I am a little disgusted that the apology is not appropriately worded. The word 'ginger' is offensive and derogatory to a great portion of redheaded people.
The BBC uses the word 'ginger' several times in the apology, but decides not to upset the celebs by calling them redheads (the appropriate term). Go figure!
Redheads are over sensitive about this kind of thing for a reason. Besides the school yard bullying, redheads suffer abuse in the street from strangers and acts of violence aimed specifically at redheads. The anti-redhead discriminatory trend is growing. Now whether the Dr Who's regeneration throw away line was an insult is neither here nor there. There should be room for characters appearing on tv shows to be able to express a view contrary to the BBC's beliefs... But the BBC's apology is entirely inappropriate.
After posting my complaint and asking for a reply the website tells me it will be 10 working days for the issue to be researched.
I hope for a re-wording and for anyone else who feels the same way to complain to the BBC.
The most offensive section of the apology is...
"Doctor Who doesn't have an anti ginger agenda"
...This doesn't even describe us as a ginger haired people, but just a colour. This is simply de-humanising.
The apology should read something like...
CLICK HERE to make a complaint to the BBCComplaint
We've received complaints from viewers who believed a line in the second part of Doctor Who: The End of Time was insulting to people with red hair.
The BBC's response
We would like to reassure viewers that Doctor Who doesn't have an anti redhead agenda whatsoever. This was a reprise of the line in the Christmas Invasion episode in 2005, when Doctor Who discovers that he's 'not ginger', and here he is, missing out again - disappointed he's 'still not ginger'.
In addition, the Doctor's previous companion Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) and his new one Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) are both redheads.
Redheads should demand better of our government broadcasting agencies!
I think its great that its been made really clear that the doctor is being made out to be an anti-gingerist or un-discriminatory. Cant wait to see the episode. Cant wait to see the BBC complaint department catch up with the BBC writers.
When's the doctor going to be a redhead?
Cheers
P.S.
Many of the comments made on this article refer to a Guardian article by Paul MacInnes CLICK HERE to read the article.
ABOUT NATE:
I am a redhead who was bullied and/or has faced gingerism throughout my schooling from pre-school through to university and still in my everyday life. I am university trained with a degree in new media art and design with a post-graduate degree in education. I am yet to have a great deal of teaching experience having only recently graduated. I constantly read academic peer reviewed articles of bullying and cyber-bullying and have taken a great interest in possibly undertaking academic research on school and workplace bullying with a specific focus on redheads.CONTACT NATE @ monkeyseemonkeydo80@gmail.com
To read ALL of Nate's articles click the label/tag 'Nate'
96 comments:
Is the word Ginger really derogatory though? In the past, it was always said with a soft g and you only have to look at Ginger Rogers the dancer to see that its origins were probably meant in an endearing, positive sense, just as for nigger, coincidentally, which has its origins from the Latin word black.
When ginger is expressed with a hard g as in digger, then yes it is derogatory. This new way of expressing it seems to have evolved over the past 10 to 15 years in the UK and people do it to rhyme it with minger. From Dictionary.com:
Main Entry: minger
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an unattractive person; a smelly or ugly person
Etymology: ming 'human excrement' or 'unpleasant smell' + -er
Usage: UK slang; minging, mingy adj
Just pause and take a look at it. Pretty hateful, don't you think?
People also do it to emphasise that ginger is an anagram of nigger.
So it's derogatory, but is it racist when pronounced this way? There is a South Park episode called Ginger Kids which satirises hatred towards those that are different in some way, but also what a "Ginger" actually is. The character Eric sums it up precisely as:
"Children with red hair, light skin and freckles"
So yes, it is racist if Nigger is racist. Even if it referred to just our hair colour, it would still be racist because hair colour is still a part of one's racial identity.
You only have to look at the people at the BBC that have used it this way towards Redheads to see they meant it in an abusive way. Examples include:
1. Steve Wright on BBC radio 2 that has openly racially abused Mick Hucknull, Mark Jordan (Heart Beat actor), Tori Amos (singer, song writer). Wright then had the nerve to interview Shelpa Shetty over her being racially abused on Big Brother.
2. James May racially abused a 13 year old minor on 25th March 2006, the Redhead kid from Rock School. Do a Google Groups search on "James May 5 march". The thread starts out:
"I was half listening to Top Gear on Sunday 5 March when I heard James May
mention the ginger-haired lad from Rock School. But I'm sure that he
described him using the racially abusive term ging-er with a hard g that is
made to rhyme with minger. Did anyone tape the show and so verify for me
that this is what he said?"
Further down the thread some poster called Ben verifies that he did.
To conclude, Ginger is racist depending on how it's said, but personally, I love the way Ginger sounds when said with a soft g - it conjures up images of vibrant beauty because that is exactly what it is.
I don't feel that gingerism is racism. But this doesn't mean I don't agree with your sentiment.
Cut and paste the link below into your browser... I have had a rant on this topic of racism/gingerism in the comments section...
http://gingerism.com/2009/12/2010-another-year-another-decade-of.html
That said...
I think you'll find that a great majority of redheads find 'ginger' even with a soft 'g' to be offensive. I can quote to you a huge number of threads and even comments made on this website... we could even run a poll on that.
I also understand that when 'ginger' (even with a soft 'g') is used by non-redhead's it is used to subdue, demean, belittle, abuse or socially under-cut a redheaded person in one way or another and it always gets a giggle used in any context... such as the contexts you have described.
The word 'Ginger' has really begun to mean more than vibrant as you have expressed...
* it has been used with the hard 'g'
* it is used as an anagram of 'nigger'
* it has been used with a soft 'g' to get laughs
* it has been used to rhyme with other terms as abuse
I could go on as well... but you get the idea... 'ginger' is seen and used primarily to be offensive.
The discrimination and prejudice is getting out of hand.
Cheers
P.s. I agree redheads are vibrant.
I'd like to point out the recent Guardian article about the complaints. It's offensive quite frankly, and breaches clauses 12i and 12ii of the Editors' code of practice.
You can complain here if you like:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
I suggest you do.
@anonymous Are you referring to the guardian.co.uk "Doctor Who: Tardiscrimination?" ?
From the BBC Christams 2005 episode:
The Doctor: [still recently regenerated] Am I... Ginger?
Rose: No, you're just sort of... brown.
The Doctor: Aww, I wanted to be ginger. I've never been ginger. And you, Rose Tyler, fat lot of good you were. You gave up on me. Ooh, that was rude. Is that the kind of man I am now? Am I rude? Rude and not ginger?
So the recent episode was a continuation from that. As the BBC pointed out, people have got the wrong end of the stick.
Anyway, the problem with the BBC isn't so much that there isn't a Ginger Dr Who, but rather there has been plenty of Black News presenters over the past decade, but not one Ginger news reader. I can't even recall a natural Blonde Newsreader, although the Brunetttes are well represented at least. Not exactly a true form of diversity, is it? More like a version of diversity that has been twisted for the benefit of majorities promoting themselves as minorities whilst trampling all over true minorities.
Nate,
I've read your article on racism and gingerism and I agree that side to the argument exists. But the fact is race and therefore racism is in the main defined by a particular society and so its definition is continually evolving as it's modified by groups of people that use it to gain some special privilege for themselves compared to other groups that are also being abused.
10 years ago, Black people used to be routinely ridiculed over the way they looked at football matches and the police didn't have to do anything, providing they weren't physically assaulted. That has all changed and people will be prosecuted if they verbally harrass a Black person, even if in a light hearted, non-threatening way.
My view is that White people will eventually promote themselves as possessing a type of Whiteness in a racial way, similar to what Black groups such as the Black-African, Black-Chinese etc have done, which offers them protection from one another by the race laws. I have seen both Blondes and Gingers harrassed by Brunettes, simply because the latter are a White majority. And since White people promote themselves as a Redhead, Blonde or Brunette, it would make sense that White people will define this identity as being a part of their racial identity
Alan Petrie is concerned about what's happening to Ginger people and is researching the possibility of creating a Redhead community in Aberdeen. I don't think he's alone and the Blondes and finally the Brunettes will do the same.
The fact the BBC feels they need to placate this so called minority with any form of response should truly be considered an insult, that is if gingers (sorry redheads) are less intelligent than Nate professes. Any actual dr who fan wouldve understood the line. Any casual observer who didn't a) shouldn't of even followed the episode and b) the line was never intended for them in the first place. I thought that was one of the best doctor who's ever and thoroughly enjoyed it including the Ginger line.
As for when wIll their be a Ginger dr who? I for one hope the doctor who showrunners do not pick actors to play dr who based purely on their hair color, just as I am sure Nate would not be impressed with them rejecting actors based purely on their hair color. I think we should all hope dr who's continue to be chosen from actors who can handle all the multiple facets of the role and are excellent actors and embody the spirit of the character.... And maybe just maybe we should all care a little less about what color their pubes are!!!
Anon,
"breaches clauses 12i and 12ii of the Editors' code of practice."
Where can I find the editors code of practice?
ALSO
It is clear that the writer of the article is a redhead.
I think that no matter what the code of practice says... a redhead should be able to make light of themselves, through things like sarcasm, irony and lampoon gingerists via comedy as much as they like. This is an essential freedom.
HOWEVER...
The author 'Paul MacInnes' of the Gaurdian article, doesn't seem to identify with being a redhead, example:
"Without THEM WE (emphasis added) would have no one to compare our tans against."
OR
"THEY (emphasis added) will start calling for the withdrawal of ginger nuts from supermarket shelves or forming mobs and extracting violent revenge for being called a copperknob"
But it could be argue this was for comical effect. But if the writer is not or does not consider himself to be a redhead then it is a person de-humanising and discriminating against redheads. Its POSSIBLE Paul MacInnes is a redhead who internally discriminates and the editor should of taken some responsibility to filter the article MAYBE to personally help Paul and his problem... But the article is clearly meant to be humorous.
ADDITIONALLY...
I feel that Paul MacInnes's article is, whether he realises it or not raising awareness of redhead discrimination. The response gained through complaints and an online thread creeping up on 600 responses has awareness raising potential that may out-way any legitimisation of redhead discrimination.
ALSO...
The author uses 'Gingerism' in the title of the article... if other journalist follow suit this has great potential in not only further raising awareness but also pushes 'gingerism' as potentially an authoritative word used as a 'social norm' to describe the discrimination.'Gingerism' becomes a recognised form of discrimination amongst the mainstream. This has potential to help STOP the discrimination.
Where can I find the editors code of practice?
It may change my mind and I might like to complain.
Can you see any reason why I might want to complain given my stated position?
John,
I don't recognise gingerism as racism. I will not racialise the issue, so please stop asking me to. We have to agree to dis-agree on this point... here's my reasoning:
I also have to state that this comment is particularly offensive...
"gain some special privilege for themselves compared to other groups"
Here's my reasoning:
I mentioned the four categories of discrimination in my comments on the article.
http://gingerism.com/2009/12/2010-another-year-another-decade-of.html
1. Verbal Taunts & Harassment as Personally-mediated P&D
2. Internalised P&D
3. Institutional P&D
4. Violence as Personally-Mediated P&D
It is hard to find a redhead that doesn't experience 1 & 2 (in the UK or Australia), but 3 is are very, very, rare (and rarely substantiated for various reasons) and 4 I feel is on the rise, following on the aggression and nastiness of 1. We redheads need to make those authorities and people that can help us stamp this discrimination out MORE AWARE that it is happening! ALL DISCRIMINATION is WRONG!
