Kick It Out

Anything yellow and blue
joepoolman
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by joepoolman » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:39 pm

The Enforcer wrote:This one below, not prosecuted for murder, but as bad as murder in my book.
Firstly, just because you believe accidentally killing someone is just as bad as as murdering them doesn't mean it's ok to label it as murder, as other people's opinions may differ.

Secondly, do you really think that?! Because I believe just about all of society, and certainly the justice system would disagree. McCormick did a terrible thing but he did not murder.

Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Dartford Ox » Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:43 pm

Jimski wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.
I suggest maybe you have a word with Mr Akinfenwa, and he'll explain it to you.
Passing the buck? I would not have the faintest idea how to communicate with Mr Akinfenwa.

Lets try it a different way. As it happens I believe Mr Akinfenwa was very good at his job. So lets change the word 'useless' to 'useful' in both instances.

Both are now complements. How the hell can anyone find a complement offensive. Unless, of course, their mind is so warped they will find offence in anything.

Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Dartford Ox » Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:51 pm

GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.
Because the second one implies uselessness as a result of ethnicity and is ergo racist. The first one is insulting but not racist.

Are you suggesting all insults should be made illegal, or are you suggesting racism should not be illegal? Either way, have a rethink.
I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.

Jimski
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Jimski » Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:23 pm

Dartford Ox wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.
Because the second one implies uselessness as a result of ethnicity and is ergo racist. The first one is insulting but not racist.

Are you suggesting all insults should be made illegal, or are you suggesting racism should not be illegal? Either way, have a rethink.
I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.
Nothing wrong with using "black" as a "run of the mill" adjective. ("I saw a black cat.") However that's not the case in your given example.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:35 pm

SmileyMan wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:That depends not just on whether he has changed his output, but also whether he has changed his attitude.

It is no more acceptable to be racist behind closed doors than it is to be racist in public.
"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

That's a dangerous road you're heading down, friend.
Its not about thought. Its about belief.

Someone who believes in racism but keeps it to themselves is no different to the racist who openly expresses their beliefs. They are both still racist with abhorrent beliefs.

It is far from a dangerous road to challenge those beliefs. Indeed it is a dangerous road not to do so.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:40 pm

Dartford Ox wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.
Because the second one implies uselessness as a result of ethnicity and is ergo racist. The first one is insulting but not racist.

Are you suggesting all insults should be made illegal, or are you suggesting racism should not be illegal? Either way, have a rethink.
I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.
You have to be suggesting one or the other, there is no alternative explanation for the form of words you have used.

The offensive bit is not using the word black, it is associating the word black with abuse, which makes it racist abuse. Hence there is no alternative position.

If you think it is OK to associate a racial term with abuse then you are saying racist abuse is OK. And I am sure you wouldn't intend to suggest that.

If you abuse someone as a bastard, that is abuse. There is no reason to include a racial term with that abuse, unless there is racist intent. I've never heard a caucasian man be called a white bastard and there is no valid reason to include the racial element whether black, white or sky blue pink with yellow spots.

Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Snake » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:13 pm

Can we all agree to disagree and call this topic closed while at the same time agreeing to be closet racists against every one of the 31 other countries competing in the World Cup?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3250&start=60

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:02 pm

Snake wrote:Can we all agree to disagree and call this topic closed while at the same time agreeing to be closet racists against every one of the 31 other countries competing in the World Cup?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3250&start=60
No we can't!

Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Dartford Ox » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:11 am

GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:
Because the second one implies uselessness as a result of ethnicity and is ergo racist. The first one is insulting but not racist.

Are you suggesting all insults should be made illegal, or are you suggesting racism should not be illegal? Either way, have a rethink.
I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.
You have to be suggesting one or the other, there is no alternative explanation for the form of words you have used.

The offensive bit is not using the word black, it is associating the word black with abuse, which makes it racist abuse. Hence there is no alternative position.

If you think it is OK to associate a racial term with abuse then you are saying racist abuse is OK. And I am sure you wouldn't intend to suggest that.

If you abuse someone as a bastard, that is abuse. There is no reason to include a racial term with that abuse, unless there is racist intent. I've never heard a caucasian man be called a white bastard and there is no valid reason to include the racial element whether black, white or sky blue pink with yellow spots.

