Swingers & swinging...

[foureyes]

[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=24077.msg589225#msg589225 date=1212688967]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589222#msg589222 date=1212688822]
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=24077.msg589211#msg589211 date=1212688496]
I've never understood why any Pakistani would be offended by being called 'Paki' It's like calling some who's British a brit?
[/quote]

Because the word "Brit" doesn't have negative stereotypes attached to it. Paki does because of the way it was used in the past.

So in this sense it's similar to the monkey chants that Foureyes mentioned previously, it's a loaded term.

Onion bhaji isn't a loaded term.
[/quote]

I don't personally think you can compare Monkey chants at black people and calling a pakistani a Paki, one can be contextualised, the latter; but however you look at the Monkey chants, it's racist. I see your point though and as I said about 59 pages ago in this thread, saying the Bhaji thing itself isn't racist but I guess like Paki, it's all down to context and interpretation?
[/quote]

Now we're getting somewhere....

 

[LadyRed]

[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=24077.msg589211#msg589211 date=1212688496]
I've never understood why any Pakistani would be offended by being called 'Paki' It's like calling some who's British a brit?
[/quote]

Are you shitting me? Seriously?

Eh, well maybe it was because the word Paki was a label given to all first generation migrants from the Indian sub-continent with the first wave of migration. It was never a label chosen by the community themselves.

It's a word, for many, that is synonymous with years of brutal racism and hatred. The word has history and baggage that extends far beyond the four letters it carries.

Does that help ypu understand a bit better?

 

[Atlas]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589210#msg589210 date=1212688486]
We're arguing different things here.

I'm not saying it's not offensive, I'm saying it doesn't necessarily constitute racism.

You're equating offensiveness with racism, which is wrong.
[/quote]

Offensive with racial undertone?

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589218#msg589218 date=1212688730]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589210#msg589210 date=1212688486]
We're arguing different things here.

I'm not saying it's not offensive, I'm saying it doesn't constitute racism.

You're equating offensiveness with racism, which is wrong.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what I said those 30 posts ago that you mentioned. You're talking about racial discrimination. I'm talking about racial harassment which is what most people on the street take as being racism.

So back to the point Rosco. According to your definition, someone calling me a 'Paki' isn't racial harassment. Right?
[/quote]

Look foureyes,

At the very top of the hierarchy is Racism.

Racial harrasment and racial discrimination could both be said to be subsets of Racism.

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.

So if something doesn't do that it doesn't fall into either racial discrimination or racial harrassment. Even though you want it to.

 

[foureyes]

[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589232#msg589232 date=1212689327]
*is out of breath*
I CAN'T BELIEVE there is a 25 page thread (that went off topic) about racism and Anita or me are no where to be seen!!

*passes on baton to foureyes* keep up the good work!

There is a thread every once in a while re racism, it crops up quite often, and there are quite a few comments people find offensive and although comments might not fit into the structure that Ross has posted up it doesnt mean they are not offensive with a racial undertone.

I think I could probably name a comment like that for every day this site has been running, it's just if people find them offensive enough to comment on, and after that if the mods choose to keep them on or not, and in fairness they have the policy of not deleting stuff which they stick to (mostly).

[/quote]


Hallelujah!!!

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589231#msg589231 date=1212689322]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589222#msg589222 date=1212688822]
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=24077.msg589211#msg589211 date=1212688496]
I've never understood why any Pakistani would be offended by being called 'Paki' It's like calling some who's British a brit?
[/quote]

Because the word "Brit" doesn't have negative stereotypes attached to it. Paki does because of the way it was used in the past.

So in this sense it's similar to the monkey chants that Foureyes mentioned previously, it's a loaded term.

Onion bhaji isn't a loaded term.
[/quote]

In your eyes. And that's the fucking frustrating part. It's just how you see it. Most the people I grew up with find it all the same. Whether its Paki or curry muncher or onion bhajee thrower. It's all derogatory. It's all offensive. Can you not see that?

And I still don;t see how being called a **** fits your definition of racism.
[/quote]

MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS YOU'LL READ WHAT I'M POSTING.


JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS OFFENSIVE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS RACIST.

 

[foureyes]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]
[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589218#msg589218 date=1212688730]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589210#msg589210 date=1212688486]
We're arguing different things here.

I'm not saying it's not offensive, I'm saying it doesn't constitute racism.

You're equating offensiveness with racism, which is wrong.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what I said those 30 posts ago that you mentioned. You're talking about racial discrimination. I'm talking about racial harassment which is what most people on the street take as being racism.

So back to the point Rosco. According to your definition, someone calling me a 'Paki' isn't racial harassment. Right?
[/quote]

Look foureyes,

At the very top of the hierarchy is Racism.

Racial harrasment and racial discrimination could both be said to be subsets of Racism.

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.

So if something doesn't do that it doesn't fall into either racial discrimination or racial harrassment. Even though you want it to.
[/quote]

So i'll say it again. By your very definition, the term Paki is fine. It's in no way a term that implies inferiority etc. It's one simply meant to cause offence. I know. So folks can call me Paki now can they? According to your definitions they can.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

*Goes back into hibernation*

 

[LadyRed]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO DO NOT DEFINE HUMAN EMOTIONS.[/size][/size]

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589239#msg589239 date=1212689587]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]
[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589218#msg589218 date=1212688730]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589210#msg589210 date=1212688486]
We're arguing different things here.

I'm not saying it's not offensive, I'm saying it doesn't constitute racism.

You're equating offensiveness with racism, which is wrong.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what I said those 30 posts ago that you mentioned. You're talking about racial discrimination. I'm talking about racial harassment which is what most people on the street take as being racism.

So back to the point Rosco. According to your definition, someone calling me a 'Paki' isn't racial harassment. Right?
[/quote]

Look foureyes,

At the very top of the hierarchy is Racism.

Racial harrasment and racial discrimination could both be said to be subsets of Racism.

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.

So if something doesn't do that it doesn't fall into either racial discrimination or racial harrassment. Even though you want it to.
[/quote]

So i'll say it again. By your very definition, the term Paki is fine. It's in no way a term that implies inferiority etc. It's one simply meant to cause offence. I know. So folks can call me Paki now can they? According to your definitions they can.
[/quote]


You missed this post.

http://sixcrazyminutes.com/forums/index.php?topic=24077.msg589222#msg589222

 

[foureyes]

[quote author=Anita link=topic=24077.msg589241#msg589241 date=1212689623]
[size=10pt][size=10pt]LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO DO NOT DEFINE HUMAN EMOTIONS.[/size][/size]
[/quote]

Thank you sister. I can't keep up with this lot!

 

[Atlas]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Anita link=topic=24077.msg589241#msg589241 date=1212689623]
[size=10pt][size=10pt]LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO DO NOT DEFINE HUMAN EMOTIONS.[/size][/size]
[/quote]

haha ... human emotions don't come into it.

 

[HC]

Haha, sorry Anita, in hindsight that sounds incredibly thick, what I said that is, not what you said.

Yeah, Foureyes, thats more or less the crux of the thing in my eyes.

Context and how both parties interprate and intend for it to come across. Subsequently What Roger said isn't ordinarally racist. However, Roger said it in a manner which in my eyes does appear to be racially,er whatever'd.

 

[LadyRed]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589246#msg589246 date=1212689692]
[quote author=Anita link=topic=24077.msg589241#msg589241 date=1212689623]
[size=10pt][size=10pt]LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO DO NOT DEFINE HUMAN EMOTIONS.[/size][/size]
[/quote]

haha ... human emotions don't come into it.
[/quote]

Please read my longer post on the previous page, as I think you've missed it Ross.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=24077.msg589217#msg589217 date=1212688703]
Fuck me. Last time I looked at this thread it was 6 pages long.
[/quote]

nah mate, i'm not into swinging, and if i was, it wouldn't be with you

 

[Atlas]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.
[/quote]

I wasn't party to that, so not 'we' point still remains

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Anita link=topic=24077.msg589230#msg589230 date=1212689250]
I can't believe I missed this thread! My favourite subject and everything, flippin heck, a heads up on PM would have been nice someone!

