And “Murphies” was definitely a slur/slang for the Irish when I was growing up. It can also be read as diminishing, pejorative and dismissive. Which given the tone of Johnson’s remarks, it was presumably intended to be.
Less charged(?), is there some way to get Buffon out of the Labour deputy leader race. I mean, look how the last “keep them honest” candidate worked out.
I've never heard the term 'Murphies' but I am not sure where you are from. It also is pretty hard to determine someones 'tone' from print. Is calling the French 'frogs' racist too? I hate to break it to you but many well known comedians say things like that as part of their routine. They are called 'jokes'.
Then you demean the original meaning of the word. Its lazy language and a good example of bad faith politics.
No, it's holding faith with what the meaning of racism is. That it is not a particularly virulent form of racism is certainly better than not. Or, say, calling all Irish liars like Thatcher did. But that doesn't mean it isn't still racist or is acceptable.
moniker on
+10
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Y'know, growing up I never really got (on a technical level) how British people could be racist towards Irish people, and whenever it was brought up I assumed it was some kind of exaggeration...But no.
Saying 'Why isn't he called Murphy like the rest of them?' is hardly indicative of racism. Did you read a book describing racism and somehow think this is it?
I must say I never heard anyone from Iceland with the surname 'Uses a patronymic system'.
There's nothing about Johnson's previous form that makes me in any way inclined to perform the kind of contortions needed to pass this off as just some jokey-jokes.
So yeah. I'm not buying what your selling there, chief.
I'm not sure why you think statements of this type cannot be racist, "because they're jokes".
That would imply there's no such thing as a racist statement, provided the person responsible claims it's a joke. I disagree, obviously.
Sure they can be racist but I believe I can tell the difference between something that is racist and something that is not racist. Common sense would imply that this particular joke isn't racist.
So yeah. I'm not buying what your selling there, chief.
Its like calling Trump a fascist. Trump isn't a very nice man who insults disabled people. Calling him a fascist is wrong though and calling that joke 'racist' is really not understanding what racism is. As a white man I am probably not in much of a position to 'truly' understand racism at least from the point of view of receiving.
Calling racist jokes "just jokes" is the top defense of racists everywhere.
That's really just attempting to shoehorn something into a box. If a comedian like Bill Burr said it would it be acceptable? Would you say that Trudeau wearing black face is racist? Would you say that Trudeau is racist?
There is an example of a decent left-leaning Canadian who believes the opposite. Are they right or are you right [no pun intended]?
I would say that they are wrong. Also, falling into the category error of viewing racism and racist acts/ behaviour as an irredeemable Mark of Cain.
What Johnson said is racist. It is not the most racist thing anyone has ever said about the Irish. Hell it isn't even the most racist thing Johnson has put to print. It doesn't prove he is some monster (though plenty of other things do that) or is incapable of interacting with his Irish equivalent. It still is racist.
Common sense would imply that this particular joke isn't racist.
No, I think it's racist.
I don't believe telling a racist joke necessarily makes you the second coming of Hitler. But you need to consider context; this was not part of some comedian's stand-up routine.
You can't make provocative comments and then plead ignorance when people are provoked.
I see no reason why racist jokes cannot be funny, in the right context. But anyone who just drops racist "jokes" for no good reason in situations that are wholly inappropriate is clearly just trying to provoke, and can hardly claim to be the victim if provocation ensues.
+11
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
this somehow reminds me of malone dies "it will be all over with the Murphys, Merciers, Molloys, Morans and Malones, unless it goes on beyond the grave"
I think racism needs a rating system.
The problem with these arguments is that it wasn't very racist (there's way worse he could have said, and probablydefinitely has). But if it just gets labelled as racist, it's equated with some really horrible stuff that I won't give an example of because I don't want to get turbo-banned. So people feel compelled to defend it because if they don't then laughing at a joke about the French is treated as equivalent with being an alt-right 4chan poster.
We could just standardise these things so the press could talk about the PM being in trouble for his remarks, which have been agreed to be a 3.2 on the Johnson Scale. Though a problem for the PM, others have pointed out that it pales compared to his earlier remarks about Iran (measured at 7.8 Johnsons).
The US has warned the British government it "would be madness" to use Huawei technology in the UK's 5G network.
A US delegation presented the UK with new evidence claiming to show security risks posed by using the Chinese firm.
US President Donald Trump has sought to pressure Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the issue.
A decision is expected this month on whether to allow Huawei to supply some "non-core" parts for the UK network.
Senior US officials handed over a dossier of technical information which sources claim challenged British intelligence's own technical assessment that it would be possible to use Huawei in the 5G infrastructure without risks to national security.
US sources refused to comment on the content of the file.
The US has previously warned that any use of Huawei would lead to a review of intelligence sharing.
However, UK officials have suggested they are not worried that such a review would lead to any substantive change in behaviour.
Meanwhile, Conservative MP Bob Seely has said Huawei "to all intents and purposes is part of the Chinese state" and a deal with the tech giant would allow Beijing to access the UK's network.
Wow, we're really good at denying there's a problem to address because if there were it would really suck to deal with, aren't we?
Johnson's long history of making racist, sexist, homophobic remarks should have removed any benefit of the doubt fencing people want to place around his public comments long, long ago. "It was a joke" is not a magic shield to be deployed retroactively around something you said about a minority you thought you could get away with.
I think racism needs a rating system.
The problem with these arguments is that it wasn't very racist (there's way worse he could have said, and probablydefinitely has). But if it just gets labelled as racist, it's equated with some really horrible stuff that I won't give an example of because I don't want to get turbo-banned. So people feel compelled to defend it because if they don't then laughing at a joke about the French is treated as equivalent with being an alt-right 4chan poster.
I think the problem is that lots of people think in order to be racist, you have to be actively, explicitly negative, i.e. "I hate <ethnic group X>, they're all lazy/miserly/treacherous", added to which people are unlikely to think that they might be in any way racist or do racist things. If the PM makes a joke that you've made yourself, or that you or someone you like have laughed at, obviously it can't be racist, can it? (Something something 'common sense' something.)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I don't think the vast majority of humour is built off demeaning others, or that every joke with a butt is necessarily offensive or demeaning. But this is about the specific thing Johnson said and his track record of saying other dumb, awful things.
There's a lot flying about about the legal basis for this and how open it is to challenge
The arguments are basically:
- it is fully within devolved competence for the Scottish government to hold a referendum (this is generally non-controversial)
- it may be within the devolved competence of the Scottish government to enact the result of an independence referendum (i.e. unilaterally cease to be part of the UK) but this is extremely controversial
- a section 30 order addresses the second by binding the UK government to implement the result of an independence referendum, but it has never been accepted by the Scottish government that it is actually required
There are two avenues to addressing point two:
- take the matter to the supreme court for a ruling on the point of law on which the controversy rests
- take the matter to the ECHR as an issue pertaining to the right of self-determination
The uncertainty about competence arises from the interpretation of the legislation that devolves powers to the Scottish government. The basis of that legislation is that powers are devolved unless explicitly reserved. The section that pertains to the reservation of powers related to the Union is ambiguous, and if you favour strictly interpreting it (as ScotGov does) then it doesn't reserve this kind of constitutional change to Westminster
The Westminster argument is that the legislation should be read as regarding to the Union and all matters pertaining as the only reasonable interpretation
"Reasonable" in the legal sense, within the bounds of rules of interpretation
The arguments are basically:
- Legislation means what it says, and no further meaning should be interpreted beyond the text. (In other words: "if it meant that, it would say it.")
Vs
- The text only has meaning if interpreted in a manner more expansive that the text itself supports, on the assumption that the drafters did not intentionally include a passage that was incoherent.
Ah remember when the Smith Commission said nothing would prevent the Scottish people becoming independent in the future and the Tories signed up to that.
Bunch of fucking cunts.
I imagine the Scottish Government's legal challenge will be founded on the Smith Commission report.
Oh and the UN Charter on Human Rights I suppose guaranteeing the right of self determination.
It'll be funny to see the people harping on about being kept in the undemocratic EU against our will etc etc fully supporting making Scotland stay in the union....
Ah remember when the Smith Commission said nothing would prevent the Scottish people becoming independent in the future and the Tories signed up to that.
Bunch of fucking cunts.
I imagine the Scottish Government's legal challenge will be founded on the Smith Commission report.
Oh and the UN Charter on Human Rights I suppose guaranteeing the right of self determination.
Minor stuff.
The latter is basically a mirror of the ECHR route, but via the UN instead
I'm skeptical that it's as practicable an approach as some commentators are making out, for the simple reason that if it was as clear cut as they assert, I'm certain the Catalonians would have attempted it by now
Ah remember when the Smith Commission said nothing would prevent the Scottish people becoming independent in the future and the Tories signed up to that.
Bunch of fucking cunts.
I imagine the Scottish Government's legal challenge will be founded on the Smith Commission report.
Oh and the UN Charter on Human Rights I suppose guaranteeing the right of self determination.
Minor stuff.
The latter is basically a mirror of the ECHR route, but via the UN instead
I'm skeptical that it's as practicable an approach as some commentators are making out, for the simple reason that if it was as clear cut as they assert, I'm certain the Catalonians would have attempted it by now
Oh, I think it has no chance of success in practice, the UN right to self determination is basically fluff that would have no legal standing as there is no national court that would enforce it.
The legal case would be for show. The steady drip, drip, drip of the gradualist case for indy.
It will infuriate many Yes supporters, the slow pace, but I cannot seem any other route than to build an unarguable case that the UK is undemocratic.
It'll be funny to see the people harping on about being kept in the undemocratic EU against our will etc etc fully supporting making Scotland stay in the union....
Ah, but what you don’t understand is that-
SMOKE BOMB!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Another independence referendum would continue the political stagnation that Scotland has seen for the last decade, with Scottish schools, hospitals and jobs once again left behind because of a campaign to separate the UK.
Wow. That's... something.
I'm not quite sure if insulting/threatening Scotland is the way to "bring the whole of the United Kingdom together".
People may be able to donate money towards the cost of making Big Ben chime when the UK leaves the EU, Boris Johnson has said.
The prime minister told BBC Breakfast that getting the famous bell to ring at 23:00 GMT on 31 January would cost £500,000, but said some form of crowdfunding might be possible.
The bell was temporarily silenced in 2017 for refurbishment of the tower.
A bid to get the bell-ringing enshrined in law was dismissed last week.
An amendment to the PM's Brexit bill, which would have required it to chime on Brexit Day, was not selected for a vote in the House of Commons.
"We're working up a plan so people can bung a bob for a Big Ben bong, because there are some people who want to," Mr Johnson said on Tuesday morning.
"Because Big Ben is being refurbished, they seem to have taken the clapper away, so we need to restore the clapper," he added.
"And that is expensive, so we're looking at whether the public can fund it."
For the record, I have typed several different words here, looked at them, then deleted them because it'd just get me in trouble.
If he ever, ever makes a public complaint that the work is taking too long and costing too much, I hope someone shoves a copy of this in his face.
What does “bung a bob” mean? My nicknames for my kids is Bug and Boo, so I sometimes call them Bug a Boo to be cute, but I doubt they’re talking about my children.
I hope.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
What does “bung a bob” mean? My nicknames for my kids is Bug and Boo, so I sometimes call them Bug a Boo to be cute, but I doubt their talking about my children.
I hope.
