At who?
--------
At the black race
So Hitler wasn't racist then?
-----------------------------------------
Interesting question & one that has been the subject of many debates, but totally irrelevant to this discussion.
At the black race
-------------------------
So between themselves then? Or directing their views towards an individual?
Irrelevant?!?! By your definiton he wasn't racist. By everyone else's he is. Which casts doubt on your definition
Racist abuse is a the conveying of racist attitudes by verbal or written means. Trying to separate the 2 is rather pointless
The intention to be humorous appears to cover a multitude of sins accrding to your view of racism (and the subset of racial abuse)
---------------------------------------------
Context is important, of course it is.
No idea how old you are, but back in the 70's there were prime time TV shows were white men 'blacked up' singing & white men called black men 'chalky' & vice versa 'honky'. Whilst now, it would never happen back then (delivered with humour) it was considered acceptable.
Racial abuse requires intent to cause distress.
People can wander round having racist opinions that they never vocalise, or if they do, generally only in the presence of fellow bigots, who wouldn't dream of sharing their opinions with a member of the race they had an issue with.
Irrelevant?!?! By your definiton he wasn't racist. By everyone else's he is. Which casts doubt on your definition
-------------------------------------
What definition?
"Racial abuse requires intent to cause distress."
Sorry TB but it doesn't. It can be ruled abusive 'if' it caused distress, which may or may not have been intended.
Some comments are obviously abusive and there's no interpretation necessary - 'you black/white **********' However, lots of comments are open to interpretation and/or only abusive if the hearer is offended. btw I'm trying to be general here and not talking specifically about 'the' incident.
I've just read your quote back and now I'm not sure if we've actually said the same thing.
When you made your comment did you mean - people set out with the intent of causing distress therefore that is racial abuse? I didn't read it like that first time round.
No idea how old you are, but back in the 70's there were prime time TV shows were white men 'blacked up' singing & white men called black men 'chalky' & vice versa 'honky'. Whilst now, it would never happen back then (delivered with humour) it was considered acceptable.
-----------------
I remember the black and white mistrels. They weren't intended to be funny though. I wasn't amused anyway
Its still acceptable in Holland today. Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) who is a blacked up white person is a cherished part of dutch culture (sinterklaas) to this day. I was shocked when I first saw it but the dutch are fiercely protective of their right to do it.
I agree that some people do have deep rooted racist beliefs. I do not agree that they should be allowed to spout their views as long as they have carefully selected their audience.
Sorry TB but it doesn't. It can be ruled abusive 'if' it caused distress, which may or may not have been intended.
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I accept that, as for it to be 'abusive' then there must be some form of intent or construed intent e.g. the tone & the context of the comment.
If not, then surely old Bernard & Chubby Brown would be arrested every time they take to the stage???
What definiton?
-----------
Your definiton....
how is that in the same stratosphere as racial ABUSE? Which is deliberately intended to cause distress to an individual by directing abuse based on their skin colour,
I agree that some people do have deep rooted racist beliefs. I do not agree that they should be allowed to spout their views as long as they have carefully selected their audience.
--------------------------------------------
Me neither, but it happens every day of the week.
Your definiton....
----------------------
That wasn't my definition of racism though was it?
That was me comparing a racist joke with racial abuse.
I think I get it now. You think a word or comment is found to be abusive because it must have been intended to be abusive otherwise it wouldn't be ruled as such. I don't agree with that.
TB - presuming you could get along with a red for more than a few minutes - and vice versa - wouldn't you love one to be in your corner if you're ever up for anything like this?
(Joke btw)
You stated that racial abuse is basd on skin colour.
I think I get it now. You think a word or comment is found to be abusive because it must have been intended to be abusive otherwise it wouldn't be ruled as such. I don't agree with that.
------------------------------------------------
I suppose certain words have no contextual reason for their use in 2012 & as such, could be considered 'abuse' merely by their use, as ignorance is considered no excuse.
TB - presuming you could get along with a red for more than a few minutes - and vice versa - wouldn't you love one to be in your corner if you're ever up for anything like this?
------------------------------------------
LOL, there's more experts in South American culture around Anfield than I'd ever realised....
ergo Hitler's rantings against the jews wasn't racially abusive. Doubly so in fact because I doubt there were too many jews at his rallies to be offended
FSB - if you want to pedantic, 'the Jews' aren't a race pal.
Not in a taxonomic sense but I think you're the one whose being pedantic
Talking about 'the incident' specifically - the word 'negro' is Spanish for the colour black and not in and of itself abuse at all. Within it's own culture the word used as a name for a person also isn't offensive. We can't translate it into English and maintain it's meaning because it would at best equate to something like ' hey chalks', 'hey blackie' - I don't think you can say those with aggression. If it is translated, as it was, it loses it's meaning because to say 'hey black' wouldn't occur in English, you would have to make it into blackie to make sense. In Spanish there is a derogatory name for blacks which would have been used had it been intended as a slur.
Now in general terms away from the incident - the n word is abusive in any context (leave out rap references). The word negro/black/coloured can and can't be abusive it depends on context. Not many words other than the n word or swear words or the derogatory derivitives of words for Pakastani, Chineseetc are of themselves abusive. You have said context is important and I agree.
Again reading my own comment back - don't think I'm siding with Suarez on what he said.
Not in any sense mate, Judaism is a religion......
Sign in if you want to comment
FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 6/1/12
At who?
--------
At the black race
posted on 6/1/12
So Hitler wasn't racist then?