Anyway.

The first thing that strikes me when reading through, is the fact that Foureyes, for most of the thread has had to justify/explain why he's offended, like it requires a rationalisation. Madness. Someone has deliberately chosen something culture specific to make a derogatory remark. Is that not clear for all to see?

Ross, for an intelliegent person, your simplistic view of race related matters never fails to suprise me. Trying to 'rationalise' racism through legal and dictionary definitions is ridiculous. We're not in court, and no one is talking about 'descrimination' in a legal sense, life, people and emotions just aren't that rigid.

A person's feelings of cultural/racial isloation are not determined by what a court determines, it's about human judgement and emotion.

Foureyes, this isn't the first time a conversation of this nature has been had on the forum, I think you must have missed a few as they were before you started posting, but generally, I give up. I don't think I've ever 'played' teh race card in my life, even when I would have been justified. But I think it's important for people to talk about race in an open way, only then people can deem what's acceptable and what isn't.

But on this forum, anytime the race issue has come up (and I'm sorry if this is hard for people to read), it's always ended up with the ethnic minority(ies) arguing/justifying themselves amongst the masses.

Like there's a relucatance to accept that someone could have said something that could have made someone feel uncomfortable on the basis of their race/culture...which would surely be called racism.

As for what Ross was saying about 'people crying wolf', what the hell has anyone here got to gain, other than challenging ignorance?

People seem to have this idea that anytime someone suggests someone is racist, that they are somehoe after something, or have something to gain.

All most people want is some respect and not to be made to feel bad on the basis of their difference.

Oh, and of all the lovely food we're responsible for, you people pick Onion Bhaji's, flips sake. Could have at least said samosa's or biriyani.
[/quote]

Well I'll apologise for being the rational one in the discussion then will I ?

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589251#msg589251 date=1212689791]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.
[/quote]

I wasn't party to that, so not 'we' point still remains
[/quote]

You're still bound by it.

 

[HC]

I don't think there is really any definitive answer to this, it isn't black & White as Rosco makes it out but at the same time it's not near what you say Anita, it's a bit of both. You'll end up going round in circles for everrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[foureyes]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.


[/quote]

Yeh and according to their definition of racism i can be called Towel Head, paki, curry muncher, foreigner etc etc etc - none of which imply I am inferior, but they are simply meant to cause offence. End of. It's bollocks. Are you saying all those terms are acceptable. No of course they're not. They all cause offence and they're all racially motivated. If that's not racial harassment then what is?

 

[Atlas]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589254#msg589254 date=1212689886]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589251#msg589251 date=1212689791]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.
[/quote]

I wasn't party to that, so not 'we' point still remains
[/quote]

You're still bound by it.
[/quote]

Maybe in a court of law, I don't agree with the point at all I'm afraid Ross.

If the comment was defending with a apple it would not been offensive (by the way I didnt find it offensive/racist etc, I just found it stupid), the point is it was targetted at an Asian from the sub continent if you take your 'legal' glasses off for a moment you will see it, and Im sure you do see it.

You can take the piss out of someone's race/religion etc etc without suggesting they are 'lower' than you.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

I don't like European Courts Ross and I see what both you & foureyes are going on about.

Personally, I've been on the end of one of Evo's anti-semitic jibes but I let it go. I've been on the end of what I deemed were sick attacks on my faith and I've let it go. I don't understand why people get so wound up on here - Roger being an idiot shouldn't have sparked this but perhaps it's given us a good 'forum' to discuss this 'delicate' topic. Fact is that Foureyes is not in the wrong for getting angry and 'hurt', but I think he is when calling Roger a racist. He may make idiotic, insensitive comments at times, but I think that's down more to attention craving than feelings of anger/hatred/racism.

 

[foureyes]

[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589260#msg589260 date=1212690112]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589254#msg589254 date=1212689886]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589251#msg589251 date=1212689791]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.
[/quote]

I wasn't party to that, so not 'we' point still remains
[/quote]

You're still bound by it.
[/quote]

Maybe in a court of law, I don't agree with the point at all I'm afraid Ross.

If the comment was defending with a apple it would not been offensive (by the way I didnt find it offensive/racist etc, I just found it stupid), the point is it was targetted at an Asian from the sub continent if you take your 'legal' glasses off for a moment you will see it, and Im sure you do see it.

You can take the piss out of someone's race/religion etc etc without suggesting they are 'lower' than you.

[/quote]

Exactly.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589259#msg589259 date=1212690098]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.


[/quote]

Yeh and according to their definition of racism i can be called Towel Head, ****, curry muncher, foreigner etc etc etc - none of which imply I am inferior, but they are simply meant to cause offence. End of. It's bollocks. Are you saying all those terms are acceptable. No of course they're not. They all cause offence and they're all racially motivated. If that's not racial harassment then what is?
[/quote]

Where have I said anything was acceptable ?

What I've consistently said is there's a difference between what is offensive and what is racist. As mentioned above you have to look at the history behind the word and the connotations that are associated with it.

 

[LadyRed]

No, Ross, again, you're being simplistic AGAIN.

In a LEGAL setting, you're definitions work. But in terms of interaction between people, and the emotion reactions that are envoked, what you're saying is too rigid, and not an effective tool of measure.

How you fail to see this, I can't understand.

For example, I have come across a woman lately, she REFUSES to look at me or address me, even when I talk to her, she won't look at me. She will look at other people in the room. The only people she won't address or look at, are me and the other Asian person present. Is there any legal basis that I could pin her down on? No.

Do I feel she's treating me differently because of my race? Yes.

And once we get to this point, there seems to be a sticking post with you. If someone treats you differently, i.e. less favourably, based on your race: It's racism. Simple as.

Why is there a reluctance to accept this?

No it's not 'Racial Discrimination' in the legal sense, but it is racism. Why is that so hard for you to understand Ross?

 

[Dreambeliever]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=24077.msg589216#msg589216 date=1212688668]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=24077.msg588080#msg588080 date=1212603496]
[quote author=Paddy link=topic=24077.msg588073#msg588073 date=1212603355]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=24077.msg588070#msg588070 date=1212603241]
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=24077.msg588006#msg588006 date=1212598968]
*shockedasfucksmily*
NO Paddy i wouldnt think/say that.
You really are quite fucking distasteful at times.
[/quote]

I know what he means.

I think that phrase is more common in Ireland.

Still distasteful though and I don't think most would say it.

However as he pointed out earlier I think everyone is racist just to varying degrees to different nations.

For instance most Irish take a dislike at the mere mention of the nation Romania.
[/quote]

Love you DB.
[/quote]

F7ck you, you spudmunching, wellie wearing, glenroe repeat watching, white with freakles bastard!
[/quote]

"White with freckles"!!!! You racist bastard!! 😉
[/quote]

FUck you, you bangers and mash pitbull loving brit!

 

[Atlas]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589265#msg589265 date=1212690234]
[quote author=foureyes link=topic=24077.msg589259#msg589259 date=1212690098]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589249#msg589249 date=1212689735]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=24077.msg589245#msg589245 date=1212689691]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589236#msg589236 date=1212689422]

We've already established that something can't be racist unless it infers that you are inferior on account of your race.
[/quote]

You decided that Ross...not 'we'
[/quote]

No I didn't decide it.

The European Court of Human Rights decided it.


[/quote]

Yeh and according to their definition of racism i can be called Towel Head, ****, curry muncher, foreigner etc etc etc - none of which imply I am inferior, but they are simply meant to cause offence. End of. It's bollocks. Are you saying all those terms are acceptable. No of course they're not. They all cause offence and they're all racially motivated. If that's not racial harassment then what is?
[/quote]

Where have I said anything was acceptable ?

What I've consistently said is there's a difference between what is offensive and what is racist. As mentioned above you have to look at the history behind the word and the connotations that are associated with it.
[/quote]


Can something be offensive, with a racial undertone but not racist (in the European court of law books)