Is the term gammon racist

#21
It's not racist but it's not a term that I'd use.

It's a term that is basically used to be offensive towards a group of people. I find it strange that people use it. Often those people think they have better views and are more progressive. Yet here they are using a term designed to upset those with oppossing views. Try to talk to people and educate them. If that doesn't work then just ignore them. No need to be insulting to others. Or really you're not much better than they are. You're a d*ck as well. Just in a different way and to a different group of people.

Like what are you trying to achieve? Do you think someone is going to change their views by you insulting them? Or are you better off trying to show how they might be wrong?

It's terms and behaviour like that which was the real reason that the Remain campaign failed. Instead of showing people why their beliefs were wrong, the default position was to call them racist or stupid etc. That was never going to change people's views. Changing the world to be a better place requires education not insults. Ignorance can be overcome. Insulting people just entrenches their position and makes them defensive.
 
Last edited:
#22
Yes it is. It is a term used to insult a particular group of people based partly on their skin colour and ethnic background.

But then there are some who think "white" people can never be victims of racism. Probably the ones who are happy to use such a term.
 

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
#24
I thought it was because their skin was gammon coloured. White but slightly red in the face from too much booze and being angry about Libtards?
It is a temporary state, when the capillaries carrying blood to the skin widen and the skin appears to change colour. But the skin doesn’t really change colour and its effect doesn't confer race upon you.

It is like shining a red torch through a white handkerchief. The hanky appears red but it isn't and you find when you turn the torch off that it was white all along.

All you are seeing is a reaction to an emotional trigger like embarrassment or losing your rag on Question Time.
 
#25
It is a temporary state, when the capillaries carrying blood to the skin widen and the skin appears to change colour. But the skin doesn’t really change colour and its effect doesn't confer race upon you.

It is like shining a red torch through a white handkerchief. The hanky appears red but it isn't and you find when you turn the torch off that it was white all along.

All you are seeing is a reaction to an emotional trigger like embarrassment or losing your rag on Question Time.
Question Time used to be the absolute classic place to see this phenomenon and it was in no way just white people bellowing and raging against immigrants; so no it's not racist and if you think it is you're an absolute snowflake.
 
Last edited:

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
#26
It’s not racist and the reality is nobody really thinks it is, especially those who get called it and come back with the fake outrage and ‘racist!’ response. They don’t believe for one moment that it is actually racist.
It’s something for those folk to cling onto to try and feel superior and take some (false) moral high ground for once, and distract from the ridiculousness (often racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or misogynistic slant) of their opinions.
But that’s just my opinion, of course.
 
#30
I don’t think it is because it has been used extensively from day one by white people to describe a particular type of other white person and is now used to describe non white people with the same attitudes in some cases. If gammon is racist, so is chav. The irony is that anyone accusing you of racism for using it probably accuses others of “playing the race card“ when they talk about genuine discrimination or privilege.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
#31
I don’t think it is because it has been used extensively from day one by white people to describe a particular type of other white person and is now used to describe non white people with the same attitudes in some cases. If gammon is racist, so is chav. The irony is that anyone accusing you of racism for using it probably accuses others of “playing the race card“ when they talk about genuine discrimination or privilege.
I don’t use the race card, I think gammon is racist
 

coluka

Well-known member
#32
I think it was originally meant to be humorous, yet cause mild offence. People who use the term regularly are generally small minded, shallow individuals who lack tolerance and critical thinking skills. It can arguably fall under the category of a religious hate crime too, if I was a white middle aged Islamist or Jew then It would be very offensive in my view. Is it a racist term, well I guess it can be depending on context and the people involved. Society and its people are becoming more offensive and insular by the day.
 

Borobuddah

Well-known member
#33
“If someone calls you racist it’s up to you whether you care about their opinion enough to tailor your attitude. You don’t necessarily have to just because someone calls you racist.“

Surely it’s ‘up to you’ to think about whether there is any truth in what they say, rather than whether you care about their opinion?

You seem to imply that it’s ok to keep your racist attitude, otherwise
 
#34
I don’t use the race card, I think gammon is racist
You’re entitled to your opinion but I think you’re wrong. I see it in the same category as boomer, remoaner, snowflake, libtard etc in that it describes an attitude more than a race.

I generally don’t use any of these terms as they’re mainly used to shut down someone giving an opinion without giving a reasoned argument against them.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
#35
You’re entitled to your opinion but I think you’re wrong. I see it in the same category as boomer, remoaner, snowflake, libtard etc in that it describes an attitude more than a race.

I generally don’t use any of these terms as they’re mainly used to shut down someone giving an opinion without giving a reasoned argument against them.
I can definitely see why it fits into that category, I just think it evolved in the last couple of years now to be a racist slur.
 

Erimus74

Well-known member
#36
I got called it just before the board switched over,, the poster who on the old board has since had numerous runnins on Brexit, called me an uneducated gammon, as well as other stuff, including the word hate, simply because I dare to have a different political opinion to him
I just said to him if been uneducated has me down as a person who wouldn't throw insults at anyone, particularly on a message board, or use the word hate, then I'm happy who I am
Mind I did notice the usual suspects who usually join in on political Brexit posters over Brexit kept out of it, if it were me throwing the insults then I would think those posters would have been on to me
At the end of his abuse I wished him good night & he may feel better in the morning, his reply was, goodnight you tory scumbag, which a few hours later he deleted
I won't name the poster, who is well known for his political views, has only posted on the new site a couple of times, as he will be embarrassed, or should be,
 
#37
I don't doubt it is intended as an insult.
I agree it's intended as mild mockery, rather than a viscous insult, but offence is in the eye of the recipient; if they say they're offended then they are.

However, offence is not always a bad thing: no doubt slave owners found the concept of emancipation offensive; it doesn't mean the concept was wrong, or they were right. Anything that challenges one's held position can be offensive, and being challenged is often a good thing.

That's all by the by: is "gammon" an insult based on race? I don't think it is: I've never heard the suggestion that all white people are gammon, or that all gammon are white. I understand it as describing a behaviour, which is entirely the choice of the individual. That distinguishes it from race, which is an accident of birth, not a choice
 
Top
X