Give some money
"Bung" is slang for "throw", "bob" was originally slang for a shilling but now refers to a pound
In conclusion, our Prime Minister is currently making veiled references to Netflix shows.
What does “bung a bob” mean? My nicknames for my kids is Bug and Boo, so I sometimes call them Bug a Boo to be cute, but I doubt they’re talking about my children.
I hope.
"Bung" = throw
"Bob" = originally slang for a shilling, 1/20 of a pre-decimal pound, now used to denote a non-specific small amount of money
Boris has never found an alliteration he doesn't like.
Always alliterate anything
+1
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Ireland has looked at the last UK election and decided "sure why not"
A strawpoll of my friends seems to have people in agreement that the two main parties are just two cheeks of the same arse, but every other party is also shite, so.... Fuck knows.
On the plus side, it'll let the collection of cranks and grifters that make up the more fringe parties a chance to make a lot of noise about how now is their time, then fail miserably, which is always cathartic
Posts
No, it's holding faith with what the meaning of racism is. That it is not a particularly virulent form of racism is certainly better than not. Or, say, calling all Irish liars like Thatcher did. But that doesn't mean it isn't still racist or is acceptable.
There's nothing about Johnson's previous form that makes me in any way inclined to perform the kind of contortions needed to pass this off as just some jokey-jokes.
So yeah. I'm not buying what your selling there, chief.
Calling racist jokes "just jokes" is the top defense of racists everywhere.
Sure they can be racist but I believe I can tell the difference between something that is racist and something that is not racist. Common sense would imply that this particular joke isn't racist.
Only if you know what racism is.
Its like calling Trump a fascist. Trump isn't a very nice man who insults disabled people. Calling him a fascist is wrong though and calling that joke 'racist' is really not understanding what racism is. As a white man I am probably not in much of a position to 'truly' understand racism at least from the point of view of receiving.
That's really just attempting to shoehorn something into a box. If a comedian like Bill Burr said it would it be acceptable? Would you say that Trudeau wearing black face is racist? Would you say that Trudeau is racist?
Yes.
This really isn't that hard.
Justin Trudeau – not so much racist as slight and ineffectual
There is an example of a decent left-leaning Canadian who believes the opposite. Are they right or are you right [no pun intended]?
I would say that they are wrong. Also, falling into the category error of viewing racism and racist acts/ behaviour as an irredeemable Mark of Cain.
What Johnson said is racist. It is not the most racist thing anyone has ever said about the Irish. Hell it isn't even the most racist thing Johnson has put to print. It doesn't prove he is some monster (though plenty of other things do that) or is incapable of interacting with his Irish equivalent. It still is racist.
The evidence suggests otherwise, unfortunately.
No, I think it's racist.
I don't believe telling a racist joke necessarily makes you the second coming of Hitler. But you need to consider context; this was not part of some comedian's stand-up routine.
You can't make provocative comments and then plead ignorance when people are provoked.
I see no reason why racist jokes cannot be funny, in the right context. But anyone who just drops racist "jokes" for no good reason in situations that are wholly inappropriate is clearly just trying to provoke, and can hardly claim to be the victim if provocation ensues.
poor lad
The problem with these arguments is that it wasn't very racist (there's way worse he could have said, and probablydefinitely has). But if it just gets labelled as racist, it's equated with some really horrible stuff that I won't give an example of because I don't want to get turbo-banned. So people feel compelled to defend it because if they don't then laughing at a joke about the French is treated as equivalent with being an alt-right 4chan poster.
We could just standardise these things so the press could talk about the PM being in trouble for his remarks, which have been agreed to be a 3.2 on the Johnson Scale. Though a problem for the PM, others have pointed out that it pales compared to his earlier remarks about Iran (measured at 7.8 Johnsons).
This feels dangerously off the hiberno-britannic-politic subject, so let's try to get back on track:
Using Huawei in UK 5G network 'madness', warns US Wow, we're really good at denying there's a problem to address because if there were it would really suck to deal with, aren't we?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Just mean.
