely offensive.
Let us remove the racial element to see if you think a word is either offensive or it is not, regardless of context.
Imagine you are chatting to your elderly mum and she mentions losing her keys or glasses or something and she says something like "Oh dear, I am such a stupid old woman sometimes, I really am".
You'd give your mum a hug and assure her she is nothing of the sort. Now 10 minutes later you are walking down the street and your mum bumps into someone without paying attention and the person, let us say an aggressive young man, snarls "Oh dear, you are such a stupid old woman, you really are!"
Not offensive? You wouldn't give him a hug would you? You'd punch his lights out.
Context absolutely is everything.
The problem is, how do you legislate the offence?
For example, a loved one could use the phrase “silly old woman” to express amusement that she had misplaced her glasses, or to express anger at not getting money from her for drugs, or beating her into a pulp because the gravy is too thin.
Then there is the problem of how the recipient feels at the time. She may accept being called a silly old woman one day but not the next. We all have days when we know we’re stupid but are chilled about it, whilst on another “stupid” day, we’re really quite annoyed by it.
Then throw in our perceptions about the motivation of the other party. We may be seeing offence where none is intended. That is a problem with our prejudice, not theirs. Why should they be punished because we have imperfect judgement.
Therefore, it’s impossible to fairly legislate the infinite variables that lead to offence. The only logical solution (to me) is a binary right or wrong.
Who is the arbiter deciding which words are now acceptable?
As mentioned, I had no idea that "coloured" was no longer an acceptable term - and I doubt that I'm alone in this.
I'd expect that even within the same demographic / self identified group, some will view a certain word as acceptable, some will view it otherwise.
The rush to take offence is IMO a form of passive aggressive behaviour and it is deemed unacceptable to challenge someone who decides to take offence - even if that is done vicariously, as happened to Gregg Clarke.
As soon as "that's offensive" is uttered, its extremely difficult to challenge.
Black and white are not colours according to my art teacher many years ago ,its all very confusing , I`m glad I dont give a fcuk if I offend people.A 'person of colour' also includes the colour 'white'. Always use the former term, particularly when witnessing any crime, completing a census, or applying for a job.
It just shows what total bollox it all is , two words half caste and mixed race (I guess I can say that ?)are just two words , half caste to me says African / white European mix where as mixed race could mean any mix .Remember the term “half caste“? That was used quite often once until suddenly it became an interview without coffee offence.
The way I got good descriptions down on paper was always put as, and the victim/witness described the suspect as, and I quote “.White male”
That was nearly two decades ago now, been offended isn’t new,it’s a bloody pass time for some folk.
Puts it well.As these terms for races and suchlike keep on changing. Without warning. A good bite-back would be to demand to your accuser why they didn't inform you of this change earlier, instead of allowing you to trip up like this. Acceptable behaviour in my eyes includes gripping them by the throat, and telling them they are the Nazi. Asking them why they don't just piss on Stephen Lawrence's grave and be done with. A compulsory invite to accompany you to invade and disturb a nearby Blood & Honour gig will make them back down - big style.
Woke snowflakes are all mouth, and have a tendency to run to the nearest copper, (whom they were earlier campaigning to defund). They all have a history of being the school snitch and tell-tale.