-----------------------------------------
Interesting question & one that has been the subject of many debates, but totally irrelevant to this discussion.
posted on 6/1/12
At the black race
-------------------------
So between themselves then? Or directing their views towards an individual?
posted on 6/1/12
Irrelevant?!?! By your definiton he wasn't racist. By everyone else's he is. Which casts doubt on your definition
posted on 6/1/12
Racist abuse is a the conveying of racist attitudes by verbal or written means. Trying to separate the 2 is rather pointless
posted on 6/1/12
The intention to be humorous appears to cover a multitude of sins accrding to your view of racism (and the subset of racial abuse)
---------------------------------------------
Context is important, of course it is.
No idea how old you are, but back in the 70's there were prime time TV shows were white men 'blacked up' singing & white men called black men 'chalky' & vice versa 'honky'. Whilst now, it would never happen back then (delivered with humour) it was considered acceptable.
Racial abuse requires intent to cause distress.
People can wander round having racist opinions that they never vocalise, or if they do, generally only in the presence of fellow bigots, who wouldn't dream of sharing their opinions with a member of the race they had an issue with.
posted on 6/1/12
Irrelevant?!?! By your definiton he wasn't racist. By everyone else's he is. Which casts doubt on your definition
-------------------------------------
What definition?
posted on 6/1/12
"Racial abuse requires intent to cause distress."
Sorry TB but it doesn't. It can be ruled abusive 'if' it caused distress, which may or may not have been intended.
Some comments are obviously abusive and there's no interpretation necessary - 'you black/white **********' However, lots of comments are open to interpretation and/or only abusive if the hearer is offended. btw I'm trying to be general here and not talking specifically about 'the' incident.
posted on 6/1/12
I've just read your quote back and now I'm not sure if we've actually said the same thing.
When you made your comment did you mean - people set out with the intent of causing distress therefore that is racial abuse? I didn't read it like that first time round.
posted on 6/1/12
No idea how old you are, but back in the 70's there were prime time TV shows were white men 'blacked up' singing & white men called black men 'chalky' & vice versa 'honky'. Whilst now, it would never happen back then (delivered with humour) it was considered acceptable.
-----------------
I remember the black and white mistrels. They weren't intended to be funny though. I wasn't amused anyway
Its still acceptable in Holland today. Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) who is a blacked up white person is a cherished part of dutch culture (sinterklaas) to this day. I was shocked when I first saw it but the dutch are fiercely protective of their right to do it.
I agree that some people do have deep rooted racist beliefs. I do not agree that they should be allowed to spout their views as long as they have carefully selected their audience.
posted on 6/1/12
Sorry TB but it doesn't. It can be ruled abusive 'if' it caused distress, which may or may not have been intended.
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I accept that, as for it to be 'abusive' then there must be some form of intent or construed intent e.g. the tone & the context of the comment.
If not, then surely old Bernard & Chubby Brown would be arrested every time they take to the stage???
posted on 6/1/12
What definiton?
-----------
Your definiton....
how is that in the same stratosphere as racial ABUSE? Which is deliberately intended to cause distress to an individual by directing abuse based on their skin colour,
posted on 6/1/12
I agree that some people do have deep rooted racist beliefs. I do not agree that they should be allowed to spout their views as long as they have carefully selected their audience.
--------------------------------------------
Me neither, but it happens every day of the week.
posted on 6/1/12
Your definiton....
----------------------
That wasn't my definition of racism though was it?
That was me comparing a racist joke with racial abuse.
posted on 6/1/12
I think I get it now. You think a word or comment is found to be abusive because it must have been intended to be abusive otherwise it wouldn't be ruled as such. I don't agree with that.
posted on 6/1/12
TB - presuming you could get along with a red for more than a few minutes - and vice versa - wouldn't you love one to be in your corner if you're ever up for anything like this?
(Joke btw)
posted on 6/1/12
You stated that racial abuse is basd on skin colour.
posted on 6/1/12
I think I get it now. You think a word or comment is found to be abusive because it must have been intended to be abusive otherwise it wouldn't be ruled as such. I don't agree with that.
------------------------------------------------
I suppose certain words have no contextual reason for their use in 2012 & as such, could be considered 'abuse' merely by their use, as ignorance is considered no excuse.
posted on 6/1/12
TB - presuming you could get along with a red for more than a few minutes - and vice versa - wouldn't you love one to be in your corner if you're ever up for anything like this?
------------------------------------------
LOL, there's more experts in South American culture around Anfield than I'd ever realised....
posted on 6/1/12
ergo Hitler's rantings against the jews wasn't racially abusive. Doubly so in fact because I doubt there were too many jews at his rallies to be offended
posted on 6/1/12
FSB - if you want to pedantic, 'the Jews' aren't a race pal.
posted on 6/1/12
Not in a taxonomic sense but I think you're the one whose being pedantic
posted on 6/1/12
Talking about 'the incident' specifically - the word 'negro' is Spanish for the colour black and not in and of itself abuse at all. Within it's own culture the word used as a name for a person also isn't offensive. We can't translate it into English and maintain it's meaning because it would at best equate to something like ' hey chalks', 'hey blackie' - I don't think you can say those with aggression. If it is translated, as it was, it loses it's meaning because to say 'hey black' wouldn't occur in English, you would have to make it into blackie to make sense. In Spanish there is a derogatory name for blacks which would have been used had it been intended as a slur.
Now in general terms away from the incident - the n word is abusive in any context (leave out rap references). The word negro/black/coloured can and can't be abusive it depends on context. Not many words other than the n word or swear words or the derogatory derivitives of words for Pakastani, Chineseetc are of themselves abusive. You have said context is important and I agree.
posted on 6/1/12
Again reading my own comment back - don't think I'm siding with Suarez on what he said.
posted on 6/1/12
Not in any sense mate, Judaism is a religion......
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10