There is no exception I give anything because 'it's just a joke'.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
There's a lot flying about about the legal basis for this and how open it is to challenge
The arguments are basically:
- it is fully within devolved competence for the Scottish government to hold a referendum (this is generally non-controversial)
- it may be within the devolved competence of the Scottish government to enact the result of an independence referendum (i.e. unilaterally cease to be part of the UK) but this is extremely controversial
- a section 30 order addresses the second by binding the UK government to implement the result of an independence referendum, but it has never been accepted by the Scottish government that it is actually required
There are two avenues to addressing point two:
- take the matter to the supreme court for a ruling on the point of law on which the controversy rests
- take the matter to the ECHR as an issue pertaining to the right of self-determination
The uncertainty about competence arises from the interpretation of the legislation that devolves powers to the Scottish government. The basis of that legislation is that powers are devolved unless explicitly reserved. The section that pertains to the reservation of powers related to the Union is ambiguous, and if you favour strictly interpreting it (as ScotGov does) then it doesn't reserve this kind of constitutional change to Westminster
The Westminster argument is that the legislation should be read as regarding to the Union and all matters pertaining as the only reasonable interpretation
The arguments are basically:
- Legislation means what it says, and no further meaning should be interpreted beyond the text. (In other words: "if it meant that, it would say it.")
Vs
- The text only has meaning if interpreted in a manner more expansive that the text itself supports, on the assumption that the drafters did not intentionally include a passage that was incoherent.
Bunch of fucking cunts.
I imagine the Scottish Government's legal challenge will be founded on the Smith Commission report.
Oh and the UN Charter on Human Rights I suppose guaranteeing the right of self determination.
Minor stuff.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Unlike Johnson who is a textbook twat
The latter is basically a mirror of the ECHR route, but via the UN instead
I'm skeptical that it's as practicable an approach as some commentators are making out, for the simple reason that if it was as clear cut as they assert, I'm certain the Catalonians would have attempted it by now
Oh, I think it has no chance of success in practice, the UN right to self determination is basically fluff that would have no legal standing as there is no national court that would enforce it.
The legal case would be for show. The steady drip, drip, drip of the gradualist case for indy.
It will infuriate many Yes supporters, the slow pace, but I cannot seem any other route than to build an unarguable case that the UK is undemocratic.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Ah, but what you don’t understand is that-
SMOKE BOMB!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Wow. That's... something.
I'm not quite sure if insulting/threatening Scotland is the way to "bring the whole of the United Kingdom together".
Public can fund Brexit Day bongs, says PM
But not the kind of bongs that will make it easier to deal with: For the record, I have typed several different words here, looked at them, then deleted them because it'd just get me in trouble.
If he ever, ever makes a public complaint that the work is taking too long and costing too much, I hope someone shoves a copy of this in his face.
Like all those border wall crowd funders in America
What does “bung a bob” mean? My nicknames for my kids is Bug and Boo, so I sometimes call them Bug a Boo to be cute, but I doubt they’re talking about my children.
I hope.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Give some money
"Bung" is slang for "throw", "bob" was originally slang for a shilling but now refers to a pound
In conclusion, our Prime Minister is currently making veiled references to Netflix shows.
"Bung" = throw
"Bob" = originally slang for a shilling, 1/20 of a pre-decimal pound, now used to denote a non-specific small amount of money
Like when he pronounced "dude" like "dyude".
Even then, "bung a bob for Big Ben bong" is something literally only he would ever say (and think himself incredibly clever for doing it).
Steam | XBL
Always alliterate anything
A strawpoll of my friends seems to have people in agreement that the two main parties are just two cheeks of the same arse, but every other party is also shite, so.... Fuck knows.
On the plus side, it'll let the collection of cranks and grifters that make up the more fringe parties a chance to make a lot of noise about how now is their time, then fail miserably, which is always cathartic