See and did i care that you just said something offensive?  :comeon: And yeah gaylord's a gay name and it's something to laugh at but am i offended in any way? No i am not!!!

i didnt said anything offencive, dats was clearly ture... nd i wud i lyk to tell u its Dixit nt dikhshit.
Dixit is a word used to illustrate a quote.

nd if u try google sweet u ll find reali nyc signification

Oh you've got to be kidding me!

Hahaha. Yeah yeah, just smile. You're in the middle of an argument, just smile and be nice.  /:) I'm sorry but when you're being critical, you're never nice.

I am not nice or anything like that.

He resigned right? Argument over.
We know now who was guilty

Topic locked

Have a great day guys :)

 :shutup: :shutup: :shutup: :shutup: its bastard people they are making trouble with coman people like paul.. for small benefit some people makes future dirty that type of this reporter Paul this kind of people are really dick-shit.... :angry: :comeon: :comeon: :angr: :angr: :shutup: :thaa: :thaa: :thaa: :thaa: :thaa: :dumlak: :dumlak:

 :angry: why this topic has been started again.?

yar aah gori nu htalo  :angry:
ehnu main galla kad denia  :angr:
var var pange laindi mere nal  :thaa:
hun dsio na ehnu ki main kiha ehnu punjabi vich  :laugh:

Omg wht the hell was tht ,no respect 4 other humans i think these people should hang till death :angry: :angry: :angry:

sis oh jihdi gori aa na hardcore oh nz di aa   :laugh:
aukhi hundi c k aah thread kio  bnaya  :laugh:

In the other thread I accused Kiwis of being forty years behind the rest of the developed world, a remark which I stand by because they have little or no understanding of the concept of how remarks made by the majority against the minority are seen as racist. To them it is not racism because they are not on the receiving end and let’s face it; they are “just trying to be funny”. If that isn’t ignorance then what is? Whilst I am not advocating for the boot to be on the other foot; people like the 70 odd percent who supported Paul Henry will never understand the situation until the boot is on the other foot. That is why they get all defensive when criticised abroad.

In my view racism in comedy happened in the UK during the seventies. This type of prejudicial racism is very much prevalent in Australian and NZ comedy. It is bigoted and racist today as it was in the 70s UK, and that, after a wave of political correctness in the days of alternative comedy. Jokes and sneering remarks are targeted at minority groups. Unlike UK’s discriminatory humour of the 70s, today's NZ performers and presenters like Paul Henry are aware of the power and meaning of the taboos they choose to break.

Read this article and you will get an idea what I am talking about.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/racism-in-comedy-kramers-sense-of-humour-failure-425291.html

Putting comedy aside, under the headline ‘Whose country is it anyway?’ Winston Peters put out a leaflet. It falsely claimed that hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants are coming to New Zealand and blaming them for, among other things, traffic problems in Auckland. These immigrants are, according to Peters, simultaneously poor enough to be leeches on the welfare system, and rich enough to drive up the cost of housing.

It would be easy to dismiss all this as a piece of desperate populism. But, unlike the Australian One Nation party, New Zealand First is not a collapsing political joke: it is the third-biggest party in Wellington’s parliament, and until 1999 Peters was the country’s deputy prime minister. Barring an electoral miracle, the opposition National party will have to take them on as coalition partners if it is ever to win another election.


This article suggests that NZ institutions are, for want of a better expression, institutionally racist.

http://twm.co.nz/NZracism.htm

Do you want to work in NZ?

Read the links below before you decide. Frankly, I think every Indian should try to get into NZ, let's really "swamp" them.  :he:

http://newzeelend.wordpress.com/racism/

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/053.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0906/S00275.htm


Further reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/15/worlddispatch.australia

In the other thread I accused Kiwis of being forty years behind the rest of the developed world, a remark which I stand by because they have little or no understanding of the concept of how remarks made by the majority against the minority are seen as racist. To them it is not racism because they are not on the receiving end and let’s face it; they are “just trying to be funny”. If that isn’t ignorance then what is? Whilst I am not advocating for the boot to be on the other foot; people like the 70 odd percent who supported Paul Henry will never understand the situation until the boot is on the other foot. That is why they get all defensive when criticised abroad.