It is my understanding that African-English people like those... "at football matches"... experienced ALL four of these forms of discrimination on a regular basis and in the extreme across the whole of society. Race and equity legislation was used to protect these PEOPLE not to... "gain some special privilege for themselves compared to other groups"... but for equity and social justice. These people were being forced to be underprivileged by OTHERS who would 'racialise'. Even with this legislation in place to attempt to prevent 'racialisation' the average African-English person in England today is still less likely to have as high a living standard as the average Anglo-English etc, because this 'racialisation' still has lasting impacts and affects on PEOPLE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT SEEKING... 'some special privilege'... BUT EQUITY!
ALSO...
I hope your a redhead, because I'm starting to take offense to your use of the word 'ginger'.
STOP ASKING ME TO RACIALISE... I find it abhorred, immoral, and as you have pointed out... illegal.
You want to attempt to racialise this site or discussion any more than I will simply ignore your comments, as a 'thread troll'. I have made myself clear on the issue and I know we must agree to disagree.
John,
On redheaded communities.
I am aware of a number of redhead communities online.
This could be born out of a general interest in other redheads or the genuine 'feeling' of growing alienation that many redheads get across their various communities.
It is a topic worth investigating.
Can you see any way to find evidence as to why redhead communities are starting to be setup? Without racialising.
Anon,
"Any actual dr who fan wouldve understood the line."
One thing to say:
Better a redhead than a Doctor Who fan.
Nate,
I'm Ginger and I call myself Ginger because I like the word. In fact, I see myself as a golden-ginger but because it's kinda poncey sounding, I call it yellow-ginger. I see it exactly the same as blonde and brunette. There is no point banning the word because it can be vanadlised by some people using it in a derogatory way with a hard g.
Are we going to ban the names of African countries such as Nigeria or Niger when people can express them with a hard g?
Are we going to ban Blonde because of the phrase "Blonde moment"?
Ban Black because of the negativity associated with it?
It's the way ginger is said with a hard g which is the only problem I have with it and whereas someone Black can prosecute when called a niger with a hard g, I can't with ginger.
Ginger is a generic term that encompasses orange, red, yellow, golden, auburn etc whereas redhead causes confusion when applied to someone with orange, yellow, copper etc. and doesn't make sense.
I don't want you to racialise Gingerism if you think there is no need to anymore than I would want a Jewish person to racialise anti-semitism, or a Black person anti-Blackism unless they need to. I've given my reasons as to why I think Ginger, Blonde and the Brunette people can racialise the way they look, so I hope you won't be offended if I call someone racist for being rude to a Ginger person, just as Black groups of people do over the way they look.
My hair, skin and eye colour is a part of my racial identity, and if I'm abused over it, then I consider it racist. Is this illegal, or will it create problems for your site?
This is a great, valuable site and I don't want to jeopardise it for you.
Re:communities
The online Redhedd community was set up by a guy concerned about their falling numbers and reports in the papers about them dying out within a few decades:
Youtube "Redheads and Redhedd.com on GM.tv"
There's a Redhead day every year in the Netherlands and that has sparked the interest of Alan Petrie in setting up a community in Aberdeen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/magazine/8245290.stm
Personally, I think that the Ginger, Blonde and to a lesser degree, Brunette people are being marginilised by Black majorities over representing themselves in the UK and Ireland which isn't in the spirit of promoting a true form of equality between a world majority powerfully represented elsewhere in the world, and world minorities that once could rely on being well represented in British/Irish culture. So to cope with the damaging effects of the marginalisation, I think these 3 groups need to set up communities for themselves. I also think it would help Ginger people in particular to have Ginger families with the confidence that their children will be warmly welcomed and protected in a safe environment and promoted equally to the way Black-African people are through out Africa, for example.
John,
Ok I have to state again... I don't think gingerism is racism... I will not racialise the issue and will not address most of your comment.
I will not be addressing the point/s you have made on race. I will be addressing other key points.
Please understand that I feel very strongly that gingerism is not racism... I have made this clear to you and I consider you a 'thread troll'... I will not delete your comments, unless they begin to start promoting 'hate' or become abusive, but I am unlikely to acknowledge them in the future AT ALL with racial content.
I am not ignoring you this time as a 'thread troll', because you have made a few points worth addressing.
FIRSTLY,
I am not suggesting banning the word 'ginger'! Let me start by saying... Knowing that your a redhead I think use the word 'ginger' to your hearts content.
You are a redhead and you have every right to call yourself whatever you like, as a term of endearment or ridicule... hey have a laugh at yourself all you want. I do it all the time.
I understand however that when someone who isn't a 'Hi 5' (a person who in a rating system of attractiveness out of 10 can only reach 5 because of the ginger gene colouring)... this type of non-ginger person says 'ginger' to describe me it is de-humanising or subjugating me. Reducing me to a colour. I find that offensive... and it is my understanding that there are a great number of redheads who have voiced that same opinion.
I don't dispute that 'blonde haired' people are not stereotyped but they are stereotyped in a different way and to a different extremes. For instance: I haven't heard of anyone physically attacking blonde haired people.
ALSO...
I would never refer in description to any person with blonde hair as a 'blonde'. For example I would say: "She's the blonde haired girl." NOT "She's the blonde girl", I understand that many blond haired people would find the former offensive.
The BBC apology states:
"Doctor Who doesn't have an anti ginger agenda"... This doesn't even describe us as a ginger haired people, but just a colour. This is simply de-humanising.
TO BE CONTINUED... Over word limit for comment.
CONTINUED...
ALSO...
I understand that redheaded people have greater levels of discrimination and prejudice in just the colour description. Here's a short non-definitive list:
"Ginger; Fiery follicles; Gingwot; Duracel; Carrot top; Fireballs; They also have Gingervitis; Carrot head; Rusty; Fire head; Carrot People; Ranga (rang - a); Like an oranutan; Copper cock; Fanta pants; Fire crotch; Ginger pubes; Blood nut; Bluey; Red bull; Cock robbin; Red in the head like a dong on a dog; Fire croch; reda**; Redneck; Freckle features; Good for nothin', but a fetish fantasy's... gingerphillia; Bother me elmos; What's a ranga? An outbreak ape carrying the ginger gene; Walking Dot to Dots; I Cu (Cu being the scientific symbol for copper); Your balls have been Redwalled; Ginga minga; A redheaded mind reader: The gingerist; Match stick; The Fighin Titian, Tits for short; Eric The Red; Ginga Ninja; Ginger Refugee; What's that you said... sounded like ginger gibberish to me; Ketchup Curls; Bunsen Burner; Cheetoo Boy; Ginger nut, Carrot nose, pull the trigggerrr, and OFF it goes!, Your head looks like chris evans (some other redhead celeb) penis; Jaffa boy/girl; Bonnie; Ginger Whinger; Ginger snaps; Did you know ginger is an anagram of "nigger"... and so on."
It is my understanding that blonde hair people are stereotyped as 'unintelligent' not for their colour its self... if that makes sense? I wouldn't dispute that blonde haired people possibly have a greater amount of jokes written about them, but its stereotyping is focused on intelligence not specifically the colour.
This is why I feel 'ginger' is simply offensive.
You made a solid point John. Hope I've cleared up my argument.
Let me get back to you on the community topic... I need a rest for a bit.
Cheers
Wow Ginger god Nate at it again, John doesn't agree with him so he plans to not even acknowledge John in the future, and brandishes him a thread troll. Nate - John opinions are valid whether he has red hair or not. And whether racial, sexual, elitist, demeaning - whatever offense is offense, understand you Ginger god are certainly not more persecuted than anyone else, get off your ego trip this board is providing you and share in the thoughts of overs who take the time to listen to you, listen to them instead of stating you will ignore their opinion for being counter to yours, maybe you'll actually learn something
Also According to Nate - Ginger is simply more offensive because it is specifically about hair color, but jokes making fun of unfounded stereotyped attributes based on being blonde isn't. I'd rather someone made fun of a physical attribute I had rather than them assuming a disability based on one - hmmm Nate your arguments are kind of redundant aren't they?
Anon,
You seem confused... God?
I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO IGNORE WHAT EVER I LIKE.
If somebody continues to badger me with a topic that I have stated I don't wish to comment on. I don't have to answer it... If that person continues to badger me, I have ever right to consider that they are baiting me for aggressive and un-constructive comment.
I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN RACIALISING... I CONSIDER THAT TO BE RACISM.
I have gained from John's comments as he has constructively questioned and criticised mine.
Despite John and my difference of opinion we have found common ground.
John doesn't need to comment if he feels the same way as you. Its clear to see that unlike you John has a critical mind and can read what he likes in to my comments... he can ignore you himself as well.
Bye
Dear john, how unaware are you that ginger as in Ginger Rogers and in the states generally it is only a girls name. The way in which the word is used in the UK it is derogatory. As for the Dr Who thing I'm afraid certain redheads spinning around on planet celeb and in politics are more concerned with gaining popular support with the majority than saving the minds and lives of redheads who do suffer bullying and abuse.
An xmas card saying "Santa loves kids even BLACK kids" would be deemed overtly, blatantly racist. As a minority of colour...what is the difference between BLACKS & REDS? If there is no difference why can you abuse one and not the other? If there is a difference it disproves the 'statement' that we are all the same under the skin. It is not only the way the word is said, it is the tone and the context, which is always derogatory. The deaths of Kelsey (13) & Adam (15) made no difference to the BBC's Have I got news for you covering 'ginger' topics, as a joke, on 2 consecutive weeks in December in which Charles Kennedy ridiculed the idea that Kelsey & Adam were given a hard time but then politicians are not in touch. I see no reason whatsoever to keep bringing someone's hair colour into conversations as though it is relevant to something. I do find the bigoted beeb employees do seem to have some sort of competition at times to see how many times in can say ginger in one conversation. Bigotry, bullying, discriminaion, prejudice whether you want to call it gingerism or racism - it all results in the same thing. Kids deaths. Arguing about the meaning of the word which killed Kelsey & Adam is pretty pointless. Ask how the majority can defend the indefensible by continuing to say Kelsey & Adam's deaths were meaningless jokes. As for Blonde jokes 90% of blondes are not blonde but bleached and that makes a difference to your psychology. Fake redheads have not suffered the schoolyard abuse and even idiots can tell a natural redhead from a fake so fakes neither get, nor feel the abuse. NATE,Please stop repeating that you ain't gonna racialise. Talk about the facts. Talk about the effects. Talk about the regularity of incidents. Keep reminding people kids are dead. It is not a joke.
Anon,
Homophobia and Sexism in many ways result 'in the same thing.' Discrimination and prejudice. It doesn't make those subjected to homophobia or sexism a RACE.
Interestingly enough racism in many ways results 'in the same thing'...
...Oh sorry and in case there is an outside chance you think I'm quoting you out of context... I'll repeat the last line again...
Interestingly enough racism in many ways 'all results in the same thing. Kids deaths.' I'd like to add that racism results in a little more than 'Kids deaths'
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143
I will NOT 'stop repeating that you (I) ain't gonna racialise' the issue.
I'll make you a deal:
I WILL STOP REPEATING THAT IM NOT GOING TO RACIALISE, WHEN YOU STOP RACIALISING AKA BEING RACIST.
There is a massive difference between Gingerism and Racism!
