| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Perhaps it doesn't mean much to you because you've got no experience of being affected by it?Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi
Maybe you'd see things differently if you were an Asian kid that grew up in the 70s and experienced it first hand?
I can see where you're coming from but telling somebody that's faced prejudice and hatred to grow a thicker skin isn't the answer, any more than telling a Jewish holocaust survivor to lose the persecution complex. The problem lies with the perpetrator, not the victim.
That's true, I simply don't have that perspective to look from.
However, I'll bet there while there are plenty of Asians my age who would get grossly offended by name calling, there are just as many who know that the weight of the words exist within them, and know they they are in control of whether those words do damage or not.
Would a person bother to call someone a **** if he knew it would have no effect on him whatsoever?
I can see your point but you're being very idealistic. The fact you'd compare numpty and ****** shows how far away from the actual point you are.
Lecter has put it better than I ever could in both his posts.
That was a joke, I wasn't actually comparing the two. It worries me that you thought I was.
There's nothing more racist than the imperialism/neo-imperialism/foreign policy of England/Britain/UK over the last 450 years. The aggressive wars of conquest have seen millions killed and still see millions exploited and murdered as a result of the globalist agenda hatched by the thinktanks and corporations that remain hand in hand with the power brokers in Whitehall.
And this is what offends me most: people who get stirred up by UKIP or the Marler/Lee incident must be suffering from cognitive dissonance. Our coffee, chocolate, asparagus, tea and bananas are harvested by dark-skinned people little better than slaves or actual slaves. The same goes for our shoes, clothes, phones etc etc - mainly made by indentured labour with the profits collected by the super rich. Where is the outrage?
Getting people to judge and inform on their friends, neighbours, family and workmates simply for calling someone a name is the thin end of the wedge. Of course abusing anyone is wrong but so what? I'd bet that the average dark-skinned person in the UK is just as racist as the average light-skinned person. In fact, white British people are probably amongst the least racist people in the world.
It isn't a big leap from judging and punishing people because they've been rude about an individual to judging and punishing people for being rude about the government or large corporations.
And Jon1959, I wrote a dissertation while at Sheffield Poly in the 1980's titled "Is Bradford Council's housing policy institutionally racist?"
I concluded that it was. But since then my understanding of the world has changed and I recognise that for all the good intentions of everyone involved, the anti-racist agenda is a smokescreen for a whole range of society-changing measures that will certainly not benefit any of the common herd or their ilk.
That's exactly how I see it, just silencing a person does not get to the root of the problem, I think people on here know me well enough to know that I would never treat anyone badly or differently, I think that people should have the right express themselves however they like, if I come across a person that I consider racist I would rather talk to that person and get to the bottom of their issues, if I just hate on a person and try to silence them for doing or saying something I don't like what kind of person does that make me?
I just came across this comment from a first year university student that pretty much sums it up for me..
"Political correctness has gone too far. It has manifested itself today as the avoidance of topics that could elicit outcry from others in society. This is an infringement on the freedom of expression.
Today, we are so afraid to be labelled as a “racist” or a “sexist” that we tiptoe carefully around issues like diversity, religion and sexual orientation. If anything, these topics are considered taboo and are avoided in conversation.
By continuing to self-censor topics that have the potential to be offensive, it is impossible to overcome the barriers political correctness is meant to overcome. Political correctness hinders our progress in getting to know one another and to understand each other’s different perspectives, viewpoints, feelings and life experiences.
If we are unable to speak freely about our thoughts, we will always remain skeptical about those who are different from us. Censorship only leads to more ignorance by restricting an individual’s ability to be educated and well-versed in today’s social and political climates.
Political correctness was meant to foster sensitivity to other’s feelings around social issues. However, it has nothing but a stranglehold on society, silencing voices and ultimately backfiring on its original goal."
A whole generation of students is being denied the “intellectual challenge of debating conflicting views” because self-censorship is turning campuses into over-sanitised “safe spaces”, they say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12059161/Politically-correct-universities-are-killing-free-speech.html
I don't mind being called a deaf, ginger barsteward, simply because I can't hear the ugly twats
I think part of the issue is that you need to have set rules in sport for it to be fair for everyone.
