If you willingly chose to use that word, with the intention to offend, like you've said there, then of course it's racist ffs. As you'd have chosen to use a word that you know is not only highly offensive to the Black person you'd aim it at, but you also would be fully aware that it's racial abuse, as that's how that word is classified in the civilised society in which we live in 2012. So by using it, you would be racially abusing somebody by definition. If you are prepared to knowingly racially abuse somebody, then I would suggest that you have questionable beliefs when it comes to race............ If you don't believe me, try putting that to the test, call a Black man that word & see how it goes down, in the eyes of the recipient, the bystanders & then the Police & the magistrate.............
To argue the point. If I call a black man a prick I will probably get the same response. The result is that individual is offended by what I said, it has no affect on what I am, as words are used for many different reasons. If I use words to persuade others that black people are bad evil or of less worth yadda yadda then yes in that context the words would indicate racism as they are stating beliefs.. following? Words v Beliefs.. using words to convey racist beliefs is racism, saying a word to piss someone off when you don't truly believe them any different from you.. not racism. My 2nd point. Just because it offends it does not mean it is racism, you and now RHC unfortunately fall into that category of not knowing what the fk racism is. Ultimately, the affect of the words, the impact gives them weight when trying to offend so they are used. If calling a black person an apple really pissed them off, people would call black folk apples to piss them off. The same can be said about all the racist offensive words, if they caused no offence they would not be used to offend. I have to add before some fool says it.. I do not blame black people for being offended thus giving the word weight. All sorts of people suffer from cultural exclusion, black white catholic Jewish Islamic protestant.. and all on against each other too, it is not the sole domain of the black\white\yellow ect person to be racially discriminated against.
Boots you are wrong when you say "So by using it, you would be racially abusing somebody by definition." The real test is not the word itself, it is both the intent and the result of that word/phrase/etc. Presently, we appear to have a situation wherein receipt rather than intent is being used and that is not logical and makes an even greater ass of the law. Are you not culpable of accusing a black rapper (let's say) of not being civilised by using that word in media that is available to all races? Now, I know that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here and I merely doing so to highlight the complexity of the situation and hence how easily the argument becomes confrontational.
I think you're being somewhat pedantic. I don't really wish to get involved in this. However, if you wanted to piss someone off, then you'd probably know them to some extent, otherwise why would you be doing it. So if you called the individual a stupid twat, you'd be unlikely to get the response that you would if you called someone you didn't know a stupid twat or a stupid ****** (if the guy was black). The person is clearly not a twat (by definition) but he is a ****** (by universally understood precepts). This is a direct reference to his race. I'm out of here. Apologies for using the 'n' word by the way. It was merely to illustrate a point, you stupid twats
The word that you chose to illustrate your point, is in our society universally known to be a word that has only one connotation when used by a white man to a black man. Therefore if as a white man you CHOOSE to use that word in order to insult a black man then you have done so armed with that knowledge & before you made the concious decision to still use it. So having thought about the use of the word, you still choose to use it, knowing how it will be received. You are therefore a person who doesn't care that the person on the other end of it, will be offended by this racial slur, & therefore someone who doesn't care how this would reflect on them & peoples views on their stance on racial issues. Whilst merely the use of the word itself wouldn't categorically confirm whether you were a racist or not. Given the knowledge you have regarding the word & the thought process that you'd have taken before using it, it'd be a pretty fair assumption to say that "if it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck & it looks like a duck, then it's a ****ing duck". I fully understand what racism is thanks all the same, but I'd suggest that you are maybe trying to argue a case that suits a previous football based discussion, or at least I hope you are. As if you firmly believe some of what you've written here, then I hope for your sakes you don't reside in a diverse community.
THIS is racism: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...gham-player-involved-in-race-row-8406721.html Two highly-paid Premier League primma-donnas calling each other names no worse than players in Rangers-Celtic matches have done for generations may get the PFA, the FA, the media and various single-issue, publicity obsessed pressure groups and lawyers fighting to get their faces on Sunday Supplement, but when a no mark, journeyman footballer is treated with this contempt they can't be seen for dust. As a union official I have represented people like this. THIS is racial discrimination - not gobshites who start an argument with other gobshites and (in the case of Evra) get hysterical when the xenephopic/racial/sexual taunts they throw out themselves gets thrown back at them. I appreciate Luis Suarez is a nasty piece of work on the pitch, and Terry belongs with Gerrard, Rooney and Ferdinand in the pantheon of arrogant English twats who believe they have a divine right to say what they want to whoever they care (including treating refs like errant serving maids). But your Antons and Evras are equally obnoxious humans, and to elevate them to the status of 60's Alabama victims of the KKK is as racist, patronising and absurd as it is to ignore genuine racism as what happened at Gillingham. But that doesn't get you face in the papers, does it?
The article its self. This is what I was talking about when Fergie said it didn't happen without any knowledge re clutterbug. Regardless of whether Mikel was telling the truth or not you have a prominent figure coming out and calling him\chelsea a liar/s from his perch at OT, which is what fergie did in a PC inert way. When you make a claim it is immediately met with disbelief and unwillingness to deal with the issue But lets hear tobes tell us how this is just the same as the identifying.. not labelling.. someone by a physical trait??
Not racist please log in to view this image http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20715706 Racist please log in to view this image http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-18553376 The CPS have let Chelsea and their 'racist' fan off the hook, both scumbags made the same gesture.