FINAL STATEMENT:
I WILL COMPLETELY IGNORE ANY COMMENT THAT ATTEMPTS TO RACIALISE DISCUSSIONS ON MY POST FROM NOW ON... AS THREAD TROLLS.
RACISTS ARE NO FRIENDS OF MINE... NOR WILL I ASSOCIATE WITH THEM BY ENGAGING IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM WHEN THEY HAVE MADE THEIR AGENDA CLEAR IN ANY COMMENT. (Full Stop)
@Nate (I hope that you don't mind if I refer to you by this name now that this discussion has switched location)
The Guardian's thread has now closed, but I can't allow your last series of extraordinary posts to go unanswered; I thought I was verbose, but you too deserve some sort of award for prolixity. I apologise to anyone who finds it objectionable to continue here an argument that originated elsewhere, but as Nate has referred to that thread here, and continually linked to this site from the Guardian, I don't think it unreasonable.
Where to strike first at that piñata of lunacy you posted?
Well for a start, I wasn't the person trolling, you were. Trolling is deliberately posting provocative or disruptive comments for your own amusement or to promote your own agenda. You were clearly promoting this site; you even took your Guardian log-in identity from the name of this site. You were definitively the troll; my role was more that of the elder Billy Goat Gruff.
You went on:
"Tanarus what do you have on the line that stops you from accepting that gingerism is prevalent in the UK and Australian society."
Exactly the same thing I have on the line in not accepting homoeopathy, spiritualism, 'faith based' arguments, or any other form of irrational nonsense: a fundamental belief in the importance of reason and evidence, as opposed to mere assertion, anecdote and unsubstantiated belief (no matter how sincere).
Your long list of terms of 'gingerist' abuse is just irrelevant, and BTW what on earth is gingerphillia (sic) doing on your list? Is Francophile offensive to the French or Anglophile offensive to the English? No, so why should gingerphile be considered offensive to ginger people?
I doubt there is any conceivable physical characteristic that has not been targeted by a bully at one time or another. By your argument (I use the term loosely) any instance of verbal abuse targeting a characteristic constitutes evidence of an established and pernicious societal prejudice against that characteristic.
By your logic, we are all continually victims of an almost infinite number of 'isms'. Just one silly example (though I could go on indefinitely): I have heard numerous deeply dodgy statements about people whose eyebrows meet in the middle; by your 'logic' that would mean 'monobrowism' exists as a societal problem. Seriously: follow your 'argument' rigorously and everything becomes an 'ism'.
The question is not has anyone, anywhere, ever with unpleasant intent said anything nasty about someone’s red hair, which is all your amusing attempt at a formal argument actually amounts to; if you chose to call that 'gingerism', feel free.
However you should not expect anyone to take seriously the implication that 'gingerism' is in any way equatable to racism or sexism, or that it amounts to a significant social problem. For that you'll need much better arguments, and at least some actual evidence. At the moment, most people are just going to laugh at such claims, and I would say rightly so.
To be taken seriously you need to demonstrate statistically that redheads are peculiarly, disproportionately targeted by such abuse, or that the abuse redheads suffer is peculiarly damaging.
As it stands, it would be giving undue respect to your wholly spurious 'argument' to describe it as specious.
As to your snide ad hominem remarks as to my 'academic training', I have never made any reference to whatever ‘academic training’ I may, or may not, have; I firmly believe that an argument should rest upon its own merits rather than the status of the person advancing it. That said, I’ve never felt the need to run down the ‘academic training’ of anyone else either...
t.b.c.
cont.
You write:
"lets start with definitions and semantics:
"Whilst I admire the directness of GO AWAY as an argument"
GO AWAY is a statement, not an argument. Need I say more. Not a clue."
I'd hoped that it went without saying that my reference to your 'GO AWAY' as an argument was meant humorously as a glib way of parodying the general level of your 'arguments'. Oh well, it seems I overestimated you; who'd have thunk...?
But again, I have to mention that for someone supposedly so concerned about bullying, you do seem to have quite a tendency to indulge in it yourself. Is bullying only offensive to you if it is ‘gingerist’ bullying?
"Every argument in existence makes assumptions... they are called a 'premise'. YOU BULLY BY DENYING THE BULLYING AS STATED..."
I despair. Once again you have missed the point by astronomical units. If you take any questioning of the assumption at the heart of your argument as proof of that assumption (i.e. if you say that denial of ‘gingerism’ is itself ‘gingerism’) then inevitably you are going to see massive amounts of evidence for your argument.
And again you've wholly missed the point of my own account of being beaten up, which was the crucial difference between a cause and a pretext, a distinction that you seem incapable of grasping.
I see that you're now citing Tacitus as evidence of widespread historical prejudice against the redheaded. I have to ask, have you actually read Tacitus or are you just lazily referencing more questionable assertions that you’ve read on-line?
Of course if you quote-mine the entirety of literature for references to red hair you’ll be able to turn up some very questionable statements, but that does not demonstrate any historical prejudice against redheads, let alone that such a prejudice exists today.
I’ve put too much effort into this silly debate already, and to little effect. I demolished (with evidence, and references, note) the silly and incorrect misattribution to Malleus Maleficarum that has spread widely from Wikipedia's Red Hair page, but has anyone bothered to correct it yet. Come on gingerism.com, surely someone there is capable of editing a Wikipedia entry. If you're really interested in defending the reputation of redheads, such slander cannot be allowed to stand!
I can't be bothered to research or re-read Tacitus right now, but as I remember it, his references to red hair were mostly to it being an identifying characteristic of the German tribes. They have nothing whatsoever to do with a prejudice against Redheads, but everything to do with the Roman prejudice against anything non-Roman (or to anticipate pedantry, let's say non-Graeco-Roman). Once again: historical context matters. Try to look beyond your own prejudice.
Do you know the old joke about the troubled man who goes to a psychiatrist for a diagnosis? The doctor breaks out the Rorschach test and tells his patient to look at each card and say what it reminds him of. On being shown the first ink blot the patient pauses for a moment and says “sex”; the doctor thinks this a little odd, but proffers the next card, to which the patient again replies “sex”. The doctor now somewhat suspiciously presents the third card, and as he expects, once again hears the patient say that it makes him think of sex. “Well” says the doctor, “this is perfectly simple; you’re a sex maniac.” “Me!” replies the patient, indignantly “A sex maniac! You’re the one with all the dirty pictures.”
It is your own obsessive prejudice that you perceive wherever you look.
t.b.c.
cont.
Obviously I understand that assault statistics "are based on Age, Race and Gender, not hair colour." That is precisely why I suggested that you, or gingerism.com, raise money to fund a study that would collate statistics with relation to hair colour. UK universities are currently undergoing a funding crisis so I'm sure that many well qualified people in respected sociology departments will compete for any funding that you can offer them. If redheaded people's experience of 'gingerism' is really as terrible as you insist then it shouldn't be difficult for you to raise a few grand to fund such a study.
If well-conducted studies provide actual, reliable, replicable evidence that redheads are disproportionately subject to violence, or are discriminated against in the job market, or in any other significant sector of life, then I'll be absolutely on your side in this debate, as I firmly believe almost everybody would be. It would be outrageous and offensive, but currently, I see no evidence that supports the suggestion, and I refuse to give credence to any implausible statement that is not supported by evidence.
I have to say, I'd be astonished if you do anything as sensible and practical as raise money to fund such a study, as I don't believe that you are in any way interested in evidence, only in fostering a trivial and imaginary grievance.
You closed with: "Sorry Tanarus if because of me you cant be in the 'trenches' with us redheads because I'm an a**hole in the way i express my views... got to say... didn't know we were at war."
Again you distort my statement by disingenuously ignoring that it was conditional (or are you telling me you didn’t notice that ‘if’). Clearly I was taking the argument advanced by some to an absurd extreme, but as others in the thread had already been so crass and contemptible as to seriously compare 'gingerism' to the prejudice against Jews that led to the Nazi’s 'final solution', I do not think that it was I who introduced such absurdity to the debate.
(BTW, the Guardian’s community standards are fairly robust, if you ever return, you needn’t bowdlerize expletives like that.)
I keep trying to leave this discussion, but you're making it difficult for me to do so. You have definitively lost this argument already, and I'm sure that at some level you are aware of the fact, which I suspect is why the tone of your postings became so hectoring and abusive and your debating technique become so dishonourable.
As you seem to have some relation to this site I'm rather curious as to whether these three comments will even be allowed to remain, but I thought I'd see if gingerism.com is actually interested in debate. If you choose not to respond to this posting I shall make this my last word on the subject, and probably never again post at gingerism.com. Unless of course you do conduct or fund some actual worthwhile research, the results of which I would be most interested to read. I won't be holding my breath though...
toodle-pip,
Tanarus
P.S. I think my favourite thing anyone has ever said about redheads is that “While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats.” I’m sure you’ll be outraged by that disgraceful piece of ‘gingerism’, but I’ve always loved it, as has every (OK, almost every) redheaded woman to whom I’ve ever said it. I can’t imagine it was ever intended to be offensive, after all Mark Twain was rather feline himself wasn’t he. Cheers for the line Mark.
Tanarus,
"Elder Billy Goat Gruff"... lol... :-)
Just got to that point in the convo... had to comment.
AND...
We have a different definition of troll... also it is a new word. :-p
Ill continue to read.
"Exactly the same thing I have on the line in not accepting homoeopathy, spiritualism, 'faith based' arguments, or any other form of irrational nonsense: a fundamental belief in the importance of reason and evidence, as opposed to mere assertion, anecdote and unsubstantiated belief (no matter how sincere)."
This I admire and respect completely. I am thriving on the chance to continue this convo...
I'll continue reading...
Tanarus,
"As to your snide ad hominem remarks as to my 'academic training', I have never made any reference to whatever ‘academic training’ I may, or may not, have; I firmly believe that an argument should rest upon its own merits rather than the status of the person advancing it. That said, I’ve never felt the need to run down the ‘academic training’ of anyone else either..."
I apologise for what are snide remarks on the academic training. Its a comment directed at someone I thought at the time to be a complete troll... from someone frustrated at the denial of what is a growing problem in the UK and Australia.
Ill Make you a deal... I'll stop being snide if you start addressing the arguments being made... i.e. not getting hung up on things like a wikipedia entry, everyone is aware by now of the reliability of wikipedia information.
We need to start again...
FIRSTLY, Lets agree on definitions of discrimination, prejudice and bully or bullying.
BULLY
• noun (pl. bullies) a person who deliberately intimidates or persecutes those who are weaker.
• verb (bullies, bullied) intimidate.
www.askoxford.com
DISCRIMINATION
• noun 1 the action of discriminating against people. 2 recognition of the difference between one thing and another. 3 good judgement or taste.
www.askoxford.com
PREJUDICE
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis. 3 chiefly Law harm that may result from some action or judgement.
• verb 1 give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased. 2 chiefly Law cause harm to (a state of affairs).
www.askoxford.com
-ISM
• suffix forming nouns: 1 denoting an action or its result: baptism. 2 denoting a state or quality: barbarism. 3 denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement: Anglicanism. 4 denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination: racism. 5 denoting a peculiarity in language: colloquialism. 6 denoting a pathological condition: alcoholism.
www.askoxford.com
Would you agree with these definitions? If not, What do you disagree with?
ALSO...