Samson Lee doesn't appear bothered and neither does Gatland, nor I would imagine are the vast majority of people be offended, but if the rules say you should be suspended for any racist comments surely he should be? The rules aren't really about Lee and Gatlands feelings, they are set guidelines.
On saying that I couldn't give a f**k either way, Marler must have some balls to be trying to piss off a Gypsy though.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/di...iscrimination/
These would argue that it is a race and, as such, this matter cannot be considered to be "nonsense"
From that article
"The courts have said that Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are protected against race discrimination because they’re ethnic groups under the Equality Act."
I think we can safely rule out the Irish bit as he plays for Wales and I cannot find any evidence of his being a Romany.
I understand however that Romanys originate from the northwestern regions of the Indian subcontinent. To the best of my knowledge.he was born in Llanelli, went to school in Llanelli and has lived in Llanelli all his life, so i think we can safely rule out the Romany bit as well.
I think that's dealing with a different point. There are university students who want to hinder debate for fear of offending some groups who really want to eliminate free speech. I think that's quite different to a discussion about acceptable day-to-day terminology, which I don't think is a matter of free speech but basic consideration for others.
If "Gyspy Boy" shouldn't ever be deemed offensive I wonder if everybody would be happy to use the term face-to-face to a traveller themselves - and if not, why not? Just saying that the recipient shouldn't really be offended according to our own standards I don't this is very realistic.
Generalisations don't really help, a lot of it is therefore about context imo. I'd agree two rival eggballers thinking they're having 'banter' in private doesn't seem worth getting too upset over. Although if rules have been broken they can't really be applied on a case-by-case basis according to whether apologies have been issued and accepted.
But both are only a name surely using your point
They are both just names but I'm aware that one tends to offend more than the other. Did you really need me to explain the joke to you?
Well in this case the guilty party did exactly that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
I wouldn't say it to Samson Lee myself, largely because he'd flatten me. Which is what Warren Gatland alluded to in his earlier statement that he got a verbal mauling over.
You're aware of it but you're saying neither should be more offensive. The fact it's a joke doesn't matter as that is the exact point you're making.
No, that's not the point I was making.
I'm aware one is more offensive than the other. I'm saying that if people took name calling less seriously then the weight of the words would lessen and perhaps that's a better course of action rather than banning words and punishing people for saying them, or worse, reacting violently towards name callers.
So your actual point is people who get racially abused shouldn't be so thin skinned?
You're focussing too much on the word itself rather than the connotation that comes with someone saying that to you. It isn't as simple being called a name.
Is This one of them usual suspects threads ?, I never knew Lee was a Swansea boy.
Since the 70s, the number of people using these terms appears to have dropped a lot. Would it have dropped more if the attitude was 'just ignore it' instead?
Is seems rich a man who has constant messageboard flounces, goes on at other posters for following him around and has actually turned up for a fight with a poster with a copy of that day's newspaper says people over react to racist slurs.
Just that context is key. I suspect those who seem to think the term is generally not offensive would probably hesitate to use it themselves directly for fear of causing genuine offence. And rightly so. So sweeping generalisations don't apply here and common sense does.
Meanwhile.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35841255
I think you're missing my point on purpose.
It's true that the number of people using the terms has dropped, which is probably caused by the increase of political correctness and the public fallout that comes from using the terms rather than curing the underlying cause of it.
Of course, "growing a thicker skin" won't cure the underlying cause either but at least the perpetrators will learn that they can no longer get a rise out of the victim by using that type of language.
Ah, here we are. You've got frustrated and now you've abandoned the argument in order to lash out personally. Kind of ironic considering the thread topic. Apparently there's a limit to how much you actually care about people being offended.
Let me respond by saying that I once flounced, have had a few weirdo stalkers on here (not sure what your problem with that is tbh) and that the poster I went to meet for a fight was on here PMing people pretending to be a gangster from Ely and threatening the families of posters, amongst other things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote