Downloading A Programme Without The...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Is the Golly offensive?
171 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/6l6cwjc
Is the Golly offensive enough to cause two Prospective Tory councillors to quit, or are they victims of political correctness?
Please do not just condemn them just because they are Tories, please just debate the Golly issue.
Is the Golly offensive enough to cause two Prospective Tory councillors to quit, or are they victims of political correctness?
Please do not just condemn them just because they are Tories, please just debate the Golly issue.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"So called educated people are in charge of this country it does not stop them from making mistakes."
Of course it doesn't. But to avoid taking that issue further than the question, my point is that I can well believe it possible that the people AOG assumes have no problem with the Golly might do so because they are uneducated/unaware as to what the reasons to be offended are.
I don't -know- that this is true, of course. But I'm trying to illustrate the problem with using what he saw as evidence for black Cubans being okay with it. And I'm beginning to think I run the risk of unintentionally plunging the thread into obscurity and borderline pedantry which so often seems to happen...
Of course it doesn't. But to avoid taking that issue further than the question, my point is that I can well believe it possible that the people AOG assumes have no problem with the Golly might do so because they are uneducated/unaware as to what the reasons to be offended are.
I don't -know- that this is true, of course. But I'm trying to illustrate the problem with using what he saw as evidence for black Cubans being okay with it. And I'm beginning to think I run the risk of unintentionally plunging the thread into obscurity and borderline pedantry which so often seems to happen...
As a small child I had a golly that I loved very, patched so many times that its now one whole mass of patches.Countless others have their golly's they loved and maybe it is that love that helps people be more tolerant of others and not racist.
If somebody was to give a child a golly and tell them it is a symbol of a inferior race it is not the golly that that is offensive but the person giving that "toy" with a message of intolerance.
I would publish a picture of myself holding a golly -not to make a political statement but just because for me and many others it never held negative connotations and was from happy days.
If somebody was to give a child a golly and tell them it is a symbol of a inferior race it is not the golly that that is offensive but the person giving that "toy" with a message of intolerance.
I would publish a picture of myself holding a golly -not to make a political statement but just because for me and many others it never held negative connotations and was from happy days.
"look at Germany before the second world war how they indoctrinated the people into hating jewish people. "
This isn't relevant, and I dread to think of the can of worms it will open, but I want to correct you anyway:
Actually, if you study popular attitudes before the '30s (or even pre-WW1) you can find pretty well-entrenched anti-semitism in societies throughout Europe. Hitler was democratically elected on an openly anti-semitic ticket, and various historians have gone digging pretty deep into the available evidence to figure out why. My point is it wasn't a case of one-way 'indoctrination' - it's actually a pretty good example of what happens when you make concessions in educational policy to people who aren't very well educated.
This isn't relevant, and I dread to think of the can of worms it will open, but I want to correct you anyway:
Actually, if you study popular attitudes before the '30s (or even pre-WW1) you can find pretty well-entrenched anti-semitism in societies throughout Europe. Hitler was democratically elected on an openly anti-semitic ticket, and various historians have gone digging pretty deep into the available evidence to figure out why. My point is it wasn't a case of one-way 'indoctrination' - it's actually a pretty good example of what happens when you make concessions in educational policy to people who aren't very well educated.
"If you teach the kids that golly's are racist eventually they will grow up believing it does that make it true. "
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.
Telling children that something is true does not make it true in and of itself, no. What we are debating, however, is whether we're right to tell them that it's true (if we even do that...), so with respect I'm not sure your question quite fits in with the argument at hand.
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.
Telling children that something is true does not make it true in and of itself, no. What we are debating, however, is whether we're right to tell them that it's true (if we even do that...), so with respect I'm not sure your question quite fits in with the argument at hand.
Kromovaracum why shout are other members suppose to fear you.
I agree with Harpi it is the people who think they are a racist symbol who cause the problems.
Do you not agree with the following.
During the impact of the Great Depression, though, when people became unemployed and all looked helpless,
Hitler's search for a scapegoat proved a lot more fruitful.
After January 1933, the Jews became the "Untermenschen" - the sub-humans.
Nazi thugs stopped Germans from shopping in Jewish shops.
By 1934, all Jewish shops were marked with the yellow Star of David or had the
word "Juden" written on the window. SA men stood outside the shops to deter
anyone form entering.
This was not necessarily a violent approach to the Jews - that was to come later
but it was an attempt to economically bankrupt them and destroy what they had spent years building up.
On buses, trains and park benches, Jews had to sit on seats marked for them.
Children at schools were taught specifically anti-Semitic ideas. Jewish school children were openly ridiculed by teachers and the bullying of Jews in the playground by other pupils went unpunished.
If the Jewish children responded by not wanting to go to school, then that served a purpose in itself and it also gave the Nazi propagandists a reason to peddle the lie that Jewish children were lazy and could not be bothered to go to school.
In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. The Jews lost their right to be German citizens and marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden. It was after this law that the violence against the Jew really openly started.
Those that could pay a fine were allowed to leave the country.
Many could not and many shops refused to sell food to those who remained.
Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell
I agree with Harpi it is the people who think they are a racist symbol who cause the problems.
Do you not agree with the following.
During the impact of the Great Depression, though, when people became unemployed and all looked helpless,
Hitler's search for a scapegoat proved a lot more fruitful.
After January 1933, the Jews became the "Untermenschen" - the sub-humans.
Nazi thugs stopped Germans from shopping in Jewish shops.
By 1934, all Jewish shops were marked with the yellow Star of David or had the
word "Juden" written on the window. SA men stood outside the shops to deter
anyone form entering.
This was not necessarily a violent approach to the Jews - that was to come later
but it was an attempt to economically bankrupt them and destroy what they had spent years building up.