DEHUMANIZE
(also dehumanise)
• verb deprive of positive human qualities.
www.askoxford.com
OBJECTIFY
• verb (objectifies, objectified) 1 express (something abstract) in a concrete form. 2 degrade to the status of an object.
www.askoxford.com
Consider the argument stated below...
PREMISE ONE:
To dehumanise or objectify a PERSON based on a particular physical feature is prejudicial and/or discriminatory.
PREMISE TWO:
If a redhead is dehumanised or objectified based on their red hair it is called 'gingerism'.
PREMISE THREE:
The list above are words that dehumanise and objectify specifically against redheads and only redheads.
CONCLUSION:
Gingerism occurs when a redhead is dehumanised and objectified by the words in the list above being used to describe them.
Do you agree or disagree with any of the premises or the conclusion? If you disagree, then why?
This is an appropriate starting point... for an argumentative debate.
Sorry the list of words as stated as being above in the last comment:
Ginger; Fiery follicles; Gingwot; Duracel; Carrot top; Fireballs; They also have Gingervitis; Carrot head; Rusty; Fire head; Carrot People; Ranga (rang - a); Like an oranutan; Copper cock; Fanta pants; Fire crotch; Night walkers; Daywalkers; Ginger pubes; Blood nut; Bluey; Red bull; Cock robbin; Red in the head like a dong on a dog; Fire croch; reda**; Redneck; Soul-less bastards; Menstral breath; Freckle features; Good for nothin', but a fetish fantasy's... gingerphillia; Bother me elmos; What's a ranga? An outbreak ape carrying the ginger gene; Walking Dot to Dots; I Cu (Cu being the scientific symbol for copper); Your balls have been Redwalled; Ginga minga; A redheaded mind reader: The gingerist; Match stick; The Fighin Titian, Tits for short; Eric The Red; Ginga Ninja; Ginger Refugee; What's that you said... sounded like ginger gibberish to me; Ketchup Curls; Bunsen Burner; Cheetoo Boy; "I just saw that Harry Potter film. A bit unrealistic if you ask me. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? "; Ginger nut, Carrot nose, pull the trigggerrr, and OFF it goes!, Your head looks like chris evans (some other redhead celeb) penis; Jaffa boy/girl; Bonnie; Ginger Whinger; Ginger snaps; Did you know ginger is an anagram of "nigger"... and so on.
Tanarus thank you for a well constructed logical point of view. Nate thank you again for amusing me for your complete lack of one and just another laundry list of definitions. Stop deconstructing every little point and have an actual original one of your own!
Don't Feed the Trolls... breathe... don't feed the trolls... (open eyes)
Actually... ALL NON RACIST 'THREAD TROLLS' WELCOME...
WHY?
Because on this site you only act as a voice of the same kind of ignorance that redheads face everyday... This site is about documenting gingerism after all, so lets hear some more of it.
Anon,
I'm glad you enjoyed the 'laundry list', its ok to laugh at them when its written up by a redhead.
Go on son, have a crack at the outline starting point for the argumentative debate.
I only repeat the same message as other minority groups repeat... MINORITY DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG... Your thread troll throw away line about being 'original' is redundant and completely pointless.
You also don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'deconstructing'.
I have set an argument its up to Tanarus or yourself to deconstruct it... go on have a crack!
Anon,
Didn't think you were willing to have a crack!
Are you asking me to have a crack? Cause that would of required the use of a question mark, not an exclimation point! Also any expectation of appropriate response would require more time than within the same minute you posted your challenge. But as you would say first me define the parameters - what do you define as a crack, the oxford definition, wikipedia or some other societal colloquialism. We can't even begin to eximine the issues if we aren't even using the same language as you continue to remind us. As for your argument, that minorities get bullied - new and interesting one there!
Tanarus,
Hair, skin and eyes are influenced by the same proteins that determine their colour, and hair is modified skin. Now to me, it seems logical that if skin colour is a part of my racial identity, then so are the colours of my eyes and hair.
If a part of my racial identity is being abused, then would you agree this is a racially motivated attack on a part of my racial identity?
If not, is a person from China being verbally attacked over the shape of their eyes racially motivated? Is the hair texture of the average person from Africa a part of their racial identity?
Anon,
CRACK
"break with little or no separation of the parts"
www.askoxford
To put 'have a crack' in context follow the example below:
I have given you an argument...
"PREMISE ONE:
To dehumanise or objectify a PERSON based on a particular physical feature is prejudicial and/or discriminatory.
PREMISE TWO:
If a redhead is dehumanised or objectified based on their red hair it is called 'gingerism'.
PREMISE THREE:
The list above are words that dehumanise and objectify specifically against redheads and only redheads.
CONCLUSION:
Gingerism occurs when a redhead is dehumanised and objectified by the words in the list above being used to describe them."
Now with little or no separation of the argument structure or parts... debate the/a premise/s and conclusion, as I have stated...
"Do you agree or disagree with any of the premises or the conclusion? If you disagree, then why?
This is an appropriate starting point... for an argumentative debate."
ADDITIONALLY...
If you disagree with the 'laundry list' of definitions used to further define the meaning of the words written within the premise/s and conclusion I have written then, as I have stated...
"Would you agree with these definitions? If not, What do you disagree with?"
...please give me your understanding or further definitions of the words I've used so I we can gain grounding to discuss our differences of opinion (debate) or simply debate my premises and conclusion.
For someone who feels they are enough of an authority to brand one point of view a 'well constructed logical point of view' and the other side not... you seem to understand very little about logic.
Anon & Tanarus,
Additionally, I'm aware of the structure of the argument having different inferences than you may like... but in the interest of debate... I have put forward a basic argument.
Feel free to put forward your own 'on topic' argument and I'll debate that. Put it in a similar format... so we don't go on and on in circles over semantics.
FOR 'ON TOPIC' Please refer to my disgust at the BBC apology, which is the post for this comment page.
Your stupidity continues to amaze me. The definition you provided of crack has no bearing on the context you are using it in. Again no one is arguing that red heads get victimised over having red hair, but as tanarus points out no greater statistically than any other group bullied for any other issue, and as John points out with an excellent argument the same as any other race. Stop regurgitating your own bullshit, no one is buying your university style arguments that are totally one sided, actually respond to other peoples points of views.... I think tanarus has you where she says you lost your argument and yes you know this...... Very sad! And if your going to keep falling back on definitions learn their context! Don't just mention them as fact - poor form Ginger god!
I admit I have stretched the meaning of the word 'crack' in the post where I quoted a definition... only because you refuse to recognise the most basic of colloquialism's the first time I used the word 'crack'... but I have made myself clear to you my meaning.
The argument I present and its format are far from university or any academic style... To start with I have miss labeled some of the premises in the interest of keeping it simple... and at university nobody would need to label the argument in this manner to discuss the basic premises and conclusion... people are aware of how easy it is to do to any argument what Tanarus is attempting to do to mine... and Tanarus is doing a bad job at it, at that.
And since I have a lack of response from Tanarus, I'll pull apart his past comments for any real arguments... pulling apart is not a difficult thing for anyone to do, building and defending an argument on the other hand is usually more difficult. Not so in this case... as your and Tanarus's responses are ludicrous.
BUT however even you Anon have been able to pull from Tanarus's ramblings one of his many basic arguments... which incidentally he denies exist as simply 'demolishing evidence'... You Anon, can add that denial to the denial of the existence and the prevalence of gingerism in wider UK and Australian society.
I'll give you Anon the same kind of BS argument that Tanarus gives me...
You Anon state:
"Again no one is arguing that red heads get victimised over having red hair, but as tanarus points out no greater statistically than any other group bullied"
A Tanarus styled argument would run along the lines of...
So Anon you admit that gingerism is a prevalent in society as sexism and racism?
This is not argument is it?... this is simply Trolling (Like your comments) and total BS.
I am only responding to yours and Tanarus's comment to experiment with different strategies to deal with trolls as I would with those that discriminate and are prejudice against redheads and other minority groups.
I'll continue in my next comment to pull any argument I can from Tanaru's comments and push on...
Tanarus,
“I doubt there is any conceivable physical characteristic that has not been targeted by a bully at one time or another.”
Ok Tanarus the definition of a bully is to 'intimidate', when a bully begins to pick on a specific physical characteristic it becomes 'discrimination or prejudice'.
Tanarus,
“By your argument (I use the term loosely) any instance of verbal abuse targeting a characteristic constitutes evidence of an established and pernicious societal prejudice against that characteristic.”
Can I pause and record every moment in time a redhead has been called one of the names in the list I have provided, no of course not. Can I site the 'prejudice and discrimination' in the media, yes. This website is dedicated to just that! Although I have yet to establish an argument of 'societal prejudice' of red hair, there is plenty of evidence on this website alone.
Tanarus,
“By your logic, we are all continually victims of an almost infinite number of 'isms'.”
If by this you mean that if any other person feels prejudice and discrimination they can give a word to the prejudice and discrimination they are subjected to, then yes a person who unfairly discriminates and is prejudical is a 'victim of an almost infinite number of isms'... A person like yourself who seems like the sort of person that would of called any number of people 'PC Thugs' in your time must be very scared... Have you seen 'Revenge of the Nerds'?
Tanarus,
“However you should not expect anyone to take seriously the implication that 'gingerism' is in any way equatable to racism or sexism, or that it amounts to a significant social problem.”
I have made it clear how significant a social problem I expect anyone to take it. Both on the Guardian article comments to you and on this website under the comments of the post: '2010 Another year, Another Decade of Racist Bigotry'.
Tanarus,
“At the moment, most people are just going to laugh at such claims, and I would say rightly so.”
If a person like yourself attempts to present 'racism' as equally significant to 'sexism' most reasonable people wouldn't take you seriously either. The two 'ism' are vastly different. I am not comparing 'gingerism' to racism, sexism or homophobia... you are! And your continual attempts to do so... can be and are by me to be considered to be 'bullying' or in terms you are more likely to understand... are an attempt to silence or intimidate those who have and are victimised by gingerists as the problem, not those who are discriminatory or prejudicial towards redheads.
Tanarus,
“To be taken seriously you need to demonstrate statistically that redheads are peculiarly, disproportionately targeted by such abuse, or that the abuse redheads suffer is peculiarly damaging.”
This line here is partly valuable advice. I do object to the idea that statistics are the only form of evidence of discrimination and prejudice. I am currently taking it upon my self to do preliminary research on this very topic as I have stated in my by-line at the end of my last few posts on gingerism.com.
Tanarus,
“As it stands, it would be giving undue respect to your wholly spurious 'argument' to describe it as specious.”
I respect your hard line purely academic point here. But a few things... a) you were writing on a comments page for a humorous article. b) you are denying a lot of evidence to call the argument spurious c) you write to undermine the structure of an argument, not the argument itself d) you cling to the idea that discrimination and prejudice need a history or its a specious argument... Which I still maintain that it does have a history. e) you are not treating my argument with the respect it deserves by casting aspersions that my argument relates to some wikipedia page you harp on about or that I somehow relate gingerism to other types of discrimination... ie sexism and racism.
Tanarus,
“I can't be bothered to research or re-read Tacitus right now, but as I remember it, his references to red hair were mostly to it being an identifying characteristic of the German tribes. They have nothing whatsoever to do with a prejudice against Redheads, but everything to do with the Roman prejudice against anything non-Roman (or to anticipate pedantry, let's say non-Graeco-Roman). Once again: historical context matters. Try to look beyond your own prejudice.”
