D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We've been through that argument, I'm not doing it again while the sun is out, and life is... alright
We've been through that argument, I'm not doing it again while the sun is out, and life is... alrightA good start to changing them is when people themselves, don't make the same comparisons surely?
What you and others are basically saying (I think) is in racially sensitive times a black person should be 100 percent sure that the comments aimed at them have racist intent.
No one is saying in racially sensitive times, don't compare a black person to a large black wild animal. Putting the onus on the offended person rather than the person making the comment. I find that strange.
Not really what I'm saying.
I'm saying he will undoubtedly have had worse insults thrown at him. I sadly suspect they'd include things like monkey noises, bananas and even things like the n word. Surely if he wants to highlight the racism problem he's got much more effective and clearcut examples than a buffalo which may or may not have had racial undertones. It just seems a weird one to choose considering the experiences he's probably had.
but again, unless you'v experienced racism all your life you're not really in a position to criticise, or at least say he got it wrong but I empathise with why. This isn't just about the Akinfenwa case either.
Again, you're a white person telling a black person how to react to racism or perceived racism without any criticism aimed at the initial slur, it doesn't sit well with me.
Incredible comments. That's not too bad on the racismometer Adi, stay schtum until there's a burning cross on your lawn.
Or....
If comparing you to a buffalo is a racist or you take it as racist. Do not post pictures comparing yourself to a buffalo on social media.
Going one way would give people the free reign to just say "this is racist, that is racist" and if somebody questions it. "They have had racial abuse in the past so allow it".
That's very dangerous.
Aren't we then getting towards the problems with anti-semitism and the IHRA definition? They've suffered it so they get to decide what is and isn't anti-semitic and they've seemingly decided any criticism of Israel, its officials or its policy is anti-semitic? It's a dangerous path to lead and open to abuse.
Of course those that have suffered should be by far and away the predominant voice on the issue, but that doesn't mean them deciding if something is or isn't racist makes it the right decision.
I've just given you an explanation of that in a DM Nick as you know I'm not putting the details on here.
Well NW, I’ve stayed out of it for 24hrs. How’s it worked out? Still the fault of black people?Mr Dugdale,
I like you really (I apologise). Although you can be a bit baity, there's more to you than that and actually when you get down to it, we seem to have a similar world view on how to treat people face to face etc. That frightens me a bit, but it is what it is.
Tbh I don't even get what this argument's about, or why. Could I suggest you and Tony move on to the next pointless argument?
Remember, Black Skin, White Masks. It's very good.
No but allowing "self policing" and people deciding themselves if it's racist is a dangerous way to go. The same as not really being able to question if something is racist or not. "If they say its racist then its racist" isn't going to work.
Again, I said Gammon was racist and you said it wasn't and laughed it off instantly. Imagine if I had my avatar of loads of Pakistani people to try and make a point about sex rings? What if a black person was to call a white person a snowflake? Is that a racial case?
There has to be a balance, by no means "stay quiet and take it". Far from it, if somebody has been sexually abused it doesn't mean they can claim sexual abuse whenever they want. Obviously, come down hard on the actual abusers.
Incredible comments. That's not too bad on the racismometer Adi, stay schtum until there's a burning cross on your lawn.
It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.
Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.
Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.
What are you talking about.
Are you saying him telling people he'd suffered abuse such as monkey noises, bananas etc wouldn't be more effective than talking about a comparison with a buffalo? Would there be a debate on here about whether those things were racist or not? Of course not - it'd be clear cut racism, there'd be condemnation of the perpatrators and sympathy for him and some uncomfortable soul searching from people who were in denial about how big and serious a problem this is and continues to be.
Someone who'd suffered sexual abuse and wanted to highlight it isn't going to make the deepest impression if they choose to talk about someone brushing past them on the train resulting in unwanted contact. It'd be 'maybe that person didn't mean to do it?" "if that's their biggest problem then it's clearly not that bad". Saying how you'd been raped however is going to get people to shut up and listen.
It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.
"Gammon is isn't racist because not every white person is a gammon, just angry ones"
"Buffalo is racist even though not every black person is fucking massive like that"
"If he says it is racist then its racist"
I have literally said that as a white person, Gammons come across as racist as it's purely based on skin colour.
Context is king.It also could have when he plucked animals to compare himself to.
Everything can have a tone about it if you want it to enough.
There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.
Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?
It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.
Oh and personally, if somebody who wasn't giving it the billy big bollocks was offended by CvD's avatar, I think he should change it.
The controversy with the IHRA is how it tries to link critism of Israel to antisemitism, there is nothing of that nature in this issue
What then happens if the HR department or the Police were to question things to find out if they were racist. Would they be treated with the same attitude? Wouldn't they just have to agree because the person is black and said it is racist?
No. They look into it and they have to find compelling evidence. They don't just take one person's word over another.
I've been involved in 2 cases at work (as witness), neither was black v white but same principal.
Both got thrown.out. one correctly one incorrectly in my opinion.
The point is of self-policing. We decide what is and isn't racist and if you don't like it you're a racist.
On other political threads it's been mentioned about deregulation of the finance industry and allowing them to self-regulate. I'm not in favour of that because it opens the system to abuse and just a few doing so would be calamitous for all. It's effectively letting them decide what is and isn't fraud etc.
We'll someone has to decide don't they?
If it's some of the posters on here nothing would be off limits!
But going off what you and NW have said, surely a black woman who has suffered racism saying Coco Pops are racist. Can you question that? If she thinks it is then as NW says, it is.
What happens if I went to town and got into a scrap with a black lad. If I throw the first punch am I racist? Was it a racial attack? Could it be that I was just a prick or he was a prick and absolutely deserved it? If he said it was racial then how do I prove otherwise?
It's very dangerous grounds.
If I was a black man and was called a coco pop monkey then absolutely, I'd think you were a racist c**t!But going off what you and NW have said, surely a black woman who has suffered racism saying Coco Pops are racist. Can you question that? If she thinks it is then as NW says, it is.
What happens if I went to town and got into a scrap with a black lad. If I throw the first punch am I racist? Was it a racial attack? Could it be that I was just a prick or he was a prick and absolutely deserved it? If he said it was racial then how do I prove otherwise?
It's very dangerous grounds.
Of course someone can say coco pops is racist but I don't think it would be taken seriously would it?
And it wouldn't be decided by one person would it. Silly example so.its not dangerous ground because the example is nonsense.
Same as your fight example, if you use derogatory racist slurs and there's witnesses then.it racist.
If you don't and there's witnesses then.its not. I can't believe I have to explain that it's straight forward.
If I was a black man and was called a coco pop monkey then absolutely, I'd think you were a racist c**t!
So you have to use a racist slur for it to be a race attack otherwise it isn't?
I don't think it's as straight forward as that is it?
There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.
Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?
There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.
Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?