Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Never heard of that term myself...although its nicely derailed the discussion so not terribly helpful?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. You’re purposefully missing the definition.

A Gammon is a white, middle class bigot.

Not sure why you’re struggling with that.

I'm not struggling with it.

Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?

By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.

You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.

Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.

If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

Another trait of the Gammon....homophobic tendencies. The mistaken belief that your religious views are utterly sacrosanct, and that gay marriage somehow undermines your own marriage.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Never heard of that term myself...although its nicely derailed the discussion so not terribly helpful?

Yes. Derogatory remarks referring to people's skin colour rarely tend to be helpful to a civilized debate.

Lets drop the use of racialized language please, people.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. You’re purposefully missing the definition.

A Gammon is a white, middle class bigot.

Not sure why you’re struggling with that.

I'm not struggling with it.

Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?

By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.

You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.

Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.

It’s nothing to do with their skin colour or ethnicity. I despise them because they’re narrow minded, backwards bigots. I’ve got no time for that sort of thing, regardless who is spewing bile.

Normally, I’d just call them arseholes. But Gammon is such a perfect term for when they go that delightful shade.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

Right. He's a gakker. No arguments there.

Its still racist to make derogatory remarks about his skin colour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. You’re purposefully missing the definition.

A Gammon is a white, middle class bigot.

Not sure why you’re struggling with that.

I'm not struggling with it.

Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?

By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.

You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.

Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.

It’s nothing to do with their skin colour or ethnicity. I despise them because they’re narrow minded, backwards bigots. I’ve got no time for that sort of thing, regardless who is spewing bile.

Agreed. Do you know who else I don't have time for?

Hypocrites with inconsistent principles.

Normally, I’d just call them arseholes. But Gammon is such a perfect term for when they go that delightful shade.

Right. So making derogatory remarks about people's skin colour is OK, when you find it amusing?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

I had to look up who that was as I figured it was not the woman on the one show but no idea who it actually was

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

Right. He's a gakker. No arguments there.

Its still racist to make derogatory remarks about his skin colour.

I don't know about that. If you share his ethnicity, you cannot be racist against him yourself. It's like saying that a black man calling another black man the n word in any context makes him a racist.
Is he a racist for using that word? I don't know, genuinely not something I've ever had to deal with, or think about. Until some white men started getting touchy about being called out on being generally unpleasant, and going pink in the face whilst doing so.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

I had to look up who that was as I figured it was not the woman on the one show but no idea who it actually was

He's the guy who thinks President Obama is a reptilian alien in disguise and thinks chemicals in the water are turning the frigging frogs gay.

Thats all you need to know.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.

Right. He's a gakker. No arguments there.

Its still racist to make derogatory remarks about his skin colour.

I don't know about that. If you share his ethnicity, you cannot be racist against him yourself. It's like saying that a black man calling another black man the n word in any context makes him a racist.
Is he a racist for using that word? I don't know, genuinely not something I've ever had to deal with, or think about. Until some white men started getting touchy about being called out on being generally unpleasant, and going pink in the face whilst doing so.

Its internalized racism.

As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.

See what you've done, you've made AlmightyWalrus agree with me!

Its a rare cause thats unites us two in agreement.

It happens though. That's something I guess.

It's not racist. Its wordplay. It's a pun based on the old phrase of 'going red in the face' and 'losing one's rag' or 'losing ones cool' about something.

In any case, I have a compromise.

I've got a better name than gammon (though I do find it a hilarious term for those who get all 'red in the face' about stuff.). And one that is quite appropriate considering this is a wargaming forum.

Story time! Back in the dim distant times when 40k was still rogue trader, rick priestly and his mates were running a demo at home, and playtesting, and trying to iron out the bugs of there new game. Now, they played with a guy called 'Ron', who was apparently a decent enough chap, except when the dice were going against him, at which point he'd literally go all red in the face and soon erupt into a massive temper blowout (very 'gammon' if you ask me). After witnessing these legendary outbursts, Ron was soon nicknamed 'Angry Ron' and his 'red faced monster' was soon immortalised in the very lore of the game he was playtesting as 'Angron', a certain beloved red-hued, angry, belligerent primarch of the world eaters.

Instead of 'gammon' as a term for folks that get all red in the face about 'that sort of stuff', how about, at least here, we just call them 'Angrons', in homage of our beloved game.

Seconded.

Deadnight wrote:
I have a compromise.

I've got a better name than gammon (though I do find it a hilarious term). And one that is quite appropriate considering this is a wargaming forum.

Story time! Back in the dim distant times when 40k was still rogue trader, rick priestly and his mates were running a demo at home, and playtesting, and trying to iron out the bugs of there new game. Now, they played with a guy called 'Ron', who was apparently a decent enough chap, except when the dice were going against him, at which point he'd literally go all red in the face and soon erupt into a massive temper blowout (very 'gammon' if you ask me). After witnessing this, Ron was nicknamed 'Angry Ron' and his 'red faced monster' was soon immortalised in the very lore of the game he was playtesting as 'Angron', a certain beloved red-hued, angry, belligerent primarch of the world eaters.

Instead of 'gammon' as a term for folks that get all red in the face about 'that sort of stuff', how about, at least here, we just call them 'Angrons', in homage of our beloved game.

Now that I can get behind.

Can't resist: can we have a meme of Kharn 'the betrayer' shouting out some May's brexit U-turn phrases (or is that too close to the bone for satire?), or else instead of the famous 'KILL MAIM BURN', we get 'BREXIT BREXIT BREXIT!'

EDIT: I'm against brexit, but dammit, I think I'm on to something here!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.

It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.

It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.

The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.

I hope you are reading this, Corbo.

To get back to Gammon, the BBC has a good write-up on it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44108080

Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.

Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.

A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire

And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off

 r_squared wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.

It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.

It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.

Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?

Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.

Congratulations, YOU are a criminal. It doesn't matter that you were only referring to a narrow group of white people. It only matters that you used a term referencing skin colour.



I mean FFS. People called you a "libtard", so its OK for you to call them a "gammon"? Is that your argument? We shouldn't be calling anyone names. Libtard, gammon or otherwise. Its gutter politics, and a violation of Rule #1.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.

It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.

It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.

Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?

Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.

Congratulations, YOU are a criminal.

Oh noes!

Thank goodness I'm not in Scotland, or have released a YouTube video involving cold meats and unsavory political views.
But rest assured, I will definitely keep it in mind if I ever fancy sticking it to the man north of the border.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
...I mean FFS. People called you a "libtard", so its OK for you to call them a "gammon"? Is that your argument? We shouldn't be calling anyone names. Libtard, gammon or otherwise. Its gutter politics, and a violation of Rule #1.

Well no one has called me a libtard, at least to my face but tbh I was using the names as an example. Besides, I've not called anyone on here a gammon, so I'm not sure rule #1 applies?

Besides, it's not my argument at all, I was just pointing out that there have been names thrown about, but it's only become an issue when a certain group of people get targeted. Because they just don't like being called names, but don't mind dishing names out.

Eventually it'll just become another over used phrase that will have had its day in the sun, and was used to annoy some people who'll probably go onto have a stroke anyway.

I feel this digression has gone on long enough.

I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.

My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.

I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?

Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.

Congratulations, YOU are a criminal. It doesn't matter that you were only referring to a narrow group of white people. It only matters that you used a term referencing skin colour.

That is not what the judge ruled, in fact he quite specifically addressed the full context of the offencee.

Also, he specifically directed that his judgement was not seeing a precedent.

The judgement is available online. It's not hard to find. Maybe go read it before you bring it up yet again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I feel this digression has gone on long enough.

I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.

My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.

I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?

My work involves Weddings - family relationships can be very complicated and a wedding can bring everything to a head.

She seems clever and confident, looks good - seems like good royal wife material

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.

The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.

I hope you are reading this, Corbo.

To get back to Gammon, the BBC has a good write-up on it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44108080

Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.

Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.

A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire

And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off

To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.

It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.

No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.

No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.

At the moment - hopefully they can sort that out.

They might not be so keen to rejoin when the eurozone goes tits up.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.

The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.

I hope you are reading this, Corbo.

To get back to Gammon, the BBC has a good write-up on it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44108080

Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.

Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.

A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire

And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off

To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.

It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.

No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.

That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.

Where are the fire and brimstone types making the case for the EU? Basing a strategy on the other side dying off is pretty wretched on any issue, never mind Brexit.

Where's the passion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They might not be so keen to rejoin when the eurozone goes tits up.

Never mind the Euro, what depresses me the most is the young people.

I'm hearing about 1 million students are signing a petition wanting back in

And I've seen many a young person wave a EU flag.

Historically, students have been some of the most radical agitators we have known, both Russian revolutions being a prime example. Resistance to the Nazis being another. The students in Bohemia in 1618 being my favourite.

And yet, here we are with young people backing a calcified protection racket, in exchange for a few baubles of free movement and 'human rights,' as though the EU was alone in creating them.

The young ain't what they used to be

Is your dislike of the students because they don't agree with you? The younger generations like the EU so as their voice gets louder we're more likely to get back in. It's a given they'll be marching and petitioning to re-join the second we leave, because they don't want to leave.

That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.

Because it's not a case for being in the EU. It's just a statement of fact; If the younger generations didn't agree with the older generations on EU membership then attrition wouldn't make any difference.

We know the younger voters want to be in the EU; maybe they are wrong, or maybe they are more engaged with it. We know the older voters don't; maybe they are wrong, or are more detached from it. There's no indication that people will suddenly start disliking the EU when they turn 65 (the theory is that political stance is largely based on the political landscape as they grow up), so as the over 65's stop voting (because they are too infirm or dead) and the vote share is increasingly the younger ones, the pathetic margin for Leave will disappear. Using statistics alone it's already swung over the line because we were so close to it.

There are plenty of reasons todays youth want to be in the EU, and plenty of reasons the elderly don't, but I wasn't discussing that.
I'm just pointing out you're fighting a losing battle, and are doing nothing to convince anyone why we should leave.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They might not be so keen to rejoin when the eurozone goes tits up.

If the eurozone goes tits up. People have been predicting it's demise for decades. It's less likely to collapse than the UK is.

DINLT post, spoilered for brevity:


Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong here, you ask where the passion is and then immediately launch into a complaint about 1 million young people expressing their passionate belief in a European Britain.