sylus":36olpmml said:Neil":36olpmml said:sylus":36olpmml said: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
sylus":36olpmml said:Neil":36olpmml said:sylus":36olpmml said: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
sylus":36olpmml said:you can't ask for equality then at the same time say some are more equal than others.
Neil":3ajtauib said: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.
sylus":389nvtt5 said:Neil":389nvtt5 said: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
sylus":22mrg11p said:I'm not sure why you keep mentioning ducks I can only pressume it's a new word you have learnt
sylus":22mrg11p said: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?
sylus":22mrg11p said: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
sylus":13i5b6m8 said: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
sylus":13i5b6m8 said:Et too brute.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard
Neil":1dtd3hor said:What do I care about wikipedia - are you trying to dispute the definition of an online dictionary? Really?