On buses, trains and park benches, Jews had to sit on seats marked for them.
Children at schools were taught specifically anti-Semitic ideas. Jewish school children were openly ridiculed by teachers and the bullying of Jews in the playground by other pupils went unpunished.
If the Jewish children responded by not wanting to go to school, then that served a purpose in itself and it also gave the Nazi propagandists a reason to peddle the lie that Jewish children were lazy and could not be bothered to go to school.
In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. The Jews lost their right to be German citizens and marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden. It was after this law that the violence against the Jew really openly started.
Those that could pay a fine were allowed to leave the country.
Many could not and many shops refused to sell food to those who remained.
Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell
Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell to Jews.
The campaign against the Jews stopped for a short duration during the Berlin Olympics
- but once the overseas press had gone, it started up again. It reached a pre-war peak in 1938
with Krystalnacht - The Night of the Broken Glass.
In November 1938, a Nazi 'diplomat' was shot dead by a Jew in Paris. Hitler ordered a seven day
campaign of terror against the Jews in Germany to be organised by Himmler and the SS.
On the 10th November, the campaign started. 10,000 shops owned by Jews were destroyed
and their contents stolen. Homes and synagogues were set on fire and left to burn.
The fire brigades showed their loyalty to Hitler by assuming that the buildings would burn down
anyway, so why try to prevent it?
A huge amount of damage was done to Jewish property but the Jewish community was ordered
to pay a one billion mark fine to pay for the eventual clear-up. Jews were forced to scrub the streets clean.
The campaign against the Jews stopped for a short duration during the Berlin Olympics
- but once the overseas press had gone, it started up again. It reached a pre-war peak in 1938
with Krystalnacht - The Night of the Broken Glass.
In November 1938, a Nazi 'diplomat' was shot dead by a Jew in Paris. Hitler ordered a seven day
campaign of terror against the Jews in Germany to be organised by Himmler and the SS.
On the 10th November, the campaign started. 10,000 shops owned by Jews were destroyed
and their contents stolen. Homes and synagogues were set on fire and left to burn.
The fire brigades showed their loyalty to Hitler by assuming that the buildings would burn down
anyway, so why try to prevent it?
A huge amount of damage was done to Jewish property but the Jewish community was ordered
to pay a one billion mark fine to pay for the eventual clear-up. Jews were forced to scrub the streets clean.
Site Rules
* Please refrain from adding emphasis in CAPITAL LETTERS as this indicates shouting and is considered rude.
Looks like you will have to find someone else to friggin argue with as i just like to chat
// THREAD ABOUT FRIGGIN NAZIS. If people are really really keen to argue with me on this, //
* Please refrain from adding emphasis in CAPITAL LETTERS as this indicates shouting and is considered rude.
Looks like you will have to find someone else to friggin argue with as i just like to chat
// THREAD ABOUT FRIGGIN NAZIS. If people are really really keen to argue with me on this, //
Sorry if this has already been said, but I'm a true believer that to mark something as offensive then the group in which it involves should be offended by it. I often find that people in the majority usually think something is offensive without consulting anyone!
I do find that I would avoid using that word or I don't think I would buy a Golly doll but I think it's because I don't know what the right answer is.
Another way to look at it is .................. should be boycott the doll just because of it's colour. Is THAT offensive? God knows I'm sure someone knows!
I do find that I would avoid using that word or I don't think I would buy a Golly doll but I think it's because I don't know what the right answer is.
Another way to look at it is .................. should be boycott the doll just because of it's colour. Is THAT offensive? God knows I'm sure someone knows!
pixi-
There is no need to be offensive just because you cannot understand a simple analogy.
Although I am wasting my time I will try another approach to try and get through to you.
Would a black person make anything to sell to the tourist anything that they find offensive to themselves?
Therefore,
Would a Jew set up a stall near to Auschwitz, to sell to the tourist, Nazi memorabilia or perhaps dolls dressed up in pyjama style concentration camp uniforms?
There is no need to be offensive just because you cannot understand a simple analogy.
Although I am wasting my time I will try another approach to try and get through to you.
Would a black person make anything to sell to the tourist anything that they find offensive to themselves?
Therefore,
Would a Jew set up a stall near to Auschwitz, to sell to the tourist, Nazi memorabilia or perhaps dolls dressed up in pyjama style concentration camp uniforms?
-- answer removed --
pixi-
/// on second thoughts dont bother cos it will be more gibberish, you'll tie yourself in knots, probably get other comments from other users and then accuse them of being offensive or whatever and then you will skulk off and make more silly posts instead of returning to your other ones ///
I think it is a waste of time trying to get a person who doesn't find this offensive, to understand anything, therefore I won't go to the trouble any more.
/// on second thoughts dont bother cos it will be more gibberish, you'll tie yourself in knots, probably get other comments from other users and then accuse them of being offensive or whatever and then you will skulk off and make more silly posts instead of returning to your other ones ///
I think it is a waste of time trying to get a person who doesn't find this offensive, to understand anything, therefore I won't go to the trouble any more.
andy-hughes
It's not a matter of winning an argument, it is entering into debate.
If a person says they don't understand my point, then I will try another aproach.
I don't call on them to necessarily agree with me, that would be pointless and against the whole purpose of debate.
What I do find totally unnecessary is for persons to turn offensive, (just like you now have, for some unknown reason) just because I refuse to agree with them, when I personally find their points flawed.
It's not a matter of winning an argument, it is entering into debate.
If a person says they don't understand my point, then I will try another aproach.
I don't call on them to necessarily agree with me, that would be pointless and against the whole purpose of debate.
What I do find totally unnecessary is for persons to turn offensive, (just like you now have, for some unknown reason) just because I refuse to agree with them, when I personally find their points flawed.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News17 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.