To comment on your lazy research isn't need, right? Tacitus identifies the 'Germanic' not 'German' nations as a race of redheads. I also do kind of object to the idea that because the Roman's held prejudice and racialised against all non-romans that you see it fit to remove redheads from the Romans own racialisation because it suits your argument. Try to look beyond your own prejudice.
With your line of reasoning Tanarus a person could deny that the Nazi's were not also prejudicial towards Jehovah's witnesses and homosexuals during the holocaust because they only hated everyone that opposed Nazi ideals. Again I will make this clear that I DO NOT equate gingerism to the holocaust, I only question Tanarus's reasoning.
Tanarus,
“Obviously I understand that assault statistics "are based on Age, Race and Gender, not hair colour." That is precisely why I suggested that you, or gingerism.com, raise money to fund a study that would collate statistics with relation to hair colour.”
What the web developer decides to do with the money earnt from this website is his business... I'm fairly sure a large chunk of it goes to the 'Wishling' charity he set up. Anyway, I plan to do the research myself and when I start my own website maybe I'll take this advice into account then.
Tanarus,
“If well-conducted studies provide actual, reliable, replicable evidence that redheads are disproportionately subject to violence, or are discriminated against in the job market, or in any other significant sector of life, then I'll be absolutely on your side in this debate, as I firmly believe almost everybody would be. It would be outrageous and offensive, but currently, I see no evidence that supports the suggestion, and I refuse to give credence to any implausible statement that is not supported by evidence.”
Awareness of redhead discrimination will come first, followed by the research and then recognition of that research, one day hopefully there will be legislation across the UK and Australia similar to that which is in Victoria, Australia.... CHECK IT OUT... Its the only real protection against 'an almost infinite number of 'isms'.
http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/home.asp
I'm glad that your not close minded enough that youll one day be 'on your (my) side in this debate', but consider instead of going so aggressively against me in the debate... how about joining the 'side of the debate' that say 'ALL DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE IS WRONG' and there is growing evidence that the minority group of redhead are being targeted by those who are discriminatory and prejudicial... and it is worth a closer look.
Tanarus your writing reads that you totally deny any discrimination and prejudice against redheads and mostly oppose the idea of an anti-gingerist movement, as laughable. Check yourself did you laugh at that line 'anti-gingerist movement'... Ask yourself how far does your own prejudice go?
Tanarus,
P.S.
Personally, I laughed at the line 'anti-gingerist movement', its ludicrous it has to be used in a sentence and its sad that it even makes sense in a sentence.
I can't stand the discrimination and prejudice I have faced because of my hair colour and I cant stand that many others feel discrimination and prejudice similar and/or different or on varying levels to the discrimination and prejudice I have felt.
I am not female.
I am not homosexual.
I am not considered to be apart of a separate race. (Although I have been HISTORICALLY)
I am apart of a privileged socio-cultural heritage... Call it 'Anglo-Celtic' and English is my first language.
I am also of a working class background.
ALSO...
I am a redhead... I am discriminated against and treated with prejudice by many for my red hair.
I am adding to the minority voices of many that ALL say DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE IS WRONG.
Where has Anon gone?
Where could Anon be?
Hmmmmmmmmm
Tanarus,
Here is a better link to the Australian, Victorian State Government policy on physical features discrimination.
http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/types%20of%20discrimination/physical%20features/default.asp
Cheers
Anon is gone, like Masada and tanarus and others that Nate is isolating, I can't subject my free time to responding to Nates ridiculous rants. His goating me to response is evident he is nothing but the thread troll he claims to be. He ignores others comments, disowns those that don't agree with him and is responding so frequently those with lives find it very hard to keep up. If stroking your ego online gets you hard Nate then by all means enjoy yourself. Otherwise maybe stop crying and actually enjoy life - tanarus may have a point about your paranoid delusions, the whole world out ain't to get you... Maybe one day you'll see that and not shout the devil everytime you hear the word Ginger. I for one don't give a toss so I promise you online this is the last time you will hear from me
Lol...
Knew you wouldn't have a crack!
Bye Troll
THREAD TROLL
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the ***PRIMARY*** intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
Anyone who complains to the BBC about this is an absolute nonce. Get over it and lighten up. You take yourselves far too seriously.
@Nate
Hello again.
I don't intend to devote much more time to this issue, but I'm prepared to have one more try. I'll check in to this blog again in a few days time to see if you have responded in an interesting way, but unless you raise your game substantially, I think that I am done here.
Firstly, I would never describe anyone as a 'PC thug'. As it happens I'm all for a little political correctness; I think Iain Banks put it best when he had one of his characters say "political correctness is how right wing bigots refer to what the rest of us call being polite." (or some such, I quote from memory; the line is from Dead Air) In general life, I think that there is something of a deficit of politeness; we could all do to be more polite to one another, but we should not be polite about bad arguments, or allow good manners to prevent us from indulging in vigorous and forceful debate. However, by claiming that 'ginger' is a derogatory word that is offensive to redheads you are precisely the sort of person who brings political correctness into disrepute.
@Nate
quote: "Ill Make you a deal... I'll stop being snide if you start addressing the arguments being made"
Done!
But I'm afraid my addressing the 'argument' you laid out is going to take some time, and is probably going to sound both patronising and dismissive, so you're going to have to bear with me. I don't intend to subject you to a lecture, but I have to question your understanding of both the form and function of formal deductive arguments, as I believe that is what you are attempting. I'll try to do this without reference to any technical terminology.
Firstly, you need to understand that formal deductive reasoning is hugely limited; ultimately it can never do anything more than restate its premises in a different form (cf. inductive or ampliative reasoning: greater utility, but less certainty: oh well such is life). This is not nothing; as in maths, where a great deal of effort is often exerted merely rendering an equation into a form more amenable to calculation, that different form may very well be a more useful form than the manner in which the premises were originally expressed, it may even 'reveal' something that was present, but not obvious in the original premises, but it can never expand upon what was contained in those original premises. Formal logic, like mathematics is a system of coherence; it is overwhelmingly difficult to make it apply to complex arguments as to contentious real world issues. It is a theoretical rather than an empirical science.
An understanding of formal deductive logic is practically useful in exposing the spurious claims made for certain arguments in the political or social sphere, but except as regards to avoiding obvious pitfalls, it is never much help in constructing persuasive political or social arguments. It would be pleasing if subjects of political controversy could be solved by recourse to deductive reasoning, if the validity of one side's argument could be conclusively demonstrated, but they never can be; if they could be there wouldn't be such a thing as political controversy, would there? In fact, there would be no such thing as politics.
Addressing the content of your argument: even accepting the limitations of formal deductive logic you have failed to advance your argument at all. All you have done is state a position, and attach a tag to it; for that you need not have gone to such lengths. 'Gingerism' is a neologism and as such you can use it however you like until it acquires a recognised definition. I'm prepared to bet that there are other communities out there right now that are using 'gingerism' to mean a sexual fetish for the ginger haired and until one version of the word achieves a broad social acceptance, you both have the right to use it however you wish.
tbc
cont
Going back to my earlier point, I could pick any physical characteristic, define an 'ism' related to it, compile a list of offensive words or statements that have been used about that characteristic, and through substitution apply your argument perfectly to 'demonstrate' the existence of that 'ism', but all I would have done was provide a definition. Such an argument establishes absolutely nothing about matters in the real world.
Similarly I could completely invert your argument. Imagine that I have compiled a list of numerous flattering or complimentary remarks made about those with red head, a list that could be quite as extensive as your list of derogatory terms. I could state that to praise, venerate or hold as superior a person based on a particular physical feature constitutes a positive discrimination in favour of people possessing that characteristic and is prejudicial in favour of those who possess it: an inversion of your premise 1. I could then choose to use the term 'gingerism' to mean 'the praise, veneration and belief in the superiority of redheads on the basis of their hair colour:' an inversion of your premise 2. I could cite my list of complimentary phrases as instances of praise, veneration, or belief in the superiority, of redheads as a specific group: inverting your premise 3. Thus I would be entitled to 'conclude' that "Gingerism occurs when a redhead is praised, venerated or held to be superior by the words or phrases in my list being used to describe them," (inverting your conclusion). But what would I have proved? Nothing. All I would have done is offer a definition of my use of the term 'gingerism', as all you have done is offer a definition of your understanding of the term. Neither 'argument' amounts to asserting anything much at all about the actual existence of prejudice either against or in favour of redheads. Note that the internal 'logic' of each 'argument' is exactly the same, you cannot hold that yours demonstrates anything without accepting that my glib inversion of it demonstrates the exact opposite; neither demonstrates anything, other than that you are out of your depth when you venture into the realm of logic.
To make claims about the real world you need evidence from that world, and I'm afraid that that does mean statistics, which have to be researched. This is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, but necessary to advance the case that you are trying to make. Well sourced statistics are ultimately the only truly convincing argument in such debates, everything else is just opinion and anecdote, that can do no more than suggest that it may be worth investing some time and money in researching the subject. Personally, I remain to be persuaded that it is likely to be a worthwhile investment, but if you disagree, feel free to go ahead and spend your time and/or money on such a study.
My real problem with your argument isn't that it is ill conceived; it is that it is dishonest. Elsewhere you use 'gingerism' to refer to a widespread and damaging societal prejudice against those with red hair (I could reference some of your quotes, but I hope that isn't necessary) that is so pernicious that it requires both legislation and re-definition of language (i.e. that a perfectly good word like ginger should be re-categorised as derogatory and abandoned by civilised society), whereas here, where you claim to logically demonstrate 'gingerism' (leaving aside that you have done no such thing) all 'gingerism' means is "a redhead is dehumanised and objectified by the words in the list above being used to describe them." Which amounts to no more than saying that on occasion some people have maliciously said some fairly unpleasant things about people with red hair. I hope that you can see, and would accept, how that is fundamentally dishonest.
Sorry, I hope that doesn't come across as preachy or insufferably smug; I am just trying to be clear.
@Nate
re: Tacitus
Making laughable distinctions between 'German' and 'Germanic' is just making yourself look foolish; we're dealing with translations from the Latin here remember; either adjective is fine.
But, getting to the substantive point, as I said, the Romans were prejudiced against anything non-Roman, including the German tribes, who happened (in the minds of such Romans as Tacitus) to be characterised by their all having reddish hair. To claim that this demonstrates prejudice against red hair is wilfully silly. You completely mischaracterize my argument (whether dishonestly or foolishly I am past caring), with that odd and irrelevant comparison to the Nazis; in your terms, my argument would have been that a Nazi's problem with a red haired Jehovah's Witness or homosexual would not have had anything to do with their red hair, nor would it demonstrate a Nazi prejudice against red hair. But as you've provided such a comparison, so shall I: your argument that the Roman prejudice against the German 'barbarians' was in any way due to their red hair is rather like claiming that the Nazis' problem with the Jews was really indicative of a prejudice against big noses (to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that Jewish people do have unusually large noses; I'm using that point of comparison precisely because it is no less mad than Tacitus' assertion that all German barbarians were redhaired).
Actually, the Romans (even Tacitus) didn't think that badly of the German tribes by the standards of barbarians. Though they continually ran them down in what are basically works of propaganda, they devoted a good proportion of their collective effort to keeping them at bay, and certainly had a respect for their ferocity and military prowess. Despite the Romans' sense of racial superiority their relationship with the German tribes was complicated; they certainly feared them. As ever with such texts, The Germania is more about those to whom it is addressed than those about whom it is ostensibly written. Though he probably had no experience of the German tribes Tacitus' text is often read as a warning of their ability to destroy Rome if Rome allows itself to become (even more) decadent. Therefore if you want to indulge in silly arguments, you could equally well claim that his work demonstrates a respect for and admiration of red hair.
