Racism Part two

[mottaloo]

3 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

You only have to look in the clip put up there is no reaction at all to the comment with Garth Crooks next to him and that was 1990

Was it Geoff Hurst who said it ? Vague recollection that it was him.

Sorry, seen it two pages ago now.

Edited September 26, 2022 by mottaloo

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I can see your perspective on the other part of the post - the "maybe" here has thrown me though.

The maybe is intended to relay two considerations. 1. It’s more serious to racially abuse someone directly than it is to use an unacceptable word in a phrase such as N in a woodpile out of ignorance, so the greater severity leads to 2. Code of conduct for more severe issues, and employment law and contract t&cs may (idk) permit more severe action.

[ender4]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Same here, they'd be out the door within the hour. Curious to head what happened next at @ender4's place

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.  

I decided not to report it to HR as I don’t believe it was meant in any derogatory or racist way, even though the word is hugely racist.

We are a very ethnically diverse company but also a smallish company so HR is literally 1 person who also does payroll and other stuff.

My worry is that she repeats it again. If I do hear it again or if someone else does, then it will become an HR issue.

Edit - As I’m non-white myself, I feel I can give a little more leeway as there is no way she would have said that to me if she had even a slight inkling that it was racist. 

Unless she really is a massive racist and was just telling me to F off

Edited September 26, 2022 by ender4

[Follyfoot]

3 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.  

I decided not to report it to HR as I don’t believe it was meant in any derogatory or racist way, even though the word is hugely racist.

We are a very ethnically diverse company but also a smallish company so HR is literally 1 person who also does payroll and other stuff.

My worry is that she repeats it again. If I do hear it again or if someone else does, then it will become an HR issue.

Sounds like the correct decision, would have been very easy to take the frothing at the mouth get rid of instantly approach.

I would hope she was horrified once it was explained and I doubt very much she will do it again unless she is a proper racist then of course the floodgates can open. 

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.  

I decided not to report it to HR as I don’t believe it was meant in any derogatory or racist way, even though the word is hugely racist.

We are a very ethnically diverse company but also a smallish company so HR is literally 1 person who also does payroll and other stuff.

My worry is that she repeats it again. If I do hear it again or if someone else does, then it will become an HR issue.

Edit - As I’m non-white myself, I feel I can give a little more leeway as there is no way she would have said that to me if she had even a slight inkling that it was racist. 

Unless she really is a massive racist and was just telling me to F off

You should at least talk to her and tell her that even though you know she meant nothing by if, she shouldn’t be saying that word at work (or at all)

[Xela]

6 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Yes, very common and widely used

Widely used? I've heard of the phrase, but never heard it mentioned in any company I have been in. 

[mjmooney]

21 minutes ago, Xela said:

Widely used? I've heard of the phrase, but never heard it mentioned in any company I have been in. 

I have, but I'm probably talking about 1980s at the latest. In the 1960s, I heard it often enough. [EDIT: I've said it myself. I guess I'm now crossed off a few VT Christmas card lists]. As for it being 'intentially racist', I'd say no - but like much of the language of that era, it demonstrated the almost subliminal deadening effect of centuries of ingrained racist attitudes. Like I said upthread, we should know better now, and it's best consigned to history. 

That said, I do have a bugbear about 'retrospective' political correctness - censoring The Word in Mark Twain's books, or old movies (including The Great Dambusters Dog Controversy). Education is necessary, context is crucial. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by mjmooney

[Follyfoot]

3 hours ago, mottaloo said:

Was it Geoff Hurst who said it ? Vague recollection that it was him.

Sorry, seen it two pages ago now.

Yes mate

[Follyfoot]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I have, but I'm probably talking about 1980s at the latest. In the 1960s, I heard it often enough. As for it being 'intentially racist', I'd say no - but like much of the language of that era, it demonstrated the almost subliminal deadening effect of centuries of ingrained racist attitudes. Like I said upthread, we should know better now, and it's best consigned to history. 

That said, I do have a bugbear about 'retrospective' political correctness - censoring The Word in Mark Twain's books, or old movies (including The Great Dambusters Dog Controversy). Education is necessary, context is crucial. 

I also believe the reinvention of history in films is very dangerous as well, true perspective of the time eventually will be lost to fit whatever the social narrative is at that time which is completely wrong

[magnkarl]

Heard it many times, but it’s over 30 years ago. At the time it was far from the worst thing minorities in our country had to deal with being told. She’d be out the door in two minutes straight at my place of work.

[maqroll]

12 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Yes, very common and widely used

I've never heard it before.

[Follyfoot]

2 hours ago, maqroll said:

I've never heard it before.

Not quite sure how to respond to this 

[tomav84]

11 hours ago, mjmooney said:

That said, I do have a bugbear about 'retrospective' political correctness - censoring The Word in Mark Twain's books, or old movies (including The Great Dambusters Dog Controversy). Education is necessary, context is crucial. 

yeah i'm not sure how i feel about this myself. some of our favourite sitcoms from years ago have racial slurs in, but i'm not sure i agree with censorship/cancelling them. i do think it's important for kids to understand how appalling widespread attitudes to certain groups of people were not that long ago

[Stevo985]

13 hours ago, Xela said:

Widely used? I've heard of the phrase, but never heard it mentioned in any company I have been in. 

Maybe it was widely used 30 years ago.

I've not once heard anyone use that phrase in my life. And if they did they'd be told to give their head a wobble

[Stevo985]

12 hours ago, mjmooney said:

That said, I do have a bugbear about 'retrospective' political correctness - censoring The Word in Mark Twain's books, or old movies (including The Great Dambusters Dog Controversy). Education is necessary, context is crucial. 

I agree with this. I think trigger warnings (although I hate that phrase) are the best way to go about it.

I watched Gone With the Wind not so long ago. It's obviously an incredibly problematic film. But it wasn't censored, just had a message at the start that basically said how problematic the film was, it expresses racial prejudices and stereotypes, it's of a time etc etc but it's presented here as it was originally

 

That does the job for me. It basically says look we know this is wrong and this is why, but here it is uncensored

 

That being said there probably is a line where problematic becomes totally inappropriate. Not sure where that line is, but still

[Tegis]

14 hours ago, mjmooney said:

That said, I do have a bugbear about 'retrospective' political correctness - censoring The Word in Mark Twain's books, or old movies (including The Great Dambusters Dog Controversy). Education is necessary, context is crucial.

Yep, Disney was pretty quick on this as I saw Donald Duck DVDs with the kids in the very early 2000s. They had Leonard Maltin explaining the problematic parts before every iffy episode without censorship. All I had to do was translate and explain. Seems to have worked out fine and my sprogs aren't racist words removed

[mottaloo]

Withdrawn.

Edited September 27, 2022 by mottaloo

[rjw63]

2 hours ago, tomav84 said:

yeah i'm not sure how i feel about this myself. some of our favourite sitcoms from years ago have racial slurs in, but i'm not sure i agree with censorship/cancelling them. i do think it's important for kids to understand how appalling widespread attitudes to certain groups of people were not that long ago

Til Death Do Us Part was on telly the other night, they blerped the word "coon" out as Alf said it numerous times whilst watching Wet Spam. 

Worse was the fact he'd taken a six month old baby to the match whilst his daughter in law was screaming her head off thinking it had been abducted from outside a shop.., and the audience were laughing

[bobzy]

18 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't agree. The phrase used N in a woodpile was not (as written earlier) aimed against anyone in a discriminatory manner - as a put down or insult, it was used as an expression of fly in the ointment. Even if it were used in a worse way, there has to be formal process before someone loses their livelihood and job. Some diversity training, education and such like and a final warning or whatever is a better (IMO) way to deal with that kind of thing, in the first occurrence. Repeat, then yeah, pot them, but people (and their kids/families) being hit with the consequences of instant dismissal for using an unacceptable word seems a but harsh to me. Direct racism against a person is maybe a different matter, mind.

I think someone would be gone at my place of work.  You can't be throwing that sort of language around and you'd have to live under a rock to not know that phrase could be deemed to be offensive.

[tomav84]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree with this. I think trigger warnings (although I hate that phrase) are the best way to go about it.

I watched Gone With the Wind not so long ago. It's obviously an incredibly problematic film. But it wasn't censored, just had a message at the start that basically said how problematic the film was, it expresses racial prejudices and stereotypes, it's of a time etc etc but it's presented here as it was originally

 

That does the job for me. It basically says look we know this is wrong and this is why, but here it is uncensored

 

That being said there probably is a line where problematic becomes totally inappropriate. Not sure where that line is, but still

i think it's a no brainer where amending/censoring has no impact on the overall product

i remember when a certain group lost their minds when 'uncle bens' changed their brand to 'bens original' (despite probably never having brought that product before). ultimately the product inside is the same, but it's a simple change to acknowledge that the original branding was discriminatory