Joe marler and White Boots

[Constantine]

Theoretical !
.............

If you're responding to a provoking insult, and you've been offended, then that is your mindset established.

Thereafter the language you use in response is theoretically irrelevant, you can use any retort /slur you wish, ....ie you haven't targeted the person because of his/her race or orientation or religion, you've merely responded to him/her being an arsrhole.

This makes the response 'non' racist/phobic etc ..... Because you treat all provokers with equal rebuff.

I don't discriminate, 'anyone' who targets me, gets it....irrespective of their colour creed religion or sexual orientation.

But you should watch the words you use when dealing with arseholes, because while you may only be getting angry because of his behavior, but the words you use can still be racist or homophobic or sexist.

Like if you call someone the N word, even if your anger is entirely justified, the N word is still a racist term in almost all circumstances.

I use creative sweary names. Wankstain, f###knuckle, yeast infested anal cavity...

 

[4eyesbetter]

I love how "yeast infected anal cavity" can be written out in full, but another word is still beyond the pale. Can yeast even live back there?

 

[Constantine]

Yes, the common name is thrush.

 

[Toby Warren]

Theoretical !
.............

If you're responding to a provoking insult, and you've been offended, then that is your mindset established.

Thereafter the language you use in response is theoretically irrelevant, you can use any retort /slur you wish, ....ie you haven't targeted the person because of his/her race or orientation or religion, you've merely responded to him/her being an arsrhole.

This makes the response 'non' racist/phobic etc ..... Because you treat all provokers with equal rebuff.

I don't discriminate, 'anyone' who targets me, gets it....irrespective of their colour creed religion or sexual orientation.

SO if ' he starts it' we can all use racist language - good luck with that!

 

[OB..]

Theoretical !
.............

If you're responding to a provoking insult, and you've been offended, then that is your mindset established.

Thereafter the language you use in response is theoretically irrelevant, you can use any retort /slur you wish, ....ie you haven't targeted the person because of his/her race or orientation or religion, you've merely responded to him/her being an arsrhole.

This makes the response 'non' racist/phobic etc ..... Because you treat all provokers with equal rebuff.

I don't discriminate, 'anyone' who targets me, gets it....irrespective of their colour creed religion or sexual orientation.

Why do you want to escalate the level of emotion instead of toning it down?

 

[Browner]

But you should watch the words you use when dealing with arseholes, because while you may only be getting angry because of his behavior, but the words you use can still be racist or homophobic or sexist.

Like if you call someone the N word, even if your anger is entirely justified, the N word is still a racist term in almost all circumstances.

I use creative sweary names. Wankstain, f###knuckle, yeast infested anal cavity...

If a black guy uses the N word to his black mate without his mates objection, then if either of them object if I do the same, then it's he who discriminates toward me purely based on my skin colour , which IIUC makes him the racist !!!.?

 

[Browner]

Why do you want to escalate the level of emotion instead of toning it down?

I don't particularly, but I'm not a metephorical punchbag either, it depends on how I've been offended,( in theory)

 

[Daftmedic]

This has spiraled slightly.

 

[Browner]

SO if ' he starts it' we can all use racist language - good luck with that!

Luck isn't needed, in depth knowledge of the subject matter suffices.

As anyone who watches stand up comedians of all/any orientation or ethnicity will testify.

 

[Toby Warren]

If a black guy uses the N word to his black mate without his mates objection, then if either of them object if I do the same, then it's he who discriminates toward me purely based on my skin colour , which IIUC makes him the racist !!!.?

Discrimination occurs when the 'receiver' deems it to have occurred. To make this actionoable the 'receivers' view needs to reasonable.

 

[leaguerefaus]

If a black guy uses the N word to his black mate without his mates objection, then if either of them object if I do the same, then it's he who discriminates toward me purely based on my skin colour , which IIUC makes him the racist !!!.?

While I can see the point, and I'm not the most politically correct individual, I'd look at it like this. If two blokes with cancer want to make cancer-jokes, fair enough. But if I made one I'd be expecting a smack in the mouth.

 

[Browner]

Discrimination occurs when the 'receiver' deems it to have occurred. To make this actionoable the 'receivers' view needs to reasonable.

Thankfully Law requires a stiffer test than a single receivers biased judgement.

 

[OB..]

Thankfully Law requires a stiffer test than a single receivers biased judgement.

My understanding is that if a person regards an incident as racial, then it should be treated with the appropriate care, but that person's belief does not define it as racial in law.

 

[Toby Warren]

Thankfully Law requires a stiffer test than a single receivers biased judgement.

You have missed be 2nd half of the test - that belief must be reasonable.

 

[Daftmedic]

Discrimination occurs when the 'receiver' deems it to have occurred. To make this actionoable the 'receivers' view needs to reasonable.

Not quite true. If I was to say something to a lady that the lady took as a joke. But was overheard by another lady, said lady then took offence. I would still be in trouble for saying the comment.

 

[4eyesbetter]

If a black guy uses the N word to his black mate without his mates objection, then if either of them object if I do the same, then it's he who discriminates toward me purely based on my skin colour , which IIUC makes him the racist !!!.?

No, as a white person you cannot use a word to a black person that has historically been used by white people to dehumanise black people and justify everything from coppers giving them a kicking to denying them housing in smart parts of town to literal slavery. Do you see how a black person might have a problem with that?

However, when black people use that word among themselves it may not carry those connotations, and some feel free to do what they like with it. This is not difficult.

 

[menace]

This has spiraled slightly.

So?

This so called spiral started because a f@cknuckle ref coach wanted to belittle a referee? We're not f@cking punching bags and doormats for the ref coach to vent his displeasure of a colour because he's failed to advance past the 19th century! Why shouldn't we respond....ref coaches don't need to be treated as living on a pedestal and are holier than thou!
We're just thrashing out options to put the ref coach back in his box...what's so spiralling about that? (Agree that perhaps a new thread could be raised...but ce la vie)

 

[menace]

No, as a white person you cannot use a word to a black person that has historically been used by white people to dehumanise black people and justify everything from coppers giving them a kicking to denying them housing in smart parts of town to literal slavery. Do you see how a black person might have a problem with that?

However, when black people use that word among themselves it may not carry those connotations, and some feel free to do what they like with it. This is not difficult.

Maybe not for you as an older adult, but today's kids/young adults don't know the history of nigger, yet they hear it it every 2nd song sung by African Americans (will.i.am to name one..) so they think it's a common and acceptable word and are now prone to using it not understanding the racial undertones. Of course it makes us cringe and jump down our kids throats about using racial terms.

I'd say that if today's generation start using the word in everyday language, it's not racist, and if black people are now offended by it then I think they've only got their hip hop popstars and themselves to blame.

 

[RobLev]

My understanding is that if a person regards an incident as racial, then it should be treated with the appropriate care, but that person's belief does not define it as racial in law.

AIUI - pretty much right. Esssentially it sets up a rebuttable presumption.

 

[RobLev]

No, as a white person you cannot use a word to a black person that has historically been used by white people to dehumanise black people and justify everything from coppers giving them a kicking to denying them housing in smart parts of town to literal slavery. Do you see how a black person might have a problem with that?

However, when black people use that word among themselves it may not carry those connotations, and some feel free to do what they like with it. This is not difficult.

Exactly.