Your blindness to historical context renders argument about such topics pointless. I note that you didn't actually answer the question so I can't resist restating it: have you actually read Tacitus or are you merely repeating dodgy statements you've read on-line. As you have yourself noted, t'interweb isn't always wholly reliable, though actually I think Wikipedia is actually remarkably accurate with regard to most subjects, though obviously less so with regard to things that some folk get pleasure from mischievously editing, such as the entries for celebs (understandably). Which is why that Wikipedia reference to Malleus Maleficarum annoys me, because it is clearly and demonstrably wrong (and is I think is the only thing I have claimed to have 'demolished' by the way: you're misrepresenting me again). Now if you were serious about prejudice against redheads I think it would annoy you too, as there may be a (I hope very) small number of people who, like Summers himself, still think that contemptible book and its endorsement by the Church has authority. If, on the other hand, you are only interested in seeking evidence for the existence of such prejudice, not in refuting and exposing such 'evidence' then it's actually quite handy to have that supposed 15th century instance to point to isn't it?
The misattribution certainly seems to have spread far and wide. I may have it corrected myself at some point, but I thought that I would give you, and gingerism.com, a chance to correct it yourselves first, as a test of your honesty and good faith as it were.
@Nate
Finally, you have written that the Guardian article could be useful in helping to spread awareness of 'gingerism' (whether as a phenomenon or a term I'm unsure). In which case I have to say you did a great job in ensuring that it was prematurely closed down. I can't say for sure, but personally have no doubt that the reason that thread closed so quickly was that a single belligerent monomaniac had attempted to monopolise the thread by posting huge numbers of long, badly written and barely coherent comments that did little more than promote a third party website and which were of so little interest to anyone else that he had effectively driven everyone else away from what had become a tedious and unpleasant debate. I have only continued this discussion because I hate to see a debate abandoned to the person that shouts the loudest.
I would not be at all surprised if there are intelligent, rational, articulate and engaging people who believe that prejudice against the ginger haired is a significant problem, and who can make the case fairly plausibly. You sir, are not one of them. Whether 'gingerism' as you understand it exists or not, you do enormous damage to your cause by promoting it as you do. If you really wish to see 'gingerism' recognised as a real problem, the best thing that you personally can do is cease claiming to represent the oppressed redhead minority, and leave advocacy of your cause to those better qualified for the role.
Needless to say, your attitude also renders you the least qualified person to conduct any research into the issue; be fair, you are hardly impartial are you? If you seriously want to make a contribution, I return to my suggestion that you should set about raising money to fund a study that is properly conducted by qualified and disinterested authorities.
You are clearly an angry and unhappy young man; whether or not you have good reason to be I cannot say, but regardless, I feel some genuine compassion for you. I have no idea what happened to you that left you feeling so persecuted, but whatever it was, I would urge you, for your own sake, to do all you can to put it behind you. If you focus continuously on your grievance it will come to define you, and poisoning your relationship with the world, perhaps even destroy you. That would be a sad fate for anyone.
Tanarus I really like how you've written a logical illustrated response in every day language - regardless of who is right or wrong or whatever point of view, it's nice to read such thought provoking comments on a blog. This argument is tiring and the insults are boring but your writing is worth the read, thankyou!
Tanarus,
I will not reply to your comments until you apologies to Jewish people for perpetuating this stereotype or reference where the prejudicial comment originated, so that you are stating the comment as someone else's stated opinion...
The offending paragraph...
“German 'barbarians' was in any way due to their red hair is rather like claiming that the Nazis' problem with the Jews was really indicative of a prejudice against big noses (to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that Jewish people do have unusually large noses; I'm using that point of comparison precisely because it is no less mad than Tacitus' assertion that all German barbarians were redhaired).”
…References I have made of other minority group have been referenced as facts or another person's stated facts within a premises in an argument not used as comparative stereotypical inference, which could be seen as racist or anti-Semitic.
Again... You are not referencing or stating a fact as a premise... the line about 'Jewish people' having 'unusually large noses' could be seen as perpetuating a stereotype...
“Anyone who cannot see this fundamental distinction is a moral cripple.” (Tanarus, 8 Jan 2010, 2:10AM)
I hope you apologies... I have already written a response to your comments, up to the referenced point.
I receive emails from white separatist groups and refuse to even let a 'possible' offensive line go without comment.
Cheers
I have committed myself to ignoring comments with RACIALISATIONS within the comment.
I am requesting you clear this line up... as I am sure you actually intend no potential offense to Jewish people.
I repeat comments made in this post thread:
"I receive emails from white separatist groups and refuse to even let a 'possible' offensive line go without comment."
"FINAL STATEMENT:
I WILL COMPLETELY IGNORE ANY COMMENT THAT ATTEMPTS TO RACIALISE DISCUSSIONS ON MY POST FROM NOW ON... AS THREAD TROLLS.
RACISTS ARE NO FRIENDS OF MINE... NOR WILL I ASSOCIATE WITH THEM BY ENGAGING IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM WHEN THEY HAVE MADE THEIR AGENDA CLEAR IN ANY COMMENT. (Full Stop)"
Cheers
Tanarus,
I hope you can apologies...
I am gaining more incite and refining my own understanding while in discourse with yourself than any other comments I have ever received on gingerism.com.
Hope you can respect my position.
Cheers
I think you should stop saying your not going to racialise.
What I objects to is Tanarus's 'Middle-class' assertion and wrongful assumption that because the discrimination of us ginga's is not know as yet to reach the 'level' of institutionalised discrimination that its not worth studying, giving a name to, or legislating against...
Its a highly objectionable assumption and its all that Tanarus's argument amount to...An assertion of a middle class definition of discrimination and prejudice as only institutionalised.
Working-class ginga Dogg Out!
After taking Dogg's points into consideration I have changed my stated position and will post my response, with my objection noted.
Cheers
Tanarus,
Firstly, I knew you'd enjoy the line about people who called others 'pc thugs' would be scared of 'isms'... Meant not so much a snide remark, but more as banter... don't tell me you didn't notice the word 'seems'... enjoyed your response. However...
“...by claiming that 'ginger' is a derogatory word that is offensive to redheads you are precisely the sort of person who brings political correctness into disrepute.”
…a few comments on this:
Firstly, Tanarus the word 'ginger' is definitely offensive to a great number of redheads. I can cite you examples if you like, but I'd rather spend the time thinking about and discussing the arguments you've made that I can't knock for a triple home run and then still have you deny the evidence and testimonials of many redheads... but I will start putting a list together and going back through the already bookmarked blogs... This will make good practice, thanks for the heads up.
Secondly, your writing on gingerism.com, and as far as hard-lines go for gingerism... 'ginger' is 100% offensive as it reduces a person with red hair to a colour... and a description not of the red head minorities choosing.
Thirdly, I object to your statements “that a perfectly good word like ginger should be re-categorised as derogatory and abandoned by civilised society.”... This is in fact your statement not mine. In no way have I stated that the word 'ginger' should be abandoned by 'civilised society'... it should only be abandoned in use to describe a redhead... Your argument is fundamentally dishonest.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
Your spill on deductive arguments goes against what you agreed to...
quote: “quote: "Ill Make you a deal... I'll stop being snide if you start addressing the arguments being made"
Done!”
I hope you can see how you have broken an agreement and I hope you can see this as dishonest.
However you push the structure...
I understand formal deductive reasoning to be used to discovery the validity of an argument... your spill about deductive reasoning is welcome, but un-necessary. Understand I stated my position or definition as a complex argument (you can still reduce each of the four premises to varying two premises simple arguments... the argument can look to be written by someone ignorant of argument structure... until you start to attempt to study the arguments structure... something I am attempting to stop yourself from achieving... you'll find using any two premises to create the conclusion implies my definition every which way... at least I hope... but I may have failed at that, let me know... Don't spend to much time on it, remember its meant to be a structural head f***) against your reasoning in the Guardian blog that I couldn't see as even valid... but still written in a convincing way... Let me cast your mind back for context...
“In short, if they weren't bullied for being ginger, they'd be bullied for some other reason. Bullying is the problem, not 'gingerism'.
The three articles linked to by CaressOfSteel (7 Jan 2010, 11:43PM & 8 Jan 2010, 1:29AM) are good illustrations of this; does anyone really believe that the ginger hair of the victims was in any meaningful sense the cause of the bullying, assault, or persecution, as opposed to simply being sufficient pretext for those who were determined to find something upon which to focus their thuggishness?”
(Tanarus, 8 Jan 2010, 2:10AM @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/07/ginger-fringe-doctor-who?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments)
I struggle to see a valid argument in this... I have tried checking the validity of your 'SIMPLE' argument Tanarus... This is the best I could come up with:
PREMISE ONE
“If they were not bullied for being ginger, they'd be bullied for some other reason.”
PREMISE TWO
“(ginger hair) simply being sufficient pretext for those who were determined (bully's) to find something upon which to focus their thuggishness.”
CONCLUSION
Therefore, recognising discrimination and prejudice against redheads makes you a moral cripple.
“Anyone who cannot see this fundamental distinction is a moral cripple.” (Tanarus, 8 Jan 2010, 2:10AM)
It doesn't seem valid... and its honestly seems how your argument appears.
Tanarus can you please give me your argument as to why you see that redhead discrimination is not worth addressing? Or maybe this is the wrong question... Clear it up please.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“All you have done is state a position, and attach a tag to it; for that you need not have gone to such lengths. 'Gingerism' is a neologism and as such you can use it however you like until it acquires a recognised definition. I'm prepared to bet that there are other communities out there right now that are using 'gingerism' to mean a sexual fetish for the ginger haired and until one version of the word achieves a broad social acceptance, you both have the right to use it however you wish.”
I doubt this word is or will be used for the former definition you have described. The word could end up meaning both as you pointed out in the oxford dictionary meaning of the word ginger has multiple definitions. Ginger can mean root ginger or a colour. The definition I stated as a complex argument against your un-valid denial of gingerism still stands. Making this comment a pointless line of inquiry.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“Going back to my earlier point, I could pick any physical characteristic, define an 'ism' related to it, compile a list of offensive words or statements that have been used about that characteristic, and through substitution apply your argument perfectly to 'demonstrate' the existence of that 'ism', but all I would have done was provide a definition. Such an argument establishes absolutely nothing about matters in the real world.”
I disagree... Firstly the argumentative definition referred to a 'real world' list of words used in the 'real world' to describe people with red hair... This list is a premise in my argument and a premise taken from the real world... I can easily find reference if you like, but again you would simply deny the evidence in some arrogant and ignorant way.
Secondly, such an argument of gingerism raises awareness in the real world and the definition (while under developed, you need to recognise how the stated definition is a contextual argument) I have stated in the form of a complex argument defines the discrimination and prejudice against not any 'physical characteristic', but red hair discrimination and prejudice, which has a different level of prevalence in society than other forms, has hugely different effects on the social dynamic and like other forms of discrimination may have many un-studied, un-seen effects. If redhead discrimination is as you say 'not in existence' or no more prevalent than any other physical characteristic type then at the very least many who are, as you say genuinely discriminated against have a yard stick as to what is and isn't genuine discrimination. Tell me your not curious Tanarus.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
The line below has been taken from the second premise to your definition simple argument it is hard core trolling Tanarus, I don't know if your aware that I have received emails from white separatist groups attempting to racialise gingerism.