OK - l'll try one last time.
"Joey Barton is a white obnoxious bastard with a habit putting his cigar out in peoples eyes'. That contains both colour and abuse but it is not racist. It is a criticism of the individual - not his ethnicity. The colour white is merely an adjective to assist you in identifying, and avoiding him at Christmas social gatherings.
"Craig Bellamy is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to wrap his 5 iron around his team mates" . That also contains colour and abuse but it is also a criticism of the individual. Not his ethnicity. It is to help you avoid him on the golf course.
"Lee Bowyer is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to be - well Lee Bowyer." Knowing that you can avoid him totally. But it is not racist comment.
"El Hadj Diouf is black obnoxious bastard who likes to spit in people's faces". Exactly the same reasoning applies. Black is there to help you identify and avoid him. Once again it is about the individual - not his ethnicity. It is not a racial slur.
In my opinion they are all obnoxious bastards regardless of race.

Please take you blinkers off.

----------------
And a last word which should not really be part of this thread but I feel compelled to say it. The last couple of days I have been watching veterans mourning colleagues (both black and white) who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. Those lives will have been given in vain if tyranny is allowed to return and Freedom of Speech lost. Loss of freedom of speech means and end to democracy. I believe the consequences of political correctness will be cataclysmic and the most dangerous road of all to follow. I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:00 am

Dartford Ox wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote: I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.
You have to be suggesting one or the other, there is no alternative explanation for the form of words you have used.

The offensive bit is not using the word black, it is associating the word black with abuse, which makes it racist abuse. Hence there is no alternative position.

If you think it is OK to associate a racial term with abuse then you are saying racist abuse is OK. And I am sure you wouldn't intend to suggest that.

If you abuse someone as a bastard, that is abuse. There is no reason to include a racial term with that abuse, unless there is racist intent. I've never heard a caucasian man be called a white bastard and there is no valid reason to include the racial element whether black, white or sky blue pink with yellow spots.

OK - l'll try one last time.
"Joey Barton is a white obnoxious bastard with a habit putting his cigar out in peoples eyes'. That contains both colour and abuse but it is not racist. It is a criticism of the individual - not his ethnicity. The colour white is merely an adjective to assist you in identifying, and avoiding him at Christmas social gatherings.
"Craig Bellamy is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to wrap his 5 iron around his team mates" . That also contains colour and abuse but it is also a criticism of the individual. Not his ethnicity. It is to help you avoid him on the golf course.
"Lee Bowyer is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to be - well Lee Bowyer." Knowing that you can avoid him totally. But it is not racist comment.
"El Hadj Diouf is black obnoxious bastard who likes to spit in people's faces". Exactly the same reasoning applies. Black is there to help you identify and avoid him. Once again it is about the individual - not his ethnicity. It is not a racial slur.
In my opinion they are all obnoxious bastards regardless of race.

Please take you blinkers off.

----------------
And a last word which should not really be part of this thread but I feel compelled to say it. The last couple of days I have been watching veterans mourning colleagues (both black and white) who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. Those lives will have been given in vain if tyranny is allowed to return and Freedom of Speech lost. Loss of freedom of speech means and end to democracy. I believe the consequences of political correctness will be cataclysmic and the most dangerous road of all to follow. I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.
You haven't changed the argument one little bit with any of that.

All those statements are potentially racist. Whether they are actually racist or not depends whether you are of the same ethnicity as the person you are talking about.

Your knowledge of your intent is not sufficient justification.

I don't wear blinkers and I see the effect that such points of view have on others. Do you? Really?

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:01 am

Dartford Ox wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:
Dartford Ox wrote: I am not suggesting either. What I am saying is what is wrong with using the word black as a run of the mill adjective. There is nothing offensive about it.
You have to be suggesting one or the other, there is no alternative explanation for the form of words you have used.

The offensive bit is not using the word black, it is associating the word black with abuse, which makes it racist abuse. Hence there is no alternative position.

If you think it is OK to associate a racial term with abuse then you are saying racist abuse is OK. And I am sure you wouldn't intend to suggest that.

If you abuse someone as a bastard, that is abuse. There is no reason to include a racial term with that abuse, unless there is racist intent. I've never heard a caucasian man be called a white bastard and there is no valid reason to include the racial element whether black, white or sky blue pink with yellow spots.

OK - l'll try one last time.
"Joey Barton is a white obnoxious bastard with a habit putting his cigar out in peoples eyes'. That contains both colour and abuse but it is not racist. It is a criticism of the individual - not his ethnicity. The colour white is merely an adjective to assist you in identifying, and avoiding him at Christmas social gatherings.
"Craig Bellamy is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to wrap his 5 iron around his team mates" . That also contains colour and abuse but it is also a criticism of the individual. Not his ethnicity. It is to help you avoid him on the golf course.
"Lee Bowyer is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to be - well Lee Bowyer." Knowing that you can avoid him totally. But it is not racist comment.
"El Hadj Diouf is black obnoxious bastard who likes to spit in people's faces". Exactly the same reasoning applies. Black is there to help you identify and avoid him. Once again it is about the individual - not his ethnicity. It is not a racial slur.
In my opinion they are all obnoxious bastards regardless of race.

Please take you blinkers off.

----------------
And a last word which should not really be part of this thread but I feel compelled to say it. The last couple of days I have been watching veterans mourning colleagues (both black and white) who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. Those lives will have been given in vain if tyranny is allowed to return and Freedom of Speech lost. Loss of freedom of speech means and end to democracy. I believe the consequences of political correctness will be cataclysmic and the most dangerous road of all to follow. I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.
You haven't changed the argument one little bit with any of that.

All those statements are potentially racist. Whether they are actually racist or not depends whether you are of the same ethnicity as the person you are talking about.

Your knowledge of your intent is not sufficient justification.

I don't wear blinkers and I see the effect that such points of view have on others. Do you? Do you really?

As I said earlier. Have a rethink on that one.

BigCrompy
Puberty
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Hobart

Re: Kick It Out

Post by BigCrompy » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:43 am

Dartford Ox wrote:
OK - l'll try one last time.
"Joey Barton is a white obnoxious bastard with a habit putting his cigar out in peoples eyes'. That contains both colour and abuse but it is not racist. It is a criticism of the individual - not his ethnicity. The colour white is merely an adjective to assist you in identifying, and avoiding him at Christmas social gatherings.
"Craig Bellamy is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to wrap his 5 iron around his team mates" . That also contains colour and abuse but it is also a criticism of the individual. Not his ethnicity. It is to help you avoid him on the golf course.
"Lee Bowyer is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to be - well Lee Bowyer." Knowing that you can avoid him totally. But it is not racist comment.
"El Hadj Diouf is black obnoxious bastard who likes to spit in people's faces". Exactly the same reasoning applies. Black is there to help you identify and avoid him. Once again it is about the individual - not his ethnicity. It is not a racial slur.
In my opinion they are all obnoxious bastards regardless of race.

Please take your blinkers off.

----------------
And a last word which should not really be part of this thread but I feel compelled to say it. The last couple of days I have been watching veterans mourning colleagues (both black and white) who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. Those lives will have been given in vain if tyranny is allowed to return and Freedom of Speech lost. Loss of freedom of speech means and end to democracy. I believe the consequences of political correctness will be cataclysmic and the most dangerous road of all to follow. I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.
Sir; I politely respect your right to write with such passion on this matter and cite 'freedom of speech' as your defence; but the matter afoot I understand is 'belief' not 'speech', and I wish to make some observations as I think your argument is flawed.

Firstly I don't accept the need to use a skin colour as an identifier 'to avoid someone at a party'; that's just not realistic. In face, you've already included the ultimate identifier in the person's name. If I wanted to avoid said Joey Barton at a party yet didn't know him; I'd simply ask his name. Thus, the skin colour in your statement is pretty redundant. Unless, of course, you intend to use it to make an implication on the strength of it; whatever that may be. I don't know your line of work; but I certainly wouldn't get too far in mine, if I didn't know who my next patient to call in from the waiting room was - to ask the receptionist - "is it the black one or the white one?" I think I'd probably just call their name.

Secondly, you don't (and cannot) know anyone's heritage simply by looking at them. Genetics are a curious thing and you might be surprised to know how many folk identify themselves as either black or white when that may not be the immediate assumption. There was an extremely interesting National Geographic piece about it recently. My point being; you are pigeon-holing and assuming based on a lack of knowledge, and those are dangerous precedents.

There was a hugely topical and polarising case out here in the last year involving a massive media personality, the head of Melbourne's Channel 9 who is somewhat of a narcissist and cannot keep his head out of the spotlight; he hosts radio shows and TV quizzes, not to mention being the president of the biggest club in the parochial and frankly odd AFL. On his radio show one morning, Eddie McGuire was discussing the opening of the King Kong stage musical in the city, and suggested to his co-host that they might invite Adam Goodes, probably the greatest indigenous Australian footballer of modern times, to promote it. Whether or not he realised his gaffe before his co-host (who was aghast) is not recorded; and he certainly apologised. What was clear was that it was supposed to be a witticism, albeit an exceedingly poor one.

But my contention is, that it must bely an inherent racism. It simply must. Because whilst I am not a national media personality as Eddie McGuire is here, I am quite, quite confident that in my heart, if I was hosting a radio show and clutching at straws for a joke on the spur of the moment, I would never, EVER resort to one that relies on the segregation and discrimation of people according to their ethnicity.

I do agree that there is nothing wrong with the use of 'black' as an adjective (and nothing bugs me more than the sloppy, over-PC and often ignorant conception of the phrase 'African American') but also agree with GY that in these examples, you are associating the word 'black' with abuse, and thus on some level you imply it to be derogatory; hence it is utterly unacceptable. I hope I am right in saying that almost all good people would concur.

Kairdiff Exile
Dashing young thing
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Kick It Out

Post by Kairdiff Exile » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:21 am

Dartford Ox wrote:I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
Yeah, bloody political correctness, making us all be polite to each other.

SmileyMan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:39 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by SmileyMan » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:52 am

GodalmingYellow wrote:All those statements are potentially racist. Whether they are actually racist or not depends whether you are of the same ethnicity as the person you are talking about.

Your knowledge of your intent is not sufficient justification.
Hang about, you can only be racist towards people of another ethnicity? How does that work? If I hypothetically hate all white people, specifically because they're white, that is not racist?

And your second point implies that a perfectly good English adjective, is categorically racist (when not used by a person who is arbitrarily identified by that adjective) no matter what the intent of the statement?

In that case, you'd better not hope any East Asians notice your forum name.

This late twentieth century socialist thoughtcrime crap makes me sick. If you want to assuage your middle class guilt then actually go out and do some good in the world. Go help in an inner-city school, or raise money to feed some starving kids somewhere, or maybe campaign aginst the treatment of women in developing countries. Don't do it by sitting behind a keyboard and firing out patently false accusations of 'racism' based on some arbitrary reading of a bunch of words, stripped entirely of context and history.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Kick It Out

Post by GodalmingYellow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:19 am

SmileyMan wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:All those statements are potentially racist. Whether they are actually racist or not depends whether you are of the same ethnicity as the person you are talking about.

Your knowledge of your intent is not sufficient justification.
Hang about, you can only be racist towards people of another ethnicity? How does that work? If I hypothetically hate all white people, specifically because they're white, that is not racist?

And your second point implies that a perfectly good English adjective, is categorically racist (when not used by a person who is arbitrarily identified by that adjective) no matter what the intent of the statement?

In that case, you'd better not hope any East Asians notice your forum name.

This late twentieth century socialist thoughtcrime crap makes me sick. If you want to assuage your middle class guilt then actually go out and do some good in the world. Go help in an inner-city school, or raise money to feed some starving kids somewhere, or maybe campaign aginst the treatment of women in developing countries. Don't do it by sitting behind a keyboard and firing out patently false accusations of 'racism' based on some arbitrary reading of a bunch of words, stripped entirely of context and history.
On your point one, my predication is that as a caucasian British person, I could not be racist to another caucasian British person, else otherwise I would be being racist to myself. How can that not be the case? Strange argument if I might say so.

Your second point ignores that the use of the adjective must be accompanied by abuse to be regarded as racist abuse, and that the adjective must relate to the person's ethnicity, and is therefore a complete red herring. If someone abuses me as a yellow bastard, it could not be because of my race. Simply saying someone is black is not racist, it is a point of fact. Saying someone is a bastard is not racist, whether they are of different ethnicity to the abuser or not, it is just abusive. But put the two together to make the phrase black bastard, whatever the intention, the statement becomes racist.

Also do not forget that offensive isn't just about intent, it is also about receipt. You can make a racist comment without intending to do so, simply because of the use of racial terms that the recipient finds offensive.

Whilst I am not making any comparisons, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century rise of facism, and the earlier eighteenth and nineteenth century rise of slavery, were often exacerbated and perpetuated by the deliberately ignored use of racist language. It cannot be tolerated. Not ever. With free speech comes responsibility to consider the impact of your text and speech on others.

Your last point is personal and incorrect and irrelevant, so I won't respond other than to say I've accused no one of anything, this is a hypothetical discussion. First time, and hopefully the last time, I've ever been called a socialist though.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests