Interesting. I can't decide whether I agree with what you say about Amy. But she definitely had it in for him; it may have been just that she saw him as the easiest target.
Oh, she did see him as the easiest target. He had been in the boardroom twice so it was in her best interest to set him up as the weakest candidate. And why not? It's a competition after all.
What I was referring to is the nature of her language. I don't believe she even realised what she was doing/saying. Most people aren't, anyway. It's so part of our society that we don't really see it. I think that's probably why Amy didn't call him out on sexism. She was probably so used to it that she didn't notice, or chose to ignore. Who knows?
For example, during Amy's screwed-up phone call in the cab, Lucy and David corrected her in equal amounts. Amy branded David an 'idiot' for 'shouting' over her phone call and yet she didn't scold Lucy for doing the same. In fact, she was more receptive towards Lucy's corrections than she was towards David's same corrections. Anyway.
This is completely untrue. Lucy spoke over the conversation once, as did David - she snapped at both of them and Lucy just kept quiet. David continued to try and correct her mistake and then after the call she didnt actually say anything it was him who tried to give her advice and then she responded by saying what she did - she didnt accuse him of 'shouting' so why have you quoted that? And she said he was acting like an idiot, at that moment, not he was an idiot in general. In the boardroom she said both of them were talking over her and it was really annoying. In what way was she more receptive to Lucy's correction? I think if you are going to imply that somebody is potentially racist then you really ought to get your facts completely straight.
This is completely untrue. Lucy spoke over the conversation once, as did David - she snapped at both of them and Lucy just kept quiet. David continued to try and correct her mistake and then after the call she didnt actually say anything it was him who tried to give her advice and then she responded by saying what she did - she didnt accuse him of 'shouting' so why have you quoted that? And she said he was acting like an idiot, at that moment, not he was an idiot in general. In the boardroom she said both of them were talking over her and it was really annoying. In what way was she more receptive to Lucy's correction? I think if you are going to imply that somebody is potentially racist then you really ought to get your facts completely straight.
Jesus Christ. At what point did I say Amy was a racist? I never said she was one.
In any case, she said "Oh, 26" after Lucy said "26" in spite of David's earlier correction, and she did say 'shouting'. Read the transcript here http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=62437815&highlight=#post62437815 where you'll see this line: "AMY: You kept talking over him and it was SO annoying and ridiculous. You were acting like an idiot, shouting over him!". The BBC's subtitles back this transcript up.
Look, I don't give a crap about David, but I do give a crap about constructive criticisms and fair assessments. At the moment, he IS a weak candidate, he IS a sexist pig (based on his silly bravado talk and views) and he IS the house's favourite target, which is absolutely fine as it's a competition.
What I have been questioning are the purpose and intentions behind Amy and some DS commenters' word choices and perspectives. Not whether they are racist. I hope I've articulated better this time.
Jesus Christ. At what point did I say Amy was a racist? I never said she was one.
In any case, she said "Oh, 26" after Lucy said "26" in spite of David's earlier correction, and she did say 'shouting'. Read the transcript here http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=62437815&highlight=#post62437815 where you'll see this line: "AMY: You kept talking over him and it was SO annoying and ridiculous. You were acting like an idiot, shouting over him!". The BBC's subtitles back this transcript up.
Look, I don't give a crap about David, but I do give a crap about constructive criticisms and fair assessments. At the moment, he IS a weak candidate, he IS a sexist pig (based on his silly bravado talk and views) and he IS the house's favourite target, which is absolutely fine as it's a competition.
What I have been questioning are the purpose and intentions behind Amy and some DS commenters' word choices and perspectives. Not whether they are racist. I hope I've articulated better this time.
No she didnt - she said 'oh 26' in response to the man on the phone who yet again had repeated the number. Lucy was staying quiet by this point. Its all here.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Y6Yi2djww
Why does there need to be any intentions behind Amys comments? She has been labelled as argumentative and aggressive in her manner, if it was just David that she behaved this way towards I would question it but it doesnt seem the case. ~The week before Lucy was in tears at the way she was treated by Amy and one of the other girls. David was squabbling with her so she reacted, I dont think she would have been any different with the others - she seemed to be looking for an argument. She said DAvid was not a good leader for the sub-team and from the small amount we get to see, it was hard to judge but I didnt see a great drive within him to get things done but he wasnt doing nothing either.
