I'm not racist but...

Love that quote. People need to forget about race all together shouldn't even be mentioned tbh don't see why it matters. I was on a selection weekend with the TA weekend just gone and whilst people often think of the army as a bunch of racist scallys it couldn't be further from the truth. Obviously we got a talk about bullying/racism/homophobia etc and what the corporals said hit home, that it doesn't matter whether you are black, chinese, or whatever once the **** hits the fan you won't care because you are all soldiers. People need to understand we are all just people colour isn't an issue, it's a shame that it takes such extreme situations as a war to make people realise we are all the same.

 

Relating back to the suarez incident and people saying that he just called him negro, this is a report from the FA on what was apparently said:
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/01/exclusive-unhappy-lfc-plan-to-revisit.html

 

He hit the nail on the head really. All Black History Month does is emphasise the fact that we are different, which will only ever have a negative effect.

 

exactly things like the The National Black Police Association (NBPA) and the Mobo awards don't help either could you imagine the The National White Police Association (NWPA) and the Mowo awards

 

Aye there is a line between a comment slipping out and what he said. That cannot even be defended as a cultural difference it's just discrimination.

 

I agree with JWAG on this. It is hypocritical to reduce offending somebody who is dutch or ginger to a lesser offence (or none at all) than somebody who is black.

The consensus for those who oppose that view seem to argue that is is a lesser evil because the dutch or gingers (for example) have not been subject to severe repression in the past. Alternatively it has been suggested that it is not offensive because the recipient should choose not to be offended or in their opinion has no reason to be offended.

IMO this is missing the point. An offensive comment is determined by either the intention of the person saying it (was it meant to be offensive?) or by the fact that it could be taken as offensive. If either applies then it is an offensive comment and an act of prejudice. The personal opinion of the recipient of the remark is actually irrelevant.

If I think somebody is a ****er all I have to do is call them a ****er. Job done he understands that I have abused him.

If I call that person a dutch ****er I am implying that he is he worse than a ****er of some other unspecified nationality and therefore that I also have a problem with him being dutch. I have therefore insulted his nationality too.

Whilst I am sure most dutch people wouldn't take offence that isn't the point. My intention would still have made it an act of prejudice. It is also true that some dutch people would take offence.

I also don't think we can go down the road of arbitrarily deciding which races, nationalities, religions or physical traits are acceptable and which aren't. Each person will have a different take. Simple rule; attaching a group discriptive to an insult is an act of prejudice. Prejudice is wrong, you should not have done that and there should be a penalty for doing so.

As to the penalty within football. I think FIFA should decide on a blanket penalty and it should be handed out to all cases evenly with no exceptions. So using the OP's example cases, Bellamy should be treated as harshly as Terry.

 

that's racist

 

Agree with every word of this!

 

I was 100% with you until you said that you think that we shouldn't decide which religious traits are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Religion, unlike race or nationality, is a choice made by a person to live their life a certain way. If the religion I chose to follow decreed murder and rape acceptable, would you really think it wrong of somebody to dispute my choice to agree with this?

 

See, I think we need the distinctions, just not the negative stereotypes attached to them!

If I'm mates with a black lad, an asian lad, a white lad and an indian lad - I should be able to point them out using their most obvious feature (their skin) without fearing an overly PC backlash...

 

Ah yes of course, I didn't mean I wish for the day in which everybody is so insanely P.C. that they would refer to a white guy as the 'guy in the green t shirt with the black hair and blue jeans' when he is the only white guy in the room. I moreso meant that fundamentally, it doesn't matter what colour skin anybody has so to make special preference to it out of some sort of backwards gesture of equality is completely unecessary. (Think: Black History Month etc.)

 

Fair enough, I think that with time those things will begin to dissolve though...Take 'urban' music hip hop/rap etc. It used to be that a white person involved in this music, a tradiotionally black area, was a gimmick or punchline - see one Mr Vanilla Ice. But as time has gone by more and more artists from different races are seen to be equally as credible as black artists, who started the movement. Its no longer a surprise to see a white rapper, especially not in the UK. Eventually it won't be seen as 'black music' and simply music...I mean how many people would associate the music of Metalica/Foo Fighters/Oasis with black men and women from the Southern States of America?

 

I would defend to the death your right to dispute their views on this (and would actually be beside you making the same argument). However, I would oppose your action to abuse such a person on the basis of their membership of a specific religion. Not sure if this is clear so I will give examples;

a) You activily support the ritualised murder and rape of people you dumb **** = acceptable
b) Shut up you (insert religion here) **** because you support rape and murder = unacceptable

The difference for me is abuse of a group of people (any group) helps to encourage division, anger and mistrust between groups of people on a massive scale and threatens the harmony of our world. The other alternative targets only an individual. If he doesn't like your comment (which he won't) by your choice of words you can justifiably argue that you oppose his actions on those points and that you are not making it about religious difference. In other words it is the murder and rape I oppose and not your religion per se. I would be just as opposed to a member of another religion, or somebody with no religion, who was doing the same thing.

