[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=24077.msg590042#msg590042 date=1212763799]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589543#msg589543 date=1212735554]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=24077.msg589515#msg589515 date=1212728358]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=24077.msg589205#msg589205 date=1212688106]
Again, it is only a racial slur if it infers that you're inferior because of your race , not if it merely makes reference to your race. Why don't you get this ?
[/quote]
Sweet Jesus.
He doesn't get it because it's wrong, Ross.
Pick any racist slur. Just the word. Let's take the worst one of them all. The N word by itself does not infer inferiority. By your definition, it's ok to use it, because it's only offensive, not racial. And don't throw 'loaded word' at me... That's not mentioned anywhere in the legalese you've shared.
Nor do some of the other slurs that refer to folks of different cultures... Words that start with S or W or any other letter do not alone signify inferiority. BUt they're still as racist at Sheiky's avy.
"You (insert racial slur) prick" does not infer inferiority, so much as the fact that the subject of the sentense is a prick... So, it not really racist then. Except for the racial slur part.
That definition is insane.
[/quote]
No you're misunderstanding it.
Probably deliberately
[/quote]
Not in the slightest, mo chara.
The legal definition you have outlined is bunk, for the reasons that I outline above.
No single word other than "inferior", "lesser", "worse" or any other derivitive implies 'inferiority' by itself. Therefore, using that logic, there's not a single word that, when used alone, could be considered racist.
[/quote]
exactly my friend. Thats all i have been trying to say for days. Theres simply no arguing with it.