What are DS commentators word comments about David? The way I read this thread is questioning whether the others are intimidated by Davids skills (not that I agree with this thread) not physically intimidated - I dont think anybody could say he is like that. What other word choices have there been?
Why does there need to be any intentions behind Amys comments? [snipped] What are DS commentators word comments about David? The way I read this thread is questioning whether the others are intimidated by Davids skills (not that I agree with this thread) not physically intimidated - I dont think anybody could say he is like that. What other word choices have there been?
As far as I can see from DS's search results (David + useless), six DS commentators have described him as useless and lazy in various threads, which I was addressing. I mean, I just find this trend bloody weird. For example, what did Navdeep, Patrick and Maria(?) do, apart from bitching about their PM? Why didn't these commentators brand them useless and lazy? David took an active part in suggesting a team name along with one or two candidates while the rest didn't. Was he lazy and useless there? No. He took part in selling clothes and advising Patrick, such as that they shouldn't move to another location. Was he lazy and useless here? No. And on it goes.
And yet there are commentators who insist that he's useless and lazy, on top of Amy using the same words in the boardroom. For me, at this point, it's not about David any more. It's about these questions: Why those specific words? Especially when there's a history behind those specific words?
I feel there's a pattern going on here, which is why I talked about it. I was guessing that it may be because of the social conditioning of us in how we view people and the words we use in association with them in accordance with their ethnicity (and in other cases, accent, gender or whatnot). When we see a young smoker in a hoodie and trainers, we automatically think "Chav", don't we? After that thought, an established set of expectations and assumptions about that person will crop up, which then alters our views, behaviour and language towards that person. All this is replaced by a completely different set of expectations and assumptions when we see an elderly woman in pearls and twin-set cardigan and tweed skirt. Our language will be changed along with it, too.
This is what I meant when I said that not all of us realise that we sometimes choose words in accordance with what we see or hear about a person's ethnicity or whatnot. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge or discuss this? Dismissing it as "oversensitive" or whatnot suggests we still have a long way to go.
I feel I've explained, clarified and talked this to death so I hope you understand if I retire from this specific topic now. Thanks.
I find David quite likeable. He's not the strongest candidate or the best organised by a long way but neither is he the worst. At least he doesn't attack all the time like Maria who I find really unpleasant.
I find David quite likeable. He's not the strongest candidate or the best organised by a long way but neither is he the worst. At least he doesn't attack all the time like Maria who I find really unpleasant.
Definitely a Rottweiler in a previous life. :cool:
Takae I was wrong and you were right David is toast. He was totally rubbish in tonights task
He's been that bad in all of them. He talks without any substance to whats he's saying much of the time- which is never a good sign . Lord Sugar pulled him up on it tonight and it manifested itself again in his inability to decide anything while talking obliquely around the subject. Thats why when all the others criticise him they have been using the same analysis for weeks, why Karen is saying the same things, and its almost certainly why Lord Sugar made him PM because he knew the others wouldn't vote for him to be that.
Ironically, in this weeks shambles he did possibly fall into a good, even winning, decision. Putting the customers outside meant he could serve more customers, and it also allowed passers by to see his product and be attracted by it. However, none of that occurred to him as he was just looking for somewhere to put all the people he was keeping waiting for any food.
he's not alone though in not being that good. For some reason, so far Lord Sugar has tested the candidates who claimed expertise in catering, fashion and publishing, and they have all failed to produce the goods. Some people have not been tested on their specific skills at all - some can't be - who is next weeks task intended to test by entertaining kids??
Just tapping into an old stereotype about African men. It was an oddly pointless thing to say anyway; he obviously wanted to do more than he did, but kept getting barked at to back off.
Ok, so every word I use needs to get checked against 1000 years of history for any possible negative/racial undertones?
Agree with this, lazy isn't a stereotype I have heard associated to blacks, mostly Mexicans.
The candidates are even younger than me so I don't think it is realistic to assume they would know the racist connotations of the word.
