Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:14 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:56 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1665
Location: Glasgow
What are minority rights anyway? Pointless term. Minorities make a lot of noise/have it made for them but their rights are the same as anyone else's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:15 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
sylus wrote:
Neil wrote:
sylus wrote:
there are also conformative norms to take into account

a white person using the n word is accused of being racist a black person is suggested as a welcoming, the other issues and the hardest one is to wipe out anothers view because you personally do not agree


I've never understood this - it's like a bunch of white folk have got around and said - "This is unfair - if black people can use the N word, why can't white folk, too?" - quite simply because most white folk haven't had to endure centuries of racially predicated prejudice, in a lot of instances using just that very word. I really don't get why white folk feel it's so unjust.


It's unjust for two reasons really..if we are truly to believe say the n word is offensive then it should not be said by all..it you selectively say some can and some can't then you are in effect practicising reverse racism where because you of your colour... you are restricted to what you can and can't do


What rubbbish - it's in no way unjust at all. The reason why when white folk utter it, it's considered offensive, is because it was and is used as a pejorative and racist term against black people. When black people use it, it's not being used as a pejorative, racist term.

This is one of the biggest canards I've ever heard - what a thing to try and suggest is oppressive and positive discrimination. It's no such thing, and if you're truly honest with yourself, use a bit of perspective, and consider history, then you'd see this.

sylus wrote:
Neil wrote:
sylus wrote:
there seems to be however ..i don't want to go down the whole gay vs church argument but use it to explain why it goes wrong...in order for one view to be seen unjust and corrected then the other view needs to be seen as just and corrective. in laymans terms, you just replace one oppression with another.


But you don't - that's just the overreaction - who is being oppressed by the suggestion of (as I think you're alluding to) gay marriage? (In the assumption that no religions are being forced to perform ceremonies in opposition to their doctrine).

The problem is, some people are trying to foist them no longer being able to discriminate on certain protected grounds, as oppression - and it's no such thing. That's not oppression, and it's nothing like it. It's just polemic posturing that's really an attempt to distract.


As I said, the opression stands, it's just now who shouts the loudest to be the king of the opressive tree..but the modern world is very much not, o well shit happens lets move on but more..who can I blame today


How or what is oppressive? That people aren't allowed to discriminate on certain grounds? How is that in any way oppressive? It's inclusive. Nobody is being oppressed, nobody is being forced to approve or like something they really don't, they are simply not allowed to discriminate on certain grounds - that's nothing like the same, and to try and make out like it is, is disingenuous.

sylus wrote:
you can't ask for equality then at the same time say some are more equal than others.


Eh?

What utter, utter rubbish. I don't see anybody trying to be more equal, all I'm seeing is certain groups trying to be as equal by having equal opportuinities and discrminiation legislation reinforcing that they can't be discriminated against based on certain criteria.

The notion that that's the same as trying to be more equal is utter nonsense and smacks of the politics of envy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:28 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
Neil wrote:
What rubbbish - it's in no way unjust at all. The reason why when white folk utter it, it's considered offensive, is because it was and is used as a pejorative and racist term against black people. When black people use it, it's not being used as a pejorative, racist term.

This is one of the biggest canards I've ever heard - what a thing to try and suggest is oppressive and positive discrimination. It's no such thing, and if you're truly honest with yourself, use a bit of perspective, and consider history, then you'd see this.

What utter, utter rubbish. I don't see anybody trying to be more equal, all I'm seeing is certain groups trying to be as equal by having equal opportuinities and discrminiation legislation reinforcing that they can't be discriminated against based on certain criteria.

The notion that that's the same as trying to be more equal is utter nonsense and smacks of the politics of envy.


which rather proves my point, I will listen to your view and respectfully disagree

you will declare anothers views as utter utter rubbish trying to supress it

you have rather unwittingly proved my point, cheers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:39 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
sylus wrote:
Neil wrote:
What rubbbish - it's in no way unjust at all. The reason why when white folk utter it, it's considered offensive, is because it was and is used as a pejorative and racist term against black people. When black people use it, it's not being used as a pejorative, racist term.

This is one of the biggest canards I've ever heard - what a thing to try and suggest is oppressive and positive discrimination. It's no such thing, and if you're truly honest with yourself, use a bit of perspective, and consider history, then you'd see this.

What utter, utter rubbish. I don't see anybody trying to be more equal, all I'm seeing is certain groups trying to be as equal by having equal opportuinities and discrminiation legislation reinforcing that they can't be discriminated against based on certain criteria.

