Baa Baa Black Sheep now considered racist

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

It's not just this. Pretty much anything that involves the word black is probably considered racist here in the UK.
Take blackboards for example: I've been told you can no longer use that word. Chalkboards is the acceptable term.

Though not racially motivated, you can no longer use the phrase 'brainstorming'. Since that might be offensive to anyone who happens to have epilepsy.

TailstheHedgehog:
dudes, c'mon. Food additives and GM crops?
Gaming. Gaming causing violence and aggression. Biggest load of crap ever, yet the news, possibly with no gamers amongst their journalists to offer another slant, come out every so often with how 'No Russian' is teaching kids how to be terrorists.

I'm not so sure, I've read a lot more studies that said they do cause aggression and aggressive behaviour than I've read studies that say they don't. Especially in younger kids, although this can be mitigated with parental oversight and intervention.

The real problem is how generalisable is this research to the real world. Certainly a lot of gamers are verbally aggressive during online play, and I've been known to shout at the TV whilst gaming, which I don't do watching TV or reading a book. Does that mean games are going to make you act violently towards your fellow man? Maybe, doubfully, but I havent seen that evidence yet.

MelasZepheos:
You see that title up there? You see that story? Currently making a comeback? It's a lie. It's not true and it never has been.

THANK GOD!

I was expecting to have to rant in here, but I am pleasantly surprised.

razer17:

I'm not so sure, I've read a lot more studies that said they do cause aggression and aggressive behaviour than I've read studies that say they don't. Especially in younger kids, although this can be mitigated with parental oversight and intervention.

Very few studies say that, and NO legit ones do. What do I consider legit? Peer reviewed papers.

Most studies do not say they cause aggression. They say that there is a correlation between the two. But as sense should tell you, correlation does not equal causation.

"Humans are animals" has got quite a few absurd responses from ultra religious people saying if humans are animals we may as well just kill and rape one another because that is all animals ever do apparently, they also never coordinate effort like hunt in packs because and I have got this response several time "only humans form social bonds" such such as love or caring.

Yeah that has to be one of the most out your mind bullshit responses I have ever got.

Honorable mentions that got rejected due to the fact they are just to fucking stupid and people did it anyway.
"Italian food festival" is a racially offensive term: Italian community basically asks how the fuck that is true name does not change.

"You can not say the word "Christmas" at school! it is offensive": More or less people just laughed at this statement, no one was willing to enforce it as no one ever got offended.

idarkphoenixi:
It's not just this. Pretty much anything that involves the word black is probably considered racist here in the UK.
Take blackboards for example: I've been told you can no longer use that word. Chalkboards is the acceptable term.

Though not racially motivated, you can no longer use the phrase 'brainstorming'. Since that might be offensive to anyone who happens to have epilepsy.

No this is not true. The word Blackboard isn't banned, it's exactly like the Baa Baa black sheep thing from the OP, one of those myths that somehow got taken into the public consciousness as true. In fact, in my university we use a system called Blackboard, where tutors put up lecture slides and stuff.

Zachary Amaranth:

razer17:

I'm not so sure, I've read a lot more studies that said they do cause aggression and aggressive behaviour than I've read studies that say they don't. Especially in younger kids, although this can be mitigated with parental oversight and intervention.

Very few studies say that, and NO legit ones do. What do I consider legit? Peer reviewed papers.

Most studies do not say they cause aggression. They say that there is a correlation between the two. But as sense should tell you, correlation does not equal causation.

I know the difference between a correlation and a causation, thank you very much. And I am talking about peer reviewed journals. I had to use them for the dissertation I literally finished not hours ago. There's a lot of studies that show not only a correlation, but occasionally a causation. It's not hard to manipulate IV's to make a quasi-experimental study that shows some sort of causation. How often do you actually read peer reviewed journals to be able to qualify that not a single legit journal has published an article that suggests that videogames cause aggression?

It's not racist. It's furry. Burn it with fire.

Every fucking election season man.

DJjaffacake:
'This food has chemicals in so it's bad, eat this organic food instead'
All food contains chemicals
'But these ones aren't natural, they're man-made'
Humans are natural, why wouldn't the things we make be natural?

I got two in one

I think that the second one should have gone:
Humans are man-made, aren't humans natural?

ClanCrusher:
The 'Nuclear Disaster' at Three Mile Island.

Total Deaths: 0

Radiation Exposure: About as much as you'd get on an airplane flight.

Total Amount of Land/Food Spoiled: 0

Total Panic Level: OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!

Far Reaching Consequences: Hundreds of regulations and protests against a very safe and efficient power source.

Most of the Panic was over the fact that the alarms went off and the people running the facility would tell anyone what the fuck was going on for so long everyone things would go Chernobyl. It was a 'Scare' not a Disaster but Nuclear energy DOES need a lot of safety measures: it's not that there WILL be a meltdown, but that there COULD be. Still yes, an overreaction.

razer17:

I know the difference between a correlation and a causation, thank you very much. And I am talking about peer reviewed journals. I had to use them for the dissertation I literally finished not hours ago. There's a lot of studies that show not only a correlation, but occasionally a causation. It's not hard to manipulate IV's to make a quasi-experimental study that shows some sort of causation. How often do you actually read peer reviewed journals to be able to qualify that not a single legit journal has published an article that suggests that videogames cause aggression?

Quite regularly, actually. But as you haven't shown any evidence of any such journals, and look largely to be ass-pulling, why should I be the one forced to defend myself here? You're making a claim. Links. And since you've now qualified peer-reviewed papers, I don't want to see you weasel out with some Fox-News-level links.

Zachary Amaranth:

razer17:

I know the difference between a correlation and a causation, thank you very much. And I am talking about peer reviewed journals. I had to use them for the dissertation I literally finished not hours ago. There's a lot of studies that show not only a correlation, but occasionally a causation. It's not hard to manipulate IV's to make a quasi-experimental study that shows some sort of causation. How often do you actually read peer reviewed journals to be able to qualify that not a single legit journal has published an article that suggests that videogames cause aggression?

Quite regularly, actually. But as you haven't shown any evidence of any such journals, and look largely to be ass-pulling, why should I be the one forced to defend myself here? You're making a claim. Links. And since you've now qualified peer-reviewed papers, I don't want to see you weasel out with some Fox-News-level links.

We are both doing as much ass-pulling as each other. You have offered no evidence, neither have I. Don't try to dismiss my argument, because you have hardly fought your case either. You could have offered examples of research that found no link. Check the spoiler, there's a bunch of references in there. APA formatted, too. Some aren't quite related to violence or aggression, though, it's partially copied from my psychology research project, since I am a third year Psych student at university.

Now that I have shown my evidence, let's see if you've actually got anything.

I think, a while ago, a friend of mine said that people apparently aren't allowed to use "mixed race" anymore; only "dual heritage". I just laughed. It was clearly bullshit.

Jonluw:
Aaawwwww...
I opened this thread to call you out on the bullshit story.
Now what do I do?

I did the same, I have rage and nowhere to go with it :(

Damn, I opened this to mock you for being idiotic, and now you go ahead and prove me wrong.

But this kinda crap pops up all the time. It's almost ALWAYS fake.
But every now and again you hit somthing that IS real, and you look back at all the other stuff and think, oh for god sake, that might be real too. -_-

I thought the sheep was black because of alliteration and ruthenium/

Baa Baa Blue, Sheep sounds awkward.

It's said Bla-ckin the r hymn. And the sound of ck and sh (of sheep) is similar. Lends it self well to slurring.

Basically Black is believable and is easier to say.

scw55:
I thought the sheep was black because of alliteration and ruthenium/

Baa Baa Blue, Sheep sounds awkward.

It's said Bla-ckin the r hymn. And the sound of ck and sh (of sheep) is similar. Lends it self well to slurring.

Basically Black is believable and is easier to say.

I think it's just getting them to understand different words. Like, you show them a picture with a black sheep, they go baa baa black sheep. Blue sheep, baa baa blue sheep. Maybe see if they know what the words mean rather than just learning the rhyme by heart. There's probably other reasons for this stuff too.

how about Baa Baa differently coloured but still accepted sheep? is this allowed? also.. i was suprised to hear this story was UK based.. not New Zealand based because its always been used as a cheap insult to the new zealanders by the australians :D

Awww, I thought that you thought this was something amazing and new and not bullshit and I was gonna call you out on it =S Now what do I do??

Melon Hunter:

Jonluw:

targren:

Let's be fair about this, and not confuse the benefits of actually, you know, feeding people with the scumbag lawyer tricks Monsanto pulls. That's not a problem of genetic modification, that's a problem of legislators being for sale to the highest bidder.

Indeed.
I'm just saying it opens doors, and as of right now we aren't very careful with what doors we let people open.

Problem is, the EU refuses to even touch on GM crops. They have about as much credibility here as stem cell research had in the US under the Bush administration. Food packets carry 'No GM' labels as if it's a badge of achievement, and I've seen many food establishments have notices up telling people how they endeavour to never have GM ingredients as if they expect to be applauded for it. It's like having a sign up assuring people you only have gas lights and will never touch that dangerous, new-fangled electricity.