Yeah I don't think the description was loaded, it was just, ironically, a very lazy way of criticising him. I think she was hoping that if she just insulted him, some of it would stick. She should have pointed out examples of things he'd done wrong, without the name calling.
Yeah I don't think the description was loaded, it was just, ironically, a very lazy way of criticising him. I think she was hoping that if she just insulted him, some of it would stick. She should have pointed out examples of things he'd done wrong, without the name calling.
The name calling in that episode got me really wound up, they really are just children in suits.
So you can't refer to black people collectively as "blacks"?
I'm just picking up on your poor grammar stop being oversensitive and defensive.A group of black people are not called blacks, they are called black people. A group of white people are not called whites they are called white people, Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Why on earth does the OP feel the need to highlight that he's black? You wouldn't ask
"Why are all the candidates intimidated by young white apprentice David" or
"Why was Sean intimidated by young blonde/northern Irish apprentice Maria"??
You didn't see the thread entitled "That annoying Irish one"? Notice that it does not give her name. Or the posts in this thread such as the one referring to the mental Irish one - again no name.
As far as I can see from DS's search results (David + useless), six DS commentators have described him as useless and lazy in various threads, which I was addressing. I mean, I just find this trend bloody weird. For example, what did Navdeep, Patrick and Maria(?) do, apart from bitching about their PM? Why didn't these commentators brand them useless and lazy? David took an active part in suggesting a team name along with one or two candidates while the rest didn't. Was he lazy and useless there? No. He took part in selling clothes and advising Patrick, such as that they shouldn't move to another location. Was he lazy and useless here? No. And on it goes.
And yet there are commentators who insist that he's useless and lazy, on top of Amy using the same words in the boardroom. For me, at this point, it's not about David any more. It's about these questions: Why those specific words? Especially when there's a history behind those specific words?
I feel there's a pattern going on here, which is why I talked about it. I was guessing that it may be because of the social conditioning of us in how we view people and the words we use in association with them in accordance with their ethnicity (and in other cases, accent, gender or whatnot). When we see a young smoker in a hoodie and trainers, we automatically think "Chav", don't we? After that thought, an established set of expectations and assumptions about that person will crop up, which then alters our views, behaviour and language towards that person. All this is replaced by a completely different set of expectations and assumptions when we see an elderly woman in pearls and twin-set cardigan and tweed skirt. Our language will be changed along with it, too.
This is what I meant when I said that not all of us realise that we sometimes choose words in accordance with what we see or hear about a person's ethnicity or whatnot. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge or discuss this? Dismissing it as "oversensitive" or whatnot suggests we still have a long way to go.
I feel I've explained, clarified and talked this to death so I hope you understand if I retire from this specific topic now. Thanks.
A bit less of the "we", please! You are generalising at length. You may be convinced of all that you have set out about your list of stereotypes and have prayed these in aid to account for Amy's view of David. However, you don't know what Amy knows or what has influenced her or what her view of him is based on. I don't know either. She may never have heard of those stereotypes, for all we know. He may even be a lazy and useless so and so.
I'm just picking up on your poor grammar stop being oversensitive and defensive.A group of black people are not called blacks, they are called black people. A group of white people are not called whites they are called white people, Do you understand where I'm coming from?
I was asking a question, I wasn't being oversensitive or defensive, I opened myself up for correction.
Don't know if it makes a difference but I was using blacks to refer to the black race as a whole, not just a group of black people.
Agree with this, lazy isn't a stereotype I have heard associated to blacks, mostly Mexicans.
The candidates are even younger than me so I don't think it is realistic to assume they would know the racist connotations of the word.
Lazy is a word thats applied to people who are lazy whatever ethnic group they come from . David isn't lazy. If anything he's too active .He's just not got much ability - which means he doesn't produce the goods - but its not for want of trying. He's not the only one there on this series with that problem.
Yes, every table was full and people were still queueing. That was a good decision by him and worked well.
It wasn't really a good decision though. The good decision would have been to think about profits and expand his seating area because that would increase his customers and his take. A better one would be to note that the people outside would be a free advert . He stumbled into the move because he had an enormous queue and was trying to think of something to do with them. he still wasn't focused on the big question which was how to shorten the queue of people waiting to eat.
