OMFG - that's a front runner for SGT Racist Comment of the Year
Printable View
Really?
By saying that Cambodians all come out the same "cookie cooker", Newbie99 is saying is that all Cambodians look the same.
And you don't think that's a racist comment? I think you'll find there's wide disagreement - from the US to the UK
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018...all-look-alike
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ple-look-alike
But hey, I can think of 2 people who will probably both give you "likes" - because they're both racists too.
Some little oik has pressed the red triangle in his continual efforts to cause trouble here. I wonder who it was, I really vant imagine.
Would you type that up for me please Miss Impala.
Whichever way he says it, by including the word "Cambodian" it becomes racist..
Whether Hillary Clinton says "All black politicians look the same" or "All blacks in NYC look the same" or even (straight out) "All blacks look the same" is immaterial - all are racist remarks - breaking it down into a subset of politicians or of location - or a subset of bar boys in the case of Cambodians doesn't make it any less racist.
I'm sure it's just a case of Newbie99 not thinking it through rather than trying to be offensive, but suit yourself - if you want to publish or defend racist remarks on your forum that's up to you. I've merely made a post drawing attention to it, I didn't make a complaint
I am the only one who can tell you what I am saying.
And what I am saying is that there are a bunch of Cambodian boys in Jomtien who look like they came out of the same cookie cutter. I am not saying all Cambodians look alike.
I suspect that the word got out in Cambodia that acting in the bar that they are gay can get them some easy money. They have not yet realized that developing regular customers by acting gay in the room can get them much more money.
I am glad that common sense prevailed on this matter. Trouble making use of the red triangle should not be encouraged.
And how is that different from Clinton saying that there is a bunch of Black politicians who look alike - a statement roundly condemned across the world as being racist?
Your statement is not any different, it's exactly the same thing - you are profiling a group of people by race or ethnic origin, and in today's world that's not acceptable
Had you simply said "There is a bunch of bar boys in Jomtien who look like they came out of the same cookie cutter" then that would have been an acceptable statement - but by singling out that they are Cambodian bar boys you have made a racist comment (however unintentionally).
It's pretty simple really: Suppose you said "There is a bunch of Accountants in KPMG who all look like they came out the same cookie cutter" - nobody could justifiably accuse you of anything.
Then change your statement to "There is a bunch of Jewish Accountants in KPMG who all look like they came out the same cookie cutter" and the world will (quite rightly) fall on your head.
So when Trump talked about Mexicans all being "drug dealers, criminals and rapists" - it wasn't a racist comment because Mexicans aren't a race?
Well if that's seriously your argument you'd better tell almost the whole world, Moses - because it disagrees with you. Try Googling the reaction to that statement he made. It's been roundly condemned as racist all over the world.
Your argument is 50 years out of date - it's accepted nowadays that racist comments can refer to race/ethnicity/colour/nationality.
But hey, what do I care - publish as many racist comments as you like - it's not me or my website that'll come under scrutiny.
Anyway, if and when you do come under scrutiny you can just respond with "Nope" because despite having little more than a rudimentary grasp of the English language it's only your opinion that matters. Yeah, that'll fly.
It might help if he went to Jomtien Complex and saw for himself the Cambodian boys working there. Then he might understand the point that Newbie was making. As the rest of us so clearly do.
racism
/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
* the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."theories of racism"
*
According to the above definition, Newbie99's post was in no way racist.
He was describing the body type and apparent sexual orientation of a specific group of guys, most of whom just happen to come from Cambodia and whose appearance is deliberately tailored to suit a certain audience.
He was not extrapolating his comments to refer to all people who live in Cambodia. Nor did he say they were Khmer. Nor was he saying that his own race is in any way superior to theirs.
Thoughtlessly throwing around the word "racist" at the drop of a hat cheapens the meaning of the word, especially when the accuser apparently confuses ethnicity and citizenship.
one way to kill a conversation...just scream racist...
It's you who is confused a447 - time to take your nose out of a dictionary and lift your eyes to what, in 2018, the world sees as racism.
In 2018 you simply can not say that a bunch of Cambodians/Japanese/Chinese all look alike (funny how it's never said about Westerners, eh?) - but good luck in your new role as King Canute, attempting to roll back the tide.