The notion that that's the same as trying to be more equal is utter nonsense and smacks of the politics of envy.


which rather proves my point, I will listen to your view and respectfully disagree

you will declare anothers views as utter utter rubbish trying to supress it

you have rather unwittingly proved my point, cheers


There's a difference between calling it rubbish, and trying to suppress it.

I'm perfectly happy for you to brandish such canards, just as I'm perfectly happy to reject them. You have simply made claims of oppression that you can't back up with any substance - and that's what I've pointed out. Words mean something - it's completely fatuous to try and turn the tables and say that those that have been oppressed on grounds / criteria that the law now protects them from, have, in that process suddenly reversed the tide of oppression on their oppressors, because now they can no longer do so, without potentially breaking the law.

Words mean something - what you're asserting as oppression is no such thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:46 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning ducks I can only pressume it's a new word you have learnt

If a word is offensive then the colour of your skin should not dictate wether if it is acceptable or not..to decide one colour can and another colour can't is racist and is unequal is that the fact you meant?

I'll try another one for you..freedom...now if you say whites are allowed to say it but coloured people are not then that would be deemed racist..the premise is the same...restriction/allowance based in colour is racist

I hope this shows you I am in agreement..words do mean something... more than your prepared to accept


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:55 pm 
Lincs, East and South Yorks Deputy AEC
Lincs, East and South Yorks Deputy AEC
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:55 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: GUNNESS NTH LINCS
been at the blunt end of said hate crime. not good at all, but needs to be treated like any other crime. categorising it is nothing new, statistics is statistics but it is one way of finding out how, why and what needs doing to end it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:01 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
sylus wrote:
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning ducks I can only pressume it's a new word you have learnt


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canard?s=t - scroll down a bit. You're very welcome, I've just broadened your mind.

sylus wrote:
If a word is offensive then the colour of your skin should not dictate wether if it is acceptable or not..to decide one colour can and another colour can't is racist and is unequal is that the fact you meant?


The word is offensive when used as a pejorative and racist term against black people - and - this is of key importance - actually got to be so, because white folk used it when being racially prejudice against them. When black people use the word, they are not using it as a pejorative, racist term.

How on earth you attempt to turn the tide of centuries of black people being oppressed by racism, to now white people being oppressed because they can't use the N word without fear of legal action, shows me there's no perspective, no actual consideration of the issues, just trying to eek something out of the situation.

sylus wrote:
I'll try another one for you..freedom...now if you say whites are allowed to say it but coloured people are not then that would be deemed racist..the premise is the same...restriction/allowance based in colour is racist

I hope this shows you I am in agreement..words do mean something... more than your prepared to accept


That's just this singular focus on use of a word, with no concept of the history or background.

Honestly, you just sound like you've spectacularly missed the entire point of why discrimination law is as it is. It's because of the history of how people were treated, the oppression and abuse they withstood, and to a certain degree the terms used.

Why you think it's wrong that a term that for the longest time was used as epitome of racial discrimination against black people when used by non-black people, is the same as when black people use it within their own groups, shows me you're missing the wood for the trees.

In your own words, why is the N word such a contentious issue, and trigger point, now, when used by non-black people?

edit: and before I forget, where's this oppression you keep mithering about?


Last edited by Neil on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:02 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
Et too brute.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard

The biggest worry I have when they have these "protected groups" is it seems to be nothing more than political appeasement.

The laws already exist for the protection of people irrelevant of colour, faith, religion etc and another that worries me is by identifying people specifically as a group I feel actually raises the chance of them being victimised because of the elevation to snowflake status

making laws for individual groups makes a mockery of the law that claims to treat all people equal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:04 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
sylus wrote:
The biggest worry I have when they have these "protected groups" is it seems to be nothing more than political appeasement.

The laws already exist for the protection of people irrelevant of colour, faith, religion etc and another that worries me is by identifying people specifically as a group I feel actually raises the chance of them being victimised because of the elevation to snowflake status

making laws for individual groups makes a mockery of the law that claims to treat all people equal


What laws are being made for individual groups?

sylus wrote:


What do I care about wikipedia - are you trying to dispute the definition of an online dictionary? Really?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:10 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
Neil wrote:
What do I care about wikipedia - are you trying to dispute the definition of an online dictionary? Really?


I thought you were chap

funny, oxford has it as french for duck also http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... d?q=canard
if of course your after accuracy within in it's true origin?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cce and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group