Agreed - how many cafes or tea shops, when faced with a queue, decide to put a sheet on the ground and say 'you can sit there'? It's a POOR business decision, Queues are quite good advertising, it was a nice day - probably the TV cameras made people happy to both queue and sit on the grass, rather than wait for or demand a table. Likewise punters saying they loved having to drink tea out of shoes or whatever was a charming part of the Mad Hatter theme, rather than incompetence. I'm still dubious about how they made the profits they did without it being something to do with being in a better location.
Also did one person actually order any of Ashleigh's disgusting sandwiches? Or did they have no choice? Chocolate and banana sandwich? I feel sick just thinking about it.
Comments
Oh, she did see him as the easiest target. He had been in the boardroom twice so it was in her best interest to set him up as the weakest candidate. And why not? It's a competition after all.
What I was referring to is the nature of her language. I don't believe she even realised what she was doing/saying. Most people aren't, anyway. It's so part of our society that we don't really see it. I think that's probably why Amy didn't call him out on sexism. She was probably so used to it that she didn't notice, or chose to ignore. Who knows?
This is completely untrue. Lucy spoke over the conversation once, as did David - she snapped at both of them and Lucy just kept quiet. David continued to try and correct her mistake and then after the call she didnt actually say anything it was him who tried to give her advice and then she responded by saying what she did - she didnt accuse him of 'shouting' so why have you quoted that? And she said he was acting like an idiot, at that moment, not he was an idiot in general. In the boardroom she said both of them were talking over her and it was really annoying. In what way was she more receptive to Lucy's correction? I think if you are going to imply that somebody is potentially racist then you really ought to get your facts completely straight.
Jesus Christ. At what point did I say Amy was a racist? I never said she was one.
In any case, she said "Oh, 26" after Lucy said "26" in spite of David's earlier correction, and she did say 'shouting'. Read the transcript here http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=62437815&highlight=#post62437815 where you'll see this line: "AMY: You kept talking over him and it was SO annoying and ridiculous. You were acting like an idiot, shouting over him!". The BBC's subtitles back this transcript up.
Look, I don't give a crap about David, but I do give a crap about constructive criticisms and fair assessments. At the moment, he IS a weak candidate, he IS a sexist pig (based on his silly bravado talk and views) and he IS the house's favourite target, which is absolutely fine as it's a competition.
What I have been questioning are the purpose and intentions behind Amy and some DS commenters' word choices and perspectives. Not whether they are racist. I hope I've articulated better this time.
No she didnt - she said 'oh 26' in response to the man on the phone who yet again had repeated the number. Lucy was staying quiet by this point. Its all here.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Y6Yi2djww
Why does there need to be any intentions behind Amys comments? She has been labelled as argumentative and aggressive in her manner, if it was just David that she behaved this way towards I would question it but it doesnt seem the case. ~The week before Lucy was in tears at the way she was treated by Amy and one of the other girls. David was squabbling with her so she reacted, I dont think she would have been any different with the others - she seemed to be looking for an argument. She said DAvid was not a good leader for the sub-team and from the small amount we get to see, it was hard to judge but I didnt see a great drive within him to get things done but he wasnt doing nothing either.
What are DS commentators word comments about David? The way I read this thread is questioning whether the others are intimidated by Davids skills (not that I agree with this thread) not physically intimidated - I dont think anybody could say he is like that. What other word choices have there been?
As far as I can see from DS's search results (David + useless), six DS commentators have described him as useless and lazy in various threads, which I was addressing. I mean, I just find this trend bloody weird. For example, what did Navdeep, Patrick and Maria(?) do, apart from bitching about their PM? Why didn't these commentators brand them useless and lazy? David took an active part in suggesting a team name along with one or two candidates while the rest didn't. Was he lazy and useless there? No. He took part in selling clothes and advising Patrick, such as that they shouldn't move to another location. Was he lazy and useless here? No. And on it goes.
And yet there are commentators who insist that he's useless and lazy, on top of Amy using the same words in the boardroom. For me, at this point, it's not about David any more. It's about these questions: Why those specific words? Especially when there's a history behind those specific words?
I feel there's a pattern going on here, which is why I talked about it. I was guessing that it may be because of the social conditioning of us in how we view people and the words we use in association with them in accordance with their ethnicity (and in other cases, accent, gender or whatnot). When we see a young smoker in a hoodie and trainers, we automatically think "Chav", don't we? After that thought, an established set of expectations and assumptions about that person will crop up, which then alters our views, behaviour and language towards that person. All this is replaced by a completely different set of expectations and assumptions when we see an elderly woman in pearls and twin-set cardigan and tweed skirt. Our language will be changed along with it, too.
This is what I meant when I said that not all of us realise that we sometimes choose words in accordance with what we see or hear about a person's ethnicity or whatnot. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge or discuss this? Dismissing it as "oversensitive" or whatnot suggests we still have a long way to go.
I feel I've explained, clarified and talked this to death so I hope you understand if I retire from this specific topic now. Thanks.
Definitely a Rottweiler in a previous life. :cool:
He's been that bad in all of them. He talks without any substance to whats he's saying much of the time- which is never a good sign . Lord Sugar pulled him up on it tonight and it manifested itself again in his inability to decide anything while talking obliquely around the subject. Thats why when all the others criticise him they have been using the same analysis for weeks, why Karen is saying the same things, and its almost certainly why Lord Sugar made him PM because he knew the others wouldn't vote for him to be that.
Ironically, in this weeks shambles he did possibly fall into a good, even winning, decision. Putting the customers outside meant he could serve more customers, and it also allowed passers by to see his product and be attracted by it. However, none of that occurred to him as he was just looking for somewhere to put all the people he was keeping waiting for any food.
he's not alone though in not being that good. For some reason, so far Lord Sugar has tested the candidates who claimed expertise in catering, fashion and publishing, and they have all failed to produce the goods. Some people have not been tested on their specific skills at all - some can't be - who is next weeks task intended to test by entertaining kids??
Ok, so every word I use needs to get checked against 1000 years of history for any possible negative/racial undertones?
Agree with this, lazy isn't a stereotype I have heard associated to blacks, mostly Mexicans.
The candidates are even younger than me so I don't think it is realistic to assume they would know the racist connotations of the word.
What is a Blacks, you mean Black people right?
Yeah I don't think the description was loaded, it was just, ironically, a very lazy way of criticising him. I think she was hoping that if she just insulted him, some of it would stick. She should have pointed out examples of things he'd done wrong, without the name calling.
Not really the done thing, I would say.
The name calling in that episode got me really wound up, they really are just children in suits.
Oh goodness, I guess I will have to stop saying that
I'm just picking up on your poor grammar stop being oversensitive and defensive.A group of black people are not called blacks, they are called black people. A group of white people are not called whites they are called white people, Do you understand where I'm coming from?
You didn't see the thread entitled "That annoying Irish one"? Notice that it does not give her name. Or the posts in this thread such as the one referring to the mental Irish one - again no name.
A bit less of the "we", please! You are generalising at length. You may be convinced of all that you have set out about your list of stereotypes and have prayed these in aid to account for Amy's view of David. However, you don't know what Amy knows or what has influenced her or what her view of him is based on. I don't know either. She may never have heard of those stereotypes, for all we know. He may even be a lazy and useless so and so.
I was asking a question, I wasn't being oversensitive or defensive, I opened myself up for correction.
Don't know if it makes a difference but I was using blacks to refer to the black race as a whole, not just a group of black people.
Yes, every table was full and people were still queueing. That was a good decision by him and worked well.
Lazy is a word thats applied to people who are lazy whatever ethnic group they come from . David isn't lazy. If anything he's too active .He's just not got much ability - which means he doesn't produce the goods - but its not for want of trying. He's not the only one there on this series with that problem.
It wasn't really a good decision though. The good decision would have been to think about profits and expand his seating area because that would increase his customers and his take. A better one would be to note that the people outside would be a free advert . He stumbled into the move because he had an enormous queue and was trying to think of something to do with them. he still wasn't focused on the big question which was how to shorten the queue of people waiting to eat.
Also did one person actually order any of Ashleigh's disgusting sandwiches? Or did they have no choice? Chocolate and banana sandwich? I feel sick just thinking about it.