So while I agree GM crops should be carefully monitored and tested before being released for widespread use, just like you would with a new drug, I find it intensely frustrating that the EU refuses to even consider the possibility of using genetic engineering in crops. They seem to be forgetting the improved yield GM rice and wheat strains that were used in the 70s, which saved upwards of a billion people from starvation, if estimates are to be believed.

OT: The MMR vaccine fiasco. For the last goddamn time, a vaccine is not going to give your child autism. Correlation does not equal causation; the age at which autism symptoms normally appear is the same age at which the vaccine is administered. It is far more dangerous to leave your child unvaccinated against mumps, measles and rubella than to forgo it because your child may have an tiny possibility of 'catching' autism from it. Also, the way in which a couple of mothers with anecdotal evidence were presented as having an equal say in the matter to the many, many medical professionals who disproved the claim was utterly disgusting. There are still some parents who refuse the MMR vaccine for their children today thanks to this.

I agree on the vaccines one. Especially considering the two biggest proponents of that were Jenny McCarthy the former host of MTV's Singled Out. Remember Singled Out? Of course not, nobody does. And Jim Carrey known for making movies where he talked with his ass. Would you really take medical advice from this guy

and this chick?

Mass hysteria over something I know to be false?

Mass Effect 3's ending being so evil and worth throwing childish fits over. I get that it's poorly-written, but there are plenty of games out there that did everything here and then some. For some reason, a lot of people don't seem to understand how to be peripheral.

Then, there's also the whole thing about the character of Derpy Hooves from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic being offensive against people with disabilities. She was being shown in a completely innocent and positive light, and some really stupid people started thrashing about to get the character/scene censored. Many disabled people reported not offended to begin with. However, the "censored" version of this scene is considered by intelligent people to be closer to being offensive, since the new version changes the tone of her voice to make her sound purposefully mischievous.

Then, there was also all that idiotic news about Portal 2 being offensive against adopted children and the (original) X-Box being bashed so hard for supposed explicit sexual scenes and player actions in Mass Effect. The original.

I just don't get stupid people. They're just so... how do I put this...? Stupid. That's what they are.

I can safely assure you, as well as every other bloody person driving round McDonalds drive-thru, that no, we most definitely do not only serve people over the age of 18. Getting a mite tired of hearing that now.

razer17:

We are both doing as much ass-pulling as each other.

Bull. You made an affirmative claim that you ranted at me instead of backing up. And holy shit, now that you have, several of those studies don't say what you want them to.

Hell, let me look at one of the studies for a second:

Once corrected for publication bias, studies of video game violence provided no support for the hypothesis that violent video game playing is associated with higher aggression.

Kind of the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate. But hey, maybe you just thought if you spammed a few articles nobody would check your work.

A shame.

DJjaffacake:
'This food has chemicals in so it's bad, eat this organic food instead'
All food contains chemicals
'But these ones aren't natural, they're man-made'
Humans are natural, why wouldn't the things we make be natural?

I got two in one

I think "chemicals" meant "insecticides"/"pesticides"/"preservatives". So yeah, those are bad for you. Anyway, to dispel food "myths", watch Food Inc. It's a really uncompromising look into how and where the food on your table comes from.

Speaking of food...
"Obesity is a personal problem". By Personal I meant that you can become NOT-OBESE if you just put your mind to it and dedicate yourself. It's not. Food costs money, and when a burger costs more than an apple, there's your problem.

razer17:

TailstheHedgehog:
dudes, c'mon. Food additives and GM crops?
Gaming. Gaming causing violence and aggression. Biggest load of crap ever, yet the news, possibly with no gamers amongst their journalists to offer another slant, come out every so often with how 'No Russian' is teaching kids how to be terrorists.

I'm not so sure, I've read a lot more studies that said they do cause aggression and aggressive behaviour than I've read studies that say they don't. Especially in younger kids, although this can be mitigated with parental oversight and intervention.

The real problem is how generalisable is this research to the real world. Certainly a lot of gamers are verbally aggressive during online play, and I've been known to shout at the TV whilst gaming, which I don't do watching TV or reading a book. Does that mean games are going to make you act violently towards your fellow man? Maybe, doubfully, but I havent seen that evidence yet.

Wait, I'm not sure who you're agreeing with. You start off saying you're not sure then end with "I haven't seen that evidence yet [for videogames causing violence].

Gaming seems to cause some kind of aggression in the short term, the same way playing on a sports field does. On the netball court I just tell myself to try harder, video games I tend to huff and throw myself down with steam coming out my ears. But only in the multiplayer.
It's strange - but people thought TV, rock'n'roll and comic books were dangerous for making people aggressive... it may happen but in a very small number.
Actually, the beginning of journalism, kinda a foundation of our society, had to fight in the beginning for its right to exist as rulers thought it would make the masses mad to know what was really going on.
That's a tangent, but interesting!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked