[Beso]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.

But what group is being described with the term "Gammon"? I know people like to disingenuously pretend it's all middle-aged white men but that's plainly not true.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.

Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I think the purposeful intent to direct this debate into very limited areas (as I've already gone on about) is the cause of this. As an example, the US is currently in the middle of pretty much banning abortion, which is the height of being anti-woman. A move that was set in place by Trump nominating anti-abortion judges to the supreme court. Then he's at a rally the other night saying he will ban trans competitors from women's sports. Now - in what world does this make any sense?

Both women and trans rights activists are being played by the same people, and rather than coming together to work it through, walls have been built and no one is being heard. I do think that women will have to concede ground, but I think it could and should have been through consultation rather than demands.

mmmm well, women never had much of an issue (generally speaking) until the "rules" around what a woman is or can be became so wide that the word is almost meaningless which then pushes the door wide open for any opportunist to walk through. This is what the problem actually is, not that genuine transwomen can use the women's bathrooms, that has been happening for many many years and no one really had any big issue with it, making "trans" such a huge umbrella term not only allows people to abuse the system, it prevents women from complaining about people abusing it

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.

Humbug also comes from a Dickens quote. It means "Bollocks"

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

Humbug also comes from a Dickrns quote. It means "Bollocks"

Stop oppressing me with dickens quotes

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.

incorrect

when Dickens and Bronte used it it was "gammon and spinach" and it was used to indicate humbug, a ridiculous story, deceitful talk.

Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name. It is defined in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as "various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions" (wiki)

In 2012, Caitlin Moran wrote that British Prime Minister David Cameron resembled "a slightly camp gammon robot" and "a C3PO made of ham" in her book Moranthology.

In 2015, Ruby Tandoh called Great British Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood a "walking gammon joint".

In 2017, children's author Ben Davis tweeted a picture of nine members of a BBC Question Time audience and referred to them as "the Great Wall of Gammon", leading to the term becoming popularised, particularly on social media.
(wiki)

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

incorrect

when Dickens and Bronte used it it was "gammon and spinach" and it was used to indicate humbug, a ridiculous story, deceitful talk.

Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name. It is defined in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as "various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions" (wiki)

In 2012, Caitlin Moran wrote that British Prime Minister David Cameron resembled "a slightly camp gammon robot" and "a C3PO made of ham" in her book Moranthology.

In 2015, Ruby Tandoh called Great British Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood a "walking gammon joint".

In 2017, children's author Ben Davis tweeted a picture of nine members of a BBC Question Time audience and referred to them as "the Great Wall of Gammon", leading to the term becoming popularised, particularly on social media.
(wiki)

We've had this discussion before. I provided you a source, you cried about the source, so I provided you an article in the spectator and you disappeared.

[The Slim Reaper]

If you want to create a gammon thread, I'm sure a mod will move the last few posts over, and this thread can be kept for it's original purpose rather than it being derailed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

We've had this discussion before. I provided you a source, you cried about the source, so I provided you an article in the spectator and you disappeared.

yes this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gammon

and again it illustrates you are incorrect

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It's still ok to drag a gammon whenever anyone feels like it though.

Are you offended... Do you identify as gammon?

[Swan]

All this Gammon talk is making me hungry!

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gammon

and again it illustrates you are incorrect

You used quotes from an author before the term was in in common parlance, a food blogger (who was about to come out at the time whilst being sexually linked to Hollywood by the media), and a childrens author, none of which actually proves anything, especially as gammon really came into use around 2016-17.

What about the time that HIGNFY used a large piece of ham as a stand in for a politician in the 90's? Was that racial, too?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You used quotes from an author before the term was in in common parlance, a food blogger (who was about to come out at the time whilst being sexually linked to Hollywood by the media), and a childrens author, none of which actually proves anything, especially as gammon really came into use around 2016-17.

What about the time that HIGNFY used a large piece of ham as a stand in for a politician in the 90's? Was that racial, too?

Not sure why you are asking me about if it is racial. I just pointed out you posted incorrect information.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Not sure why you are asking me about if it is racial. I just pointed out you posted incorrect information.

You pointed it out, but it wasn't incorrect.

Sorry, but thanks for playing the hits.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I do think that women will have to concede ground, but I think it could and should have been through consultation rather than demands.

Yeah I think they will end up having to, but why should they? Why should women lose their rights?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Are you offended... Do you identify as gammon?

I'm a middle aged white man, but I dont get ruddy faced. So no.

[Beso]

Kier starmer is a gammon though.

Ita why he uses concealer

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Yeah I think they will end up having to, but why should they? Why should women lose their rights?

Would the LGBT community give up any of their hard fought rights?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Would the LGBT community give up any of their hard fought rights?

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously .

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously .

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.

Oops sorry Cherie!!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

I was thinking this yesterday actually when someone pointed out that the people in the LGBT community who are heavily advocating for a lot of the things that women are worried about would usually consider themselves feminist and be completely pro women's rights in other contexts - which I think is (broadly) the case ... but I think the elephant in the room is that there is a clear heirarchy and I'm just going to be entirely blunt about what that hierarchy seems to look like for gay men (who again being blunt, are actually some of the most aggressively vocal on this topic);

1. Gay men
2. New gender ideology
3. "Old fashioned" Trans community
4. Gay women
5. Straight women


It's not that they won't fight for any one of these groups in a wider socialogical context BUT when issues facing these categories butt up against each other, this is the order of priority they're given. In my experience.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously .

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.

Viciously