 

Religion is a choice. No way is slagging off a religion on the same level as racism. Unless you combine race/religion.

 

Agree that artistic and cultural aspects of race should always be noted, promoted and enjoyed by all. Art culture is to be shared, added to and enjoyed by everybody and generally speaking has a birthplace in a particular race. This is something natural and should absolutely be a part of society.

I'm not entirely convinced by your example though. As you're using those 3 bands as examples of styles that have branched out of predominantly 'black music' (early blues and jazz) and then a modern parallel in a newer form of predominantly 'black music', it just seems to show that it is an inevitability and will reoccur in the future. I don't have issue with this reoccurance either, just not convinced that it shows the progress over time that you're mentioning.

 

I don't mind religion's... Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Catholics and Hinduism are fine.

 

I see where you're coming from here, and I thoroughly agree that anything serving to provoke anger and mistrust between people threatens harmony. However, for me, a religious or political alignment choice is made by a person who subscribes themselves to the point of view of said alignment. Therefore when they identify with the beliefs and values expressed by it, it isn't really a case of making wrongful generalisations on lifestyle choice any more because people subscribing themselves to one set of religious doctrines have literally added themselves to a generalised point of view. When this is a choice they have personally made themselves, and when they are willing to accept the complimentary and sympathetic comments then they should be able to take, debate and discuss the negative feedback they get for aligning themselves to it.

If I were a Green party member and somebody told me "you leftist ****, you support legalisation of cannabis!" then that would be pure fact, and why would I be offended by it?

I omitted your 'shut up' from the example you provided, because you sneakily added in something I disagree with to throw me; denying somebody the right to speak their mind !

 

I understand where you are coming from with the religious choice argument, believe me. I as a life long atheist impose my own moral code according to the basic principles of empathy and do unto others and I have little time for people who choose to follow an archaic belief system, complete with inbuilt prejudices, intolerances and in many cases screwed up moral codes. But I accept that they are entitled to choose their moral guide and I reserve my arguments to taking on each principle of belief I disagree with on a case by case basis rather than blanket disapproval. Mostly because I think it has a better chance of succeeding.

For example; I think the "Honestly as a rational person in 2012 do you really think that there is a need for the genital mutilation of minors?" approach has a better chance of changing an opinion than "one of my problems with your choice of religion is the genital mutilation of minors". IMO once you bring the religion into it you give the other person the opening to bring faith into the argument rather than relying on logic and reason which is the approach of the former. In most cases unfortunately it still won't work, but I just think leaving their choice of religion out of it avoids the martyr and defender of the faith complex which usually gets triggered.

Spot on about the shut up btw. That was me being careless. That option was wrong on two accounts but thanks for taking the intended point and ignoring my mistake

 

Aha! Got you. Provided the person is intelligent enough to grasp the link, there is no need to reference the title their religious choice because it opens the door to 'faith' as a viable alternative to reason.

I wouldn't personally ever call somebody an 'insert religion ****' myself but I wouldn't consider anybody who did so to be within the same league as a racist or somebody who insults physical appearance - which is what I thought you were initially getting at when you mentioned it in the same breath.

Unrelated note; it's interesting that being personally racist towards somebody is really no different than personally picking on their physical appearance. It is an attribute of theirs which they have no choice or say in it's existence. Strangely it's apparently acceptable to make public jokes in the UK about large noses, crossed eyes or even blindness/physical deformity but skin colour will get you arrested. I have no time for hypocrisy which is why I find the UK's random disruption of free speech to be so insane.

 

Yeah I did say it doesn't work that much better. You just have a chance to win a few points before the faith argument kicks in.

I don't consider racial abuse to be as bad either, in most cases. That is my personal opinion and personal bias I suppose. But like I said earlier I don't think that arbitrary decisions can be made regarding prejudice. Religious prejudice as history has proven with the Nazis can be the most destructive of all. Therefore being aware that it fits the criteria that I judge prejudice by I treat it just as seriously as any other.

The UK free speech laws are hypocritical and insane, I agree. I'm sure that a redheaded person who has been abused all their life just because of the colour of their hair feels the same pain as somebody with black skin who receives abuse. Neither can help the genetics of their birth and neither deserve to be abused, so it isn't fair that one receives legal protection and the other doesn't.

I still recall witnessing a redheaded girl at my infant's school when I was a kid crying her eyes out as a gang of kids surrounded her shouting "you're a fleabag, ginger, ginger, ginger .." on and on. The rumour had been spread that you got red hair if you had fleas and most of the kids (we were only 5 or 6) believed it. Nobody can tell me that her pain wasn't real, I witnessed it and I still feel shame to this day when I remember it that I didn't do anything to stop it at the time.