ChatterBank1 min ago
Racist Or Just Stating A Fact?
102 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Her statement wasn't very accurate, but wasn't racist either. Btw, I noticed the mail misquoted her, probably intentionally in order to make her look racist. She didn't say "you guys have a problem because you used to be slaves". She said "you have a problem because you guys used to be slaves". Big difference.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy
Who's outraged?
Has anyone expressed any feelings of outrage on this thread?
Can you define outage for us?
AOG asked whether she was being racist. Some has said she isn't, some have said she is.
Aren't we allowed to give and answer without the tired 'usual suspects' comment coming from (ironically) a member of the other 'usual suspects'?
Who's outraged?
Has anyone expressed any feelings of outrage on this thread?
Can you define outage for us?
AOG asked whether she was being racist. Some has said she isn't, some have said she is.
Aren't we allowed to give and answer without the tired 'usual suspects' comment coming from (ironically) a member of the other 'usual suspects'?
Zacs-Master - "Andy, I'm not sure using the word slave is racist."
Use of the word per se is not racist, but insults are all about context.
If I say to a black person in discussion, some black people used to be slaves, that is not a racist comment, it is a statement of fact.
If I say to a black man I don't know on a tube in an argument, you have a problem because you guys used to be slaves, that is an insult, and a racist insult at that. The insult is saying that the man has a problem, the used to be slaves' reference is used in respect of his skin colour, and is a racist comment.
Use of the word per se is not racist, but insults are all about context.
If I say to a black person in discussion, some black people used to be slaves, that is not a racist comment, it is a statement of fact.
If I say to a black man I don't know on a tube in an argument, you have a problem because you guys used to be slaves, that is an insult, and a racist insult at that. The insult is saying that the man has a problem, the used to be slaves' reference is used in respect of his skin colour, and is a racist comment.
scowie - "She didn't say "you guys have a problem because you used to be slaves". She said "you have a problem because you guys used to be slaves".
That's a matter of semantics. As I have observed to Z-M, insulting people is all about context. If you are having a discussion about slavery with a black man, that's a discussion.
If you are having an argument with a black man on a tube, and you refer to his ethnicity in terms of slavery as being the reason for his attitude and argument, then that is intended to be insulting and provocative, which is exactly the effect it had.
Notice, no-one defended the woman, but several people joined in to castigate her for her remarks.
"Big difference."
No - negligible difference - the intention was exactly the same - to insult someone the woman was already angry with. By all means take issue over seating - if that was what started the row, we don't know, it's not on the recording, but leave out inflamatory observations about the person you are arguing with in respect of your uninformed perceptions of him based on the colour of his skin. That's called racism.
That's a matter of semantics. As I have observed to Z-M, insulting people is all about context. If you are having a discussion about slavery with a black man, that's a discussion.
If you are having an argument with a black man on a tube, and you refer to his ethnicity in terms of slavery as being the reason for his