Not good for minority rights?

[highlandsflyer]

I don't think that argument has any merit, and it is not the core of the thread.

 

[Neil]

Which was my point all along when it comes to minority rights

what someone considers offensive others consider okay

Yes but that always assumes that the modern, liberal, civilised equality has always been. But it hasn't. There's been centuries of inequality, oppression, abuse. Things aren't equal - and some terms and language are sensitive.

That you fail to see context, does not reverse oppression. I do wonder if there's some black people that find it monumentally ironic, and would be staggered at the suggestion of oppression and inequality, made by some who clearly have no concept of context and history, that for non-black people being restricted in terms of consensus and legislation from using the N word, is now being talked about using the same / similar terminology that's been used to describe the centuries of prejudice and true oppression they've faced.

Only the polemic could truly be trying to make that argument work.

It's times like this, I truly enjoy the humour of Reginald D Hunter.

 

[sylus]

Yes but that always assumes that the modern, liberal, civilised equality has always been.

Nope no assumption, just a realist over what actually is

I'm a three stooges man myself

is now being talked about using the same / similar terminology that's been used to describe the centuries of prejudice and true oppression they've faced.

Then you are luckier than I as I have never met anyone who is centuries old

 

[Neil]

is now being talked about using the same / similar terminology that's been used to describe the centuries of prejudice and true oppression they've faced.

Then you are luckier than I as I have never met anyone who is centuries old

OK - you can bicker over semantics, if that's all you've got left - but arguing over word choice, or phrasing as here, rather than against the true points I'm making is just a distraction.

If you can't see the overblown triviality that is non-black people apparently (as you seem to be asserting) being oppressed and discriminated against, because they can't use the N word with wanton abandonment, yet black people can - then you truly do just want to bypass the actual meat of the argument, to snip around the edges, to try and score some wordplay - that at least once in this thread has come to bite you.

It is truly staggering, in context of centuries of prejudice and oppression of black people - and that's not to be dramatic - far from it - it's my belief that trying to pull some rabbit from a hat, and suggest that non-blacks being effectively banned from using the N word whilst black people can, is one of the most over-dramatic, out-of-focus arguments ever, and lacking any context and history.

 

[sylus]

again I've not argued that it is opressive that white people cannot use the N word..I have argued that if it is offensive then all colours should stop using it

semantics? you qoute opression of centuries old people but there are no centuries old people, humans biological clock determines so, so this does challenge your own attempt at debate about over dramatising surely?

if, as I have said before you have rules that isolate a group one minute then allow that group special privilage then you are infact creating a two tier system whilst claiming we are all equal, which I have argued should not be the way.

You have argued history is not correct one minute as my duck then claimed history with centuries old people which do not exist. I can certianly understand why your having difficulties with your argument as it is all over the place

if you are going to have rules then they must apply to all equally, if not then you have a selective system based on who is the flavour of the month at that time

 

[Neil]

again I've not argued that it is opressive that white people cannot use the N word..I have argued that if it is offensive then all colours should stop using it

Go back to page 2 of this thread, where you are making arguments about replacing one form of oppression with another.

semantics? you qoute opression of centuries old people but there are no centuries old people, humans biological clock determines so, so this does challenge your own attempt at debate about over dramatising surely?

When certain races or other denominations have been oppressed with prejudice and / or subjugation, it is quite natural, that they will feel identified with that race or denomination, and that racism and other prejudices - that yes, have been centuries old - but you don't have to look too far to find them still, then it's not being overdramatic.

A question for you - why do you believe equal opportunities and anti-discrimination legislation was introduced?

Totally unnecessary? Should it just have been left to evolve and people do the right thing? 'cos that worked out so well before, eh.

if, as I have said before you have rules that isolate a group one minute then allow that group special privilage then you are infact creating a two tier system whilst claiming we are all equal, which I have argued should not be the way.

What "special privilage"?

The only thing I see is rules protecting them from being discriminated against. That's not making them special, per se, that's trying to say you must treat them equally and not use that subject / race as a means to treat them differently because of it.

You have argued history is not correct one minute as my duck

What utter rubbish, sylus - surely you are above this?

This petty squabbling - you took issue with my use of a specific word, and harped on about it's history. I used it as the first bloody definition in the OED!

I didn't tell you history is not correct - either for that word - or anything else. All I did was rebuke you from telling me I was using it wrongly - which i was quite correct to do so, I said nothing about your claims of it's history.

then claimed history with centuries old people which do not exist. I can certianly understand why your having difficulties with your argument as it is all over the place

What rubbish - I'm going to say it again - surely you're better than this, sylus?

Your first proposition in this point is bogus, you've then gone on to try and use that for another point, which fails spectacularly, because the first bit was utter guff.

My argument is not all over the place - I have remained consistent - you've twitterd around the edges, trying, and failing, to be pedantic - really, sylus, leave pedantry to the big boys, 'k.

I haven't claimed individuals are centuries old, I've claimed that people identify themselves with that which has been the subject of prejudice against them, and in many cases still is, and clearly, they will identify and group themselves as that denomination, that has suffered prejudice for centuries.

if you are going to have rules then they must apply to all equally, if not then you have a selective system based on who is the flavour of the month at that time

So who is getting favourable treatment based on being "flavour of the month" then?

That's your big, smelly, ugly, old-auntie, flaw in this whole argument. You trying to foist "special treatment" in place of "not allowed to discriminate against based on..."

 

[sylus]

Your argument is based on hundreds of years of differential treatment justifies preferences today even if they are not under the auspicies of everyone being treated equally

my argument is that if something is offensive then it should be as equally offensive no matter what the colour

your argument insists on differences having the right to descriminate based on colour but in reverse...mine does not

in the case of colour it is often conveniently overlooked that whilst white men took part in slavery they actually bought them from tribes who had rounded up other tribes to sell them to the white man

now..which one is more offensive..the white man buying them or the black men selling them?..to me it would be both, based on your argument only the white man should feel guilt..it's a rather selective and convenient theory based in selective truthfullness

and there in lies my argument..for all people to be treated equally..all people need to be equally treated

your unable to see that and I respect the difference and wouldn't lower my tone to calling your opinion utter utter rubbish because it is different

and on that note I have an early start in the morning so for tonight, I bid you adieu..which I may add is also french for

ps..I have no aunties

 

[Neil]

Your argument is based on hundreds of years of differential treatment justifies preferences today even if they are not under the auspicies of everyone being treated equally

I keep asking this - what preferences? Exactly how are they (whoever "they" are) being treated preferentially?

All the law is saying is you can't discriminate against them based on whatever it happens to be. That's not preference, that's merely saying you can't disadvantage them based on these factors.

my argument is that if something is offensive then it should be as equally offensive no matter what the colour

Then quite simply you're wrong.

A non-black person can have no context for the racial significance of using the N word. Many black people can - many have faced abuse and prejudice using that and other pejorative terms based on their race, in current times.

A black person using the N word, isn't doing so, to reinforce racial stereotypes, and demean another black person by doing so. That the word used by non-black people has such stigma - well non-black people only have themselves to blame for that.

your argument insists on differences having the right to descriminate based on colour but in reverse...mine does not

No - you are trying to assert that the use of a term, most comprehensively used to racially demean black people has the same impact when used if non-black people use it to refer to black people, as when black people use it to refer to black people.

Either you are being deliberatley obtuse - I'll give you that credit - or you simply don't understand.

in the case of colour it is often conveniently overlooked that whilst white men took part in slavery they actually bought them from tribes who had rounded up other tribes to sell them to the white man

Prejudice and racial oppression didn't just start and end with slavery. And money and power have always corrupted.

now..which one is more offensive..the white man buying them or the black men selling them?..to me it would be both, based on your argument only the white man should feel guilt..it's a rather selective and convenient theory based in selective truthfullness

You've just made the textbook definition of a strawman. Congrats, and all - standing ovation.

and there in lies my argument..for all people to be treated equally..all people need to be equally treated

And how does discrimination law treat people differently? It doesn't, that's how. It does the opposite - it says you can't treat people differently based on these factors.

your unable to see that and I respect the difference and wouldn't lower my tone to calling your opinion utter utter rubbish because it is different

You misunderstand - I'm not unable to see anything. Because what you claim, isn't what discrimination law is about. It's not about people being special - it's practically the reverse - it means you can treat them differently based on the stipulated differences.

The bit that seems to truly irk you about the N word, I doubt you'll find specifically in any discrimination law - BICBW.

 

[technodup]

A black person using the N word, isn't doing so, to reinforce racial stereotypes, and demean another black person by doing so.

Neither necessarily is a white person.

As has been tested and upheld in a UK court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... endearment

Clearly the magistrate understood current context as much as historical context. Which seeing as we live in the present and not the past is no bad thing.

 

[Bram J]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888

This makes my stomach turn.

Surely there's a difference between racism/homophobia/disability hate crime and choosing to wear clothing to stand out?

There is no difference. The only reason why they attacked them is because they looked different.
.
.
.
Please do not compare a crime like this to petty thefts. This was murder.
Old ladies get mugged for their money, not out of hate for old ladies.

There is freedom of expression and of speech. Goths have every right to look like they do, they have every right to 'stand out' and they shouldn't be expecting violence towards them just for the way they look. No-one in their right mind would claim that they asked for it 'because they chose to be different'.

Stupid no-good parents. If we don't allow our own kids to look different, have long hair, piercings or whatever, then how should we expect our kids to look upon to others that don't 'fit in'? With intolerance, big surprise.

BTW, I think life should be life.