Amber Rudd

[palerider]

Not my favourite politician.

And today, forced to apologise to Diane Abbott for using the 'c' word about her.

Bloody right too. It was the wrong 'c' word.

[Neville Bartos]

Madness isn't it?
It's what I was talking about on another thread. It doesn't matter what Rudd was saying or if she misspoke, what's important is the word she used.

Then there's the irony of Diane Abbott accusing other people of racial bias...

[Brookbonds73]

Not my favourite politician.

And today, forced to apologise to Diane Abbott for using the 'c' word about her.

Bloody right too. It was the wrong 'c' word.

Damn right, fancy calling her Corbyn!
The women's a monster, nail her up I say, nail her up.

[Gonzo]

I think it's reasonable to expect a politician (who by their very nature chose their words carefully) to know that a black woman is likely to be offended when called 'coloured'. It's also fucking stupid to give someone like Abbott ammunition to go on the attack.

Far more complex are all the new gender terms and pronouns. How the fuck anyone is supposed to keep up with that is a mystery.

[mkhammer]

I think a lot of people past their 40s say...struggle a bit...they're used to and prob grew up
with the word Coloured as being just a word to describe someone...rather like Bald,Fat,Skinny...etc,
and not derogatory.....but now somehow it is..
Even now I notice people struggle to use the word Black,which wasn't a great word to use back in the day,
it's west indian/african origin, or asian,oriental..which is better granted.

If I was in the public arena...I'd be bloody scared to open my mouth now...Bloody Crazy situation...

[BlackDiamond]

I think it's reasonable to expect a politician (who by their very nature chose their words carefully) to know that a black woman is likely to be offended when called 'coloured'. It's also fucking stupid to give someone like Abbott ammunition to go on the attack.

Far more complex are all the new gender terms and pronouns. How the fuck anyone is supposed to keep up with that is a mystery.

Describing someone as "a person of colour" used to be considered more polite than saying "black" which was considered,harsh,blunt and therefore unfavourably discriminate.

Lets consider a term freely bandied about that has no actual semantic meaning. The word transphobic.Trans is derived from "to transition" and phobic is to suffer from a phobia, which is a fear or aversion to something. Like spiders or snakes or the dark or heights etc.

So to describe someone as transphobic, would mean to suffer from a fear of people who wish to change their gender, which can't exist because that has no impact to one self.

Nobody is in fear of someone who enjoys crosswords,sudoko or chess; which are considered simply preferences. And no one is really in fear of someone who wants to change gender and wear frocks or lipstick.

On the other hand, there is a sensible fear of a bloody snakes and that is a good thing. It falls under the wide umbrella of self preservation.

The wankers who obsess about the meaning of esoteric terms like gender neutral are colouring outside the lines. A bit like purchasing an iPad to prop up a wobbly table leg.

[terrya1965]

I think it's reasonable to expect a politician (who by their very nature chose their words carefully) to know that a black woman is likely to be offended when called 'coloured'. It's also fucking stupid to give someone like Abbott ammunition to go on the attack.

Far more complex are all the new gender terms and pronouns. How the fuck anyone is supposed to keep up with that is a mystery.

Describing someone as "a person of colour" used to be considered more polite than saying "black" which was considered,harsh,blunt and therefore unfavourably discriminate.

Lets consider a term freely bandied about that has no actual semantic meaning. The word transphobic.Trans is derived from "to transition" and phobic is to suffer from a phobia, which is a fear or aversion to something. Like spiders or snakes or the dark or heights etc.

So to describe someone as transphobic, would mean to suffer from a fear of people who wish to change their gender, which can't exist because that has no impact to one self.

Nobody is in fear of someone who enjoys crosswords,sudoko or chess; which are considered simply preferences. And no one is really in fear of someone who wants to change gender and wear frocks or lipstick.

On the other hand, there is a sensible fear of a bloody snakes and that is a good thing. It falls under the wide umbrella of self preservation.

The wankers who obsess about the meaning of esoteric terms like gender neutral are colouring outside the lines. A bit like purchasing an iPad to prop up a wobbly table leg.

I am over 50 and your first sentence says it all.Calling someone black in the 70`s and 80's was rude..Coloured was being polite.Abbott knows that too,has she is in her 60`s and imo only trying to stir up trouble.

[BlackDiamond]

Describing someone as "a person of colour" used to be considered more polite than saying "black" which was considered,harsh,blunt and therefore unfavourably discriminate.

Lets consider a term freely bandied about that has no actual semantic meaning. The word transphobic.Trans is derived from "to transition" and phobic is to suffer from a phobia, which is a fear or aversion to something. Like spiders or snakes or the dark or heights etc.

So to describe someone as transphobic, would mean to suffer from a fear of people who wish to change their gender, which can't exist because that has no impact to one self.

Nobody is in fear of someone who enjoys crosswords,sudoko or chess; which are considered simply preferences. And no one is really in fear of someone who wants to change gender and wear frocks or lipstick.

On the other hand, there is a sensible fear of a bloody snakes and that is a good thing. It falls under the wide umbrella of self preservation.

The wankers who obsess about the meaning of esoteric terms like gender neutral are colouring outside the lines. A bit like purchasing an iPad to prop up a wobbly table leg.

I am over 50 and your first sentence says it all.Calling someone black in the 70`s and 80's was rude..Coloured was being polite.Abbott knows that too,has she is in her 60`s and imo only trying to stir up trouble.

I find it hard to believe a person of colour like herself would entertain such a thought...does she not remember Tom & Jerry

[Neville Bartos]

Describing someone as "a person of colour" used to be considered more polite than saying "black" which was considered,harsh,blunt and therefore unfavourably discriminate.

It's the word coloured that's the issue. If Rudd had said Abbott was a woman of colour I doubt anyone would've raised an eyebrow.
It might seem like a fine line, but these are the times we live in.

[BlackDiamond]

Describing someone as "a person of colour" used to be considered more polite than saying "black" which was considered,harsh,blunt and therefore unfavourably discriminate.

It's the word coloured that's the issue. If Rudd had said Abbott was a woman of colour I doubt anyone would've raised an eyebrow.
It might seem like a fine line, but these are the times we live in.

...and therefore it's useful to remind people what these terms actually identify not what they think they mean. It's a course correction which is useful and what used to be understood - in more honest times - as "the teachable moment"