Incorrect use and misunderstanding of the apocryphal King Canute fable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King...e_and_the_tide
The problem is, some want to re-define the definition if it doesn't suit them. I'm happy to stick with the original until such time as it is updated.
Newbie99 did not say that all Cambodians all look alike.
When I was living in Japan I was told on a few occasions that Westerners all look alike. However, I doubt that is a widely held belief.
So how is your definition the original? By what authority? By what consensus? Please support your assertions.
Homosexuality used to be regarded as a form of mental illness and by some religions, an abomination, but that is no longer an acceptable belief as times have changed, understandings have changed and attitudes have changed. If you want to think of yourself as mentally ill and an abomination, FINE. But please step down as moderator as, by your own fanatically "original" definition of things, you're mentally ill and not fit to be one.
Equally, Hillary Clinton did not say all Blacks look alike.
She said some Black politicians looked alike and was roundly condemned worldwide for making a racist comment (I have provided the links)
Newbie99 said that a bunch of Cambodian bar boys at Jomtien "all look like they came out the same cookie cutter". Arguably that is worse than Clinton because of the "cookie cutter" reference - yet you (and your boss) maintain this sort of language is perfectly acceptable in 2018 on a board which caters to a minority of a minority in society.
Up to you!
A major benefit from living in SE Asia is the absence of "political correctness" which I find stiffles conversation. Scottish guy is flogging a dead horse.
Have you ever been to Thailand? If you get the chance to visit one day, you might notice the conversational subtleties, the euphemisms, the avoidance of controversial topics, the deep desire not to offend, to save face, etc. You might not want to call it political correctness but the broad objective is the same. Take it to its extreme and you find laws such as lese majeste. And that's just one South East Asian country.
As previously cited: So when Trump called Mexicans “drug dealers, criminals, and rapists” it wasn’t a racist comment then?
You and a447 better tell the world how you know better.
Alternatively just stick with an outdated definition that has no relevance in modern society. Google is awash with reports of e.g. Polish people being racially abused/targeted in the UK and elsewhere. Time to drag yourselves into the 21st Century
http://https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-hunt-guntoting-racist-who-abused-polish-men-while-riding-mobility-scooter-a3530716.html
"Polish" - one word for ethnicity and citizenship
"Mexican" - one word for ethnicity and citizenship
"Cambodian" - word for citizenship, while "Khmer" - word for ethnicity.
How can be racism talking about citizenship? "All Londoners looks posh" - is it racist sentence?
No doubt your pet ex-mod will disagree but the fact is London is neither a Country nor a Nation, nor a Race, nor an Ethnicity. You’re just making stuff up now.
Further, Polish is not the ethnicity, it’s Slav. You’d think a Russian would know that
Here we go:
UK LAW:
What the 2010 Equality Act says about race discrimination
"In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship)."
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...discrimination
I'm not going to stoop to your level by trading insults but I would like to ask when you're stepping down as moderator because, by your own stickiness for "original" definitions and static way of looking at things, you are mentally ill and an abomination for being a homosexual. Please refer to posts #19 and #20.
Really?
Here's a small selection of your insults directed at various board members, demonstrating the level to which you apparently do not stoop:
Keep knocking yourself out!Quote:
The only "dribble" I can see is the one trickling down to your third chin as you watch the boys dribble their ball.
He's a good sport (unlike the dimwit from Down Under)
There's an idiot on this forum who's been saying I can't be where I say I'm from because of my English skills and the way I write
Let's hope they're down to the single digits, just like your IQ.
the jumbo dumbo from Down Under...
I thought the standard of farangs in Pattaya have always been low - how much lower can they go?
I have now proven a447 and Moses wrong on the basis of UK law - race can indeed legally mean nationality or citizenship, therefore any disparaging or abusive remarks on the basis of nationality or citizenship can be legally defined as "racist"
The legislation dates from 2010 when the UK, as a member of the EU was required to have all legislation compatible with EU law (as is still the case at least till 2019) - therefore it must be the same in all 27 EU countries.
So on the one side we have 27 EU countries saying that for the purposes of discrimination etc., race = nationality/citizenship.
On the other side we have Moses, a447, and an online dictionary .
No contest really
Again, I shall ignore your attempt to derail the topic - conduct very unbecoming of a moderator - and ask you this, again:
When are you stepping down as moderator because, by your own stickiness for "original" definitions and from your own static way of looking at things, you are mentally ill and an abomination for being a homosexual. Please refer to posts #19 and #20.
I wasn't derailing anything. I was simply responding to your post, pointing out your breathtaking hypocricy. So I'm not surprised you've decided to ignore my comments.
As for homosexuality being considered a mental issue, that was a medical opinion, not a definition.
Not even an "original" one!
And that opinion was changed years ago.
Of course, I'm hardly surprised that you can't see the difference.
No contest, as we are using different definitions - I'm using the dictionary definition, whereas you are using the legal definition.
They are not the same.
I'll stick to the dictionary definition and you csn use the legal one, and we will have to agree to disagree.
It's the same in a447's native Australia too where the Racial Hatred Act (1995) clearly prohibits "conduct involving the hatred of other people on the ground of race, colour or national or ethnic origin..."
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A04951
I remember going to a pub in Townsville seven years ago with my army buddies (we were on a two-week training stint in Australia as part of our national service). There were six of us, five Chinese and one Indian, all Singaporean. We were having a few beers when a bunch of Aussie guys came in and started hurling racial epithets at us. "Slitty eyes, yellow dicks, go back to China you smelly cunts, etc". We finished off our drinks quickly and left as we could sense trouble brewing. And being soldiers we were under military law at the time and the repercussions were harsher if we did get into some kind of trouble, even if it was through no fault of our own.
It doesn't matter whether they're insulting you because of your ethnic or national identity. You're just splitting hairs by trying to make a distinction. What matters is that it hurts and it breeds and encourages prejudice, which can have disastrous emotional and physical consequences on the targetted group. Chinese relatives and Muslim friends who've migrated to Australia say they still get Aussies coming up to them and forcing them to kiss the Australian flag on Australia Day to show their "loyalty".
Err...I think it is pretty much unknown. What a silly thing to say.Quote:
It's not unknown that people who are strongly dependent on a certain group, in this case Asians for sex, companionship and friendship, simultaneously develop a resentment or a type of loathing towards the same group.
BTW, I am not dependent on Asians for sex. I have never made a secret of the fact that I prefer Asian guys, but my "partners" here are not Asian. I've mentioned that in previous posts.
How on earth could I be rejected by my own people when I was living 8,000 km away? By snail mail, perhaps?Quote:
having been rejected by their own people
As another member here once commented, a farang in his sixties trying to pass himself off as a young Asian guy on a chat forum projects that.Quote:
It is a projection of their own self-loathing and low self-esteem
You're absolutely correct of course and what has disappointed me most about this dispute is the conduct of Moses and a447.
Instead of just accepting that in 2018 it's inappropriate to be referring to groups or sub groups of races, ethnicities, citizens, or nationalities as "all looking like they came out the same cookie cutter", preferred instead to split hairs over whether or not the insult was "racist" rather than whether it was an insult at all.
Turns out of course that their hair-splitting was incorrect and it's perfectly proper to describe such comments as "racist" - but will they stand corrected?
Don't hold your breath
This board doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of UK law Scottish Guy.
Type that up please Miss Impala. It's important Scottish Guy understands his error.
Well, of course he's right. It's a motherhood and apple pie statement that surely noone could disagree with.
SG, you have twisted Newbie99's comment to suit your own argument.
Newbie99 originally wrote:
You changed his comments to read :Quote:
all Cambodians who are working in the bars of Jomtien Complex look the same
Those two comments are obviously at odds with each other.Quote:
By saying that Cambodians all come out the same "cookie cooker"(sic), Newbie99 is saying is that all Cambodians look the same.
Newbie99 then posted this:
This demonstrates that his comment was not racist. Unlike Clinton, who referred to "all black" politicians, Newbie99 did not refer to all Cambodians. Had he done so, then yes, that's a different matter.Quote:
And what I am saying is that there are a bunch of Cambodian boys in Jomtien who look like they came out of the same cookie cutter. I am not saying all Cambodians look alike.
He called them Cambodians, because that's what they are. If you were familiar with the area, you'd know that the vast majority of guys are Cambodian.
And when he said that group of guys look the same, he wasn't referring to their ethnic appearance - he was referring to the appearance they themselves had deliberately cultivated in order to snare customers.
So no racism involved.
Enough. We are going around in circles.