'or belief in the superiority,'
In my argument I have never made a single comment to a 'belief in the' inferiority (the inverse of superiority) of redheads.
This adjusted premise below is closer to the 'inverse' of what I was stating... anyway, this doesn't mean the negativity list doesn't exist and is used. You have to admit that any person denying the use of the first list is highly arrogant... as they would be if they denied the list of word and their use that you have suggested... But then I'm not denying your lists use, however you are denying mine... Not society or gingerists, but you Tanarus!
“2. I could cite my list of complimentary phrases as instances of praise, veneration, of redheads as a specific group: inverting your premise”
We could do this all day. And both meanings 'could' be put in the dictionary. However, go to the Guardian, Independent, Times or any other newspaper and type in 'gingerism' into their search bar and see what comes up... pay attention to the context and implied definitions. Its another idea for a list to keep... which I'll begin keeping. Thanks again... your criticism is really welcome.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
Tanarus please bare with me as I discuss this point on 'historical examples of red head discrimination and prejudice' at length... So not to exclude anybody else reading that may claim to not understand and so to make myself absolutely clear!
If you haven't read the works of Tacitus, here's a relevant exert?
http://www.fordham.edu provides a series of Tacitus works online.
“Physical Characteristics. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.” (Tacitus, The Agricola and Germania, A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, trans., London: Macmillan, 1877, pp. 87Ff, cited from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html)
Other online spots for Tacitus's works:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3795&Itemid=28
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Germany_%28Bookshelf%29
Lets use deductive reasoning on the above quote... using Tacitus description.:
The Romans widely considered redhair to be a racial characteristic of the Germanic peoples
“...free from ALL taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves.”
PREMISE ONE:
Tacitus believed ONLY the Germanic 'race' had blue eyes, red hair and huge frames.
“All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion.”
PREMISE TWO:
Tacitus believed ALL Germanic 'race' had blue eyes, red hair and huge frames.
CONCLUSION:
Tacitus racialised the Germanic people as red heads and the only red heads.
According to Tacitus having red hair made you Germanic by inference. Its as SIMPLE as that!
Tacitus was a racist not a gingerist. Historical context is important.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“German 'barbarians' was in any way due to their red hair is rather like claiming that the Nazis' problem with the Jews was really indicative of a prejudice against big noses (to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that Jewish people do have unusually large noses; I'm using that point of comparison precisely because it is no less mad than Tacitus' assertion that all German barbarians were redhaired).”
“Tanarus,
I will not reply to your comments until you apologies to Jewish people for perpetuating this stereotype or reference where the prejudicial comment originated, so that you are stating the comment as someone else's stated opinion...
The offending paragraph...
“German 'barbarians' was in any way due to their red hair is rather like claiming that the Nazis' problem with the Jews was really indicative of a prejudice against big noses (to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that Jewish people do have unusually large noses; I'm using that point of comparison precisely because it is no less mad than Tacitus' assertion that all German barbarians were redhaired).”
…References I have made of other minority group have been referenced as facts or another person's stated facts within a premises in an argument not used as comparative stereotypical inference, which could be seen as racist or anti-Semitic.
Again... You are not referencing or stating a fact as a premise... the line about 'Jewish people' having 'unusually large noses' could be seen as perpetuating a stereotype...
“Anyone who cannot see this fundamental distinction is a moral cripple.” (Tanarus, 8 Jan 2010, 2:10AM)
I hope you apologies.
Cheers”
I addressing this point, attempting to ignore the anti-semitic message...
If the Nazi's believed that the Jewish people were the ONLY people to have 'large noses' then this argument would be a valid argument against Tacitus argument. But the Nazi's didn't believe Jewish people were the only people to have 'large noses'. I am seriously doubting you understand the word context and deductive reasoning... best part about the situation is that I can quote evidence of your ignorance of these words, unlike your doubts and implied assertions that I have not read Tacitus. I hope you can see how your argument is dishonest.
“I'm using that point of comparison precisely because it is no less mad than Tacitus' assertion that all German barbarians were redhaired”
The argument wasn't whether the historical evidence of redhead prejudice and discrimination was not 'mad', but that it existed.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
You stated previously...
“Your assertion that there exist "mountains of historical evidence and research that state redheads have been 'systematically persecuted, excluded or denied fundamental rights' based on their hair colour", is entirely unsubstantiated; care to point out any of these 'mountains'? I'd settle for one small hillock, even a grassy knoll. The only evidence I've seen cited so far was the reference to Malleus Maleficarum as indicative of long standing prejudice, but I think I fairly thoroughly demolished that already. “
Tacitus is more than the grassy knoll, you've requested... This could go on forever the way the pair of us write... Historically redheads have been considered a race... you Tanarus should concede this point, I have fond many other HISTORICAL examples of discrimination and prejudice against redheads... but do your own research first... before you attempt to argue this point again... If you want more from me on the topic, you'll have to wait till my own website is published... there will be another list of evidence you can point blank deny.
I HAVE TO POINT OUT NOT TO TANARSUS, BUT OTHERS WHO READ THIS...
Today redheads are not considered a race, but red hair remains a point of discrimination and prejudice... hence gingerism!
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
I have to say Tanarus you are seriously helping me to nut out my arguments and definitions properly... I sincerely appreciate the help! Look at the rest of the website... If you've read any of Madasa's stuff enough said... and the website creator has disappeared from his own webpage... your the closest thing I have to a peer reviewer.
However please stop referring to some obscure wikipedia entry... you are exceptionally ignorant and arrogant if you sincerely believe that most people who use the internet see wikipedia as, what were your words... “ actually remarkably accurate”. Or are you not ignorant and arrogant in this instance... just “dishonest”.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“My real problem with your argument isn't that it is ill conceived; it is that it is dishonest.”
There is nothing dishonest about my argument.
DISHONEST
• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
— DERIVATIVES dishonestly adverb dishonesty noun.
Www.askoxford.com
“Elsewhere you use 'gingerism' to refer to a widespread and damaging societal prejudice against those with red hair”
Are you saying that I have stated that discrimination and prejudice is wrong and that gingerism is widespread enough to investigate the damaging prejudice against those with redhair... as this website does... how is that dishonest?
“Elsewhere you use 'gingerism' to refer to a widespread and damaging societal prejudice against those with red hair (I could reference some of your quotes, but I hope that isn't necessary) that is so pernicious that it requires both legislation and re-definition of language”
Have I suggested that people should stop discriminating and being prejudicial toward redheads via the language they use and that legislation that already exists in parts of the world be implemented to prevent discrimination... NOT JUST redhead discrimination, yes. How is that dishonest?
“Which amounts to no more than saying that on occasion some people have maliciously said some fairly unpleasant things about people with red hair. I hope that you can see, and would accept, how that is fundamentally dishonest.”
You deny that anyone has “ maliciously said some fairly unpleasant things about people with red hair” and have the ignorance and arrogance to call me dishonest. FOR SHAME!
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
Lets just check your comments for 'Honesty' using the oxford dictionaries definition.
You deny that many redheads find 'ginger' to offensive.
This viewpoint is not one of a redhead or a person who has spent any time talking to many redheads about this topic and can not be considered: honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
You seek to undermine the argument structure, not the argument itself.
This viewpoint is anti-academic and can not be considered: sincere.
You stated and agreed that you would address the argument and not the structure, but rambled on about structure for paragraphs.
This viewpoint means Tanarus can not be considered: honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
You exaggerate, dramatise and fictitiously add to my argument to make points.
This viewpoint containing these trolling tools can not be considered: honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
You deny real world and other types of evidence this can not be considered: honest, trustworthy, or sincere
Your understanding of the topic of redhead discrimination and prejudice is minimal, as you've asked for statistics of redhead physical assaults.
This viewpoint of understanding of the topic can not be considered: trustworthy
Your completely wrong about there being no historical evidence of redhead discrimination or prejudice.
Tanarus's viewpoint on historical matters can be considered: COMPLETELY DISHONEST.
Your view that the Guardian comments page closed because of me is ridiculous and shows your ignorance that the Guardian has a time limit for comment, but you've already displayed your misunderstanding of the context of time... well at least historically.
Tanarus's view of blogs, threads and comment is limited and can not be considered: honest, trustworthy, or sincere
Need I point out further Tanarus's dishonesty...
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“Whether 'gingerism' as you understand it exists or not, you do enormous damage to your cause by promoting it as you do. If you really wish to see 'gingerism' recognised as a real problem, the best thing that you personally can do is cease claiming to represent the oppressed redhead minority, and leave advocacy of your cause to those better qualified for the role.”
I have 'yet' to use the word 'oppressed' Tanarsus, you have!... This is dishonest, you sir are simply a hack and a troll. I can now also doubt your understanding for context of the written word... my 'promotion' of gingerism in the context of a blog and opinion comments page, which are an ideal forum for gathering and discussing ideas has little to do with my qualified ability to write and research academically... besides Tanarus two things: By promotion you mean awareness raising have you heard the expression 'all publicity is good publicity', ALSO a person can always study more... unless Tanarus you want to deny anyone the right to research or educate themselves? Something I suggest you do before entering a topic you seem to know nothing about. IN FACT Tanarus, I believe people should ALWAYS study more!
“Needless to say, your attitude also renders you the least qualified person to conduct any research into the issue; be fair, you are hardly impartial are you?”
Again your own 'overly precious' rationalisation, 'logic and intelligence' falls short... This line above is the equivalent of saying that every female writer and researcher on feminism is unqualified to conduct research on feminism. AGAIN my statement is not a comparison of gingerism versus feminism, but a questioning of Tanarus's reasoning.
FEMINISM
• noun the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of sexual equality.
— DERIVATIVES feminist noun & adjective.
“I return to my suggestion that you should set about raising money to fund a study that is properly conducted by qualified and disinterested authorities.”
This advice coming from you Tanarus is redundant as any research funded by an anti-gingerist or any redhead for that matter would surely be bias, right?
You Tanarus I repeat are close-minded, ignorant and arrogant.
To be continued...
Tanarus,... continued.
“You are clearly an angry and unhappy young man; whether or not you have good reason to be I cannot say, but regardless, I feel some genuine compassion for you. I have no idea what happened to you that left you feeling so persecuted, but whatever it was, I would urge you, for your own sake, to do all you can to put it behind you. If you focus continuously on your grievance it will come to define you, and poisoning your relationship with the world, perhaps even destroy you. That would be a sad fate for anyone.”
This final paragraph I'm sure you'll understand if I chose to disregarded as from someone (Tanarus) who seems to deny my source of 'anger'. HOWEVER, I'll entertain the idea that it is not coming from a person who has been shown to be dishonest...
HERE I GO... I'll say thank you for the concern Tanarus. I am glad you feel some 'genuine compassion'. However Tanarus have you considered that the feeling of persecution comes from being persecuted.
I appreciate the advice on not focusing on my grievance to the point it defines me. I have previously stated that I plan to start my own website that does follow the other aspects of being a redhead. I assure you that any anger I may or may not currently feel or have felt in the past motivates me to stop the discrimination and prejudice occurring to myself and others it will not define me.
Cheers
p.s.
“I don't intend to devote much more time to this issue, but I'm prepared to have one more try. I'll check in to this blog again in a few days time to see if you have responded in an interesting way, but unless you raise your game substantially, I think that I am done here.”
After being exposed as the 'dishonest' sham that you are as the name Tanarus... and the arrogant, ignorant personality that you are... unless you lift your game, don't bother responding... I am not intending to devote anymore time to your vile responses. Certainly not until you apologies or explain the anti-semitic comment you have previously made.
Tanarus's is simply dishonest!
I said I was done with this site and I meant it. But seriously Nate, calm down and get a grip, pretty much every one of your responses to Tanarus said Tanarus was DISHONEST and again your arguments are based on dictionary definitions instead of actually forming coherent reasonings. Tanarus OBVIOUSLY never intended to be anti-semetic, just as the BBC OBVIOUSLY never intended to put down red-heads. Should we legislate every word that offends, should we have to censor everything that is said in case it offends any body. Seriously Nate from all your ravings I still don't understand what your issues are. Yes Redhairs are bullied. Yes they are called Ginger which isn't cool. But besides these two points you have little else to say. Do you want it to stop? How do you propose to do so? Or is this just a forum for you to rant! When you have something intelligent and meaningful to say I'd like to hear it, until then I much prefer Tanarus well thought out arguments. Hell your so confusing you even agree with Dogg who you've been quite clear in the past had the exact opposite view of you. Wonder if they are the same person. Your a fake, a fraud and I doubt you even have red-hair.
Anon,
I appreciate you taking the time to read my 'ravings'... I'll attempt to tone them down. Explain how I might do this OR point out which parts don't make sense.
There are a number of points being made by myself. I accept that the details of these points are boring as hell, but necessary:
...................................
1. The BBC apology was poorly worded.
2. 'Ginger' is an offensive word to redheads... something denied by Tanarus.
3. There is a long history of redhead discrimination and prejudice.
4. All discrimination and prejudice is wrong and legislation against it is possible.
5. I have argued that Tanarus's argument is not even valid.
6. After Tanarus's statements:
"My real problem with your argument isn't that it is ill conceived; it is that it is dishonest."
AND
"I hope that you can see, and would accept, how that is fundamentally dishonest."
I have made a point of pointing out MANY of the DISHONEST things in Tanarus's argument.
..................................
A few points for you Anon,
1. You stated...
"Tanarus OBVIOUSLY never intended to be anti-semetic, just as the BBC OBVIOUSLY never intended to put down red-heads."
I agree this is possible, but I have every right to make my objections to these statements made, so that the parties involved can correct the issue and take care not to do it again... to begin with.
2. I am not suggesting we should...
"legislate every word that offends, should we have to censor everything that is said in case it offends any body."
...your suggesting this. I have made myself clear on this point of censorship and legislation through this blog and this discussion at various times.
3. You asked:
"How do you propose to do so?"
I have stated on this blogg numerous times, but possibly not during discussion of this topic... The first step is to raise awareness of gingerism in any number of ways (if you want more on this you'll have to wait till the release of my own web page). I hope this will be enough to stop it in many cases, but in case it isn't I'll document everything I can, I encourage anyone who also finds gingerism to be offensive to do the same. This is a reasonable starting point... who knows from there?
4. You write...
"Hell your so confusing you even agree with Dogg who you've been quite clear in the past had the exact opposite view of you."
I don't see how agreeing with some of a clowns (who looks like an animated ventriloquist puppet to me) views and disagreeing with his other views is confusing. Are you saying Dogg and myself are not able to progress in character or perspective or offer different views on different topics and heaven forbid maybe agree on things occasionally? (Annoying when somebody incorrectly para-phrases you like this, isn't it... some might call it a trolls tool)
5. You also state...
"Your a fake, a fraud and I doubt you even have red-hair."
I don't understand?? 'fake and fraud' how?
If you doubt I have redhair then good on ya... Would you have anything on the line if I wasn't a redhead? Which I am.
ALSO
Who's the fake and fraud... Mr or is it Mrs Anonymous?
I agree with Anon,
Nate you don't make sense, I mean what kind of person clears up definition in an argument with a dictionary meaning. I mean HONESTLY!
Taranus is SIMPLY dishonest.
Nate is SIMPLY red.
Dogg OUT!
Watch Andrew dentons elder series with Richard dawkins to see how a truly intelligent person responds to the question of definition. As for the fake and fraud comment I am referring to the fact Nate, dogg and quite possibly masada are all the same person, the fact you respond to yourself is borderline pathalogical... The fact I couldn't be assed creating a user I'd (which is fake in itself) doesn't make me fake it makes me lazy. I understand all your points except for one - the BBC had nothing to apologise for in the first people, you have collosally failed to prove anyone other than yourself gave a fuck - maybe you should be honest instead of dishonest and start a site called Nate/dogg-ism about all things that offend Nate/dogg and only Nate-dogg!!
Anon,
You've stated...
"Watch Andrew dentons elder series with Richard dawkins to see how a truly intelligent person responds to the question of definition."
I have watched, but I re-watched it and have taken notes. Dawkins states the following...
“Lets not have any definitions... there is a perfectly good dictionary over there on the shelf you can go and look it up... I'm not going to get into the business of defining words that are already a dictionary definition.” - Richard Dawkins on Andrew Dentons Elders
Whats your point Anon? Other than you can quote the name, but not actually quote a famous scientist, to make any real point... I suppose its an attempt to give yourself some air of authority is it, to name a respectable scientist in your comment?
Secondly...
You enjoy Richard Dawkins he also states in the same interview...
"How do we know the things that we know... its a kind of hymn to evidence... encouraging this ten year old child to always look for evidence of something you are asked to believe." - Richard Dawkins on Andrew Dentons Elders
In considering the above statement please explain your 'evidence' for the following statement:
"Nate, dogg and quite possibly masada are all the same person"
You are so full of... what's the word... oh... I'll use the word ideas!... prove that all three of us are the same person Anon.
Thirdly, if Dogg, Madassa and myself are all the same person it wouldn't be called pathological... other than the fact you've just used a word you don't know the meaning of... for your information, if we were the same person it would be called 'sock-puppeting'. Its kind of a thread troll tool... I think you'll find its ok to discuss the meaning of these words and still be classed as intelligent by your own 'Richard Dawkins' measuring stick.
ALSO...
"the BBC had nothing to apologise for in the first place, you have colossally failed to prove anyone other than yourself gave a fuck"
(I have corrected spelling)
Actually this above statement is invalid. 150 people complained about the Dr Who comment (Myself not included). I wrote the posting to this comments page and complained to the BBC, urging others to do the same. Have I received a reply from the BBC... no it hasn't been ten working days. I'll get back to you on that Anon.
Meanwhile Anon, here's a dictionary meaning... you think about its meaning in relation to your poor comment...
DISHONEST
• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
— DERIVATIVES dishonestly adverb dishonesty noun.
Www.askoxford.com
ALSO Anon...
Have a read of 'Second-Life' its a Richard Dawkins book... You might learn something.
I would like to add that I am aware that Richard Dawkins hasn't written a book called 'Second Life' but you'd think so if you YouTube... 'Richard Dawkins Second Life'.
I think the red heads bothered by the term ginger should turn it into their own thing to use,like how a lot of black guys say,"What up,nigga!" to each other.You red heads should just be all like,"What up,ginger!" and take away the negativity of the word.
I am a 15-year-old redhead who has been heavily abused due to my hair colour. Every day at school, someone calls me gingerist names, ridicules me for the follicles on my head, which, incidentally, I am very very proud of. I love my red hair and would never dye it- so why abuse me because of it? Are bullies really so weak that they have to pick on us redheads for kicks? It's pathetic.
Incidentally, only a few days ago I passed a boy in the corridor who then yelled, "Ginger bitch!" at me. I didn't know his name so couldn't report him- it's so wrong that I have to put up with this kind of thing.
Although it's hardly surprising. Last week, during my PE lesson, my teacher commented on the opposite volleyball team scoring a point: "You did very well- especially considering you have a ginger on your team." If kids are being set this kind of example in school, what hope is there for the future? I was so close to chucking the volleyball at him and leaving him to his stupid lesson.
In Australia, redheads are considered beautiful. In America, redheads are considered exotic and sexy. And yet here in the UK, we're abused, called names, made the subject of heavily offensive jokes and laughed at for our hair colour. I cannot believe that people think it's OK to pick on others because of their hair colour- and then people deny it's a problem! Unbelievable.
Gingerism is a growing problem, and if the redheads of Britain don't stand up for themselves and throw the stupid jokes back in the faces of those who cracked them, we're never going to show them who's in the right over this.
Personally, if I am describing my own hair colour, I will call it Ginger. (soft G.) No probs there.
And I don't feel discriminated against if I am described as "The ginger one" out of a friend group. Because let's face it, I am. And proud to be so.
Also, wasn't Dr Who disappointed not to be ginger? So surely that presents being a redhead in a more positive light? Personally, I was not offended. At all.
@Nate
Agreed. As a (natural) red headed American, I've been called at least 1/3 of the names you mentioned. A point rarely discussed is that red heads also have freckles which are considerd to be ugly, as they've been grouped with warts on many occasions - in soap operas, movies, etc. People have even asked me whether they hurt...a question so ridiculous it leaves me speechless. When I was in my early teens I tried to get rid of them with creams - they didn't work, nor should I have been made to feel that way. In fact, I battled depression because of how ugly I felt. The fact of the matter is that this sort of discrimination does real damage. Although I do sympathize with blondes and the jokes they must endure, it's simply not the same. Blondes are never associated with the ugly or abused.
The reason I decided to conduct a web search this evening is due to a comic scene in "I Am Number Four" in which the aliens scare two distinctly fat, freckled, red headed kids. Why choose kids who look like that? Because it's funny to abuse anyone deemed to be ugly. When will we finally evolve?? Liberal "Hollywood" is supposed to be above this sorty of thing, yet "read headed, freckle faced" people seep into mainstream media whenever "ugly" is required.
The phrase "beaten like a red headed step child" is very popular in the US. Make no mistake about it, the UK and Australia aren't the only countries where this form of discrimination festers. Do I feel it's racist? Yes. Albeit, a subset of a race, but nonetheless, racist. The factors that trigger this form of discrimination are not only based on hair color, but skin color. These are things that can't be hidden. Michael Jackson was a testiment to that.
People may teach their kids to think they're better based on a set of laughable criteria, but most of us know better. Thank you, Calvin Klein, for making real skin beautiful.
Can someone please direct to me why the BBC apologized in the first place? I've read both parts of this posting and I honestly can't make heads or tales of it.... there are too many quotes within quotes and it's really not clear writing. It has the assumption that the reader knows everything the author knows and is just carrying on the end of a exising conversation.....
I'm a redhead and in no way do I find it offensive that Dr who begrudges that he's not "ginger." This is probably one of the best displays of affection and longing to be a redhead that I've seen in a while.
If anything,I think that Dr Who shows support of redheads. I can't see how anyone would even get that Dr Who was discriminatory in any way.
The fact that they apologized for people who are touchy by the word 'ginger' or who read a quote and perhaps took it as opposite (that he was really worried, in a negative way he would be a redhead), is what's silly to me.
I am going to assume you don't live in the USA. Life long red head here...and I have never ever been bullied or picked on. Quite the opposite actually. Embrace the ginger. It's awesome!!
Post a Comment