In my view racism in comedy happened in the UK during the seventies. This type of prejudicial racism is very much prevalent in Australian and NZ comedy. It is bigoted and racist today as it was in the 70s UK, and that, after a wave of political correctness in the days of alternative comedy. Jokes and sneering remarks are targeted at minority groups. Unlike UK’s discriminatory humour of the 70s, today's NZ performers and presenters like Paul Henry are aware of the power and meaning of the taboos they choose to break.

Read this article and you will get an idea what I am talking about.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/racism-in-comedy-kramers-sense-of-humour-failure-425291.html

Putting comedy aside, under the headline ‘Whose country is it anyway?’ Winston Peters put out a leaflet. It falsely claimed that hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants are coming to New Zealand and blaming them for, among other things, traffic problems in Auckland. These immigrants are, according to Peters, simultaneously poor enough to be leeches on the welfare system, and rich enough to drive up the cost of housing.

It would be easy to dismiss all this as a piece of desperate populism. But, unlike the Australian One Nation party, New Zealand First is not a collapsing political joke: it is the third-biggest party in Wellington’s parliament, and until 1999 Peters was the country’s deputy prime minister. Barring an electoral miracle, the opposition National party will have to take them on as coalition partners if it is ever to win another election.


This article suggests that NZ institutions are, for want of a better expression, institutionally racist.

http://twm.co.nz/NZracism.htm

Do you want to work in NZ?

Read the links below before you decide. Frankly, I think every Indian should try to get into NZ, let's really "swamp" them.  :he:

http://newzeelend.wordpress.com/racism/

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/053.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0906/S00275.htm


Further reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/15/worlddispatch.australia

The dude has already handed in his resignation. What else do you want him to do? Btw, you're kind of going off topic. The topic's not about racism in NZ. Not that racism is widespread over here.  :wow:

Well the first thing is this; it’s not what I want the ‘dude’ to do. It is more to do with various aspects of this thread. In reference to your earlier point regarding the 75% who support him, it suggests very much that those people do not appreciate what racism is. Since it was you who quoted that figure I merely responded to it.

Secondly, irrespective of you feeling racism is or is not widespreadt, the fact remains that 75% of the public support racist comedy. If that is the case it follows that either racism is widespread or the majority do not see it as racism, which only points to two further things. Either the public at large is ignorant or the majority does not experience racism and therefore it discounts it. That, in essence, is how racism works; it works in that way because it goes unchallenged.

No my point to you is simple. I have said it on at least four occasions. Put simply, it is not how a comment is made or a joke is told; it is how it is perceived. It’s not how you tell it that is important but how you hear it that is important. 

Furthermore I posted various links for anyone to read because you stated in an earlier post that Paul Henry was just "trying to be funny". Those links explore the premise of people using racist jibes in order to be funny. In actual fact it is appealing to the lowest denominator.

I do hope you can now see the points I make. If you disagree then do so and I will respond, but do not swear. :

Don't be pointing fingers, the guy's sarcastic as, he said something to entertain us but obviously each one of us reacted differently, we're not being ignorant, sh*t happens, move on. Ok so if you say it was an epic fail then that's how you see it but don't accuse him of being racist when he actually wasn't trying to.


That's how it came for the 75% voters who support him. So no, the majority didn't see it as racist.

Well not quite, 75% of you reacted the same.


If 75% of you can’t see it as racism and can’t tell the difference then what else is it?


If 75% of you can’t see it as racism and can’t tell the difference then what else is it?



So what does that tell you? You still don’t grasp the concept of racism at all.

But let me ask you straight, do you think it was acceptable?

This thread seems to be in two places; I shall stick to this one.

But it's not 100% so just be grateful.  :thaa: :pagel: It is what it is but it's not ignorance.You don't have to ask the question twice. Well imo, knowing what Paul's like, i know where he was coming from and so that's why i'm not accusing him of being a racist and for the last time, he wasn't trying to!