Golliwogs Causing Controversy.

[El Cid]

On 15/04/2023 at 21:53, Irene Swaine said:

I don't believe it is offensive to own one. I would be interested to see the police try to prove in court that it is a hate crime. 

I had a good friend that used to collect Robinsons? jam badges, some gollywogs too.

Do they still make them?

[Chekhov]

On 15/04/2023 at 21:53, Irene Swaine said:

I don't believe it is offensive to own one. I would be interested to see the police try to prove in court that it is a hate crime. 

Nobody has a right to not be offended. Striving for that will mean a straight jacketed, boring and sanitised society. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Nobody has a right to not be offended. Striving for that will mean a straight jacketed, boring and sanitised society. 

Like we have now, you mean?

[Mister M]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Nobody has a right to not be offended. Striving for that will mean a straight jacketed, boring and sanitised society. 

My own opinion is that the golly doll is such a reviled caricature of blatant prejudice is what sort of person would want it. 

Knowing full well its history, what it represents and the real offence caused - what possible reason could there be for its continued existence.

 

I generally agree with the sentiment that "Nobody has a right not to be offended", but surely that cannot be a justification for racists to be utterly vile because "well who cares if they're offended, because I've got the right to say whatever the hell I like, and that trumps everything else". 

It doesn't work in law, and it doesn't work in reality. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Mister M

[fools]

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

a reviled caricature of blatant prejudice

that's quite a statement. It's a kids toy.

[trastrick]

7 hours ago, Mister M said:

My own opinion is that the golly doll is such a reviled caricature of blatant prejudice is what sort of person would want it. 

Knowing full well its history, what it represents and the real offence caused - what possible reason could there be for its continued existence.

 

I generally agree with the sentiment that "Nobody has a right not to be offended", but surely that cannot be a justification for racists to be utterly vile because "well who cares if they're offended, because I've got the right to say whatever the hell I like, and that trumps everything else". 

It doesn't work in law, and it doesn't work in reality. 

As I recall,  it was a part of children's collection of well loved dolls.

 

Also the trade mark of well loved quality products..

 

I note that societal changes evolve for some folks, but not all!

 

Here's the Prime Minister of Canada, beloved by the Left,

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by trastrick

[Mister M]

3 hours ago, fools said:

that's quite a statement. It's a kids toy.

Sure it's a kid's toy, but it's what it represents, and the intent behind it.

Since this story erupted, and when I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them, then it's obvious how it impacts on many people. Why set out to be deliberately offensive? 

[cressida]

People bought the toy not knowing what it represented,  now the history connection has been pointed out they have become unsaleable or maybe out of fashion.

[Al Bundy]

45 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Sure it's a kid's toy, but it's what it represents, and the intent behind it.

Since this story erupted, and when I've heard people on the TV talk about how it upsets them, then it's obvious how it impacts on many people. Why set out to be deliberately offensive? 

Didn't do that sanctimonious lefty Justin Trudeau any harm.

[Mister M]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Didn't do that sanctimonious lefty Justin Trudeau any harm.

I think he was was embarrassed when reporters dug it up and presented it to him.

Is he personally sanctimonious, or does that go with the territory of being a lefty?

Edited April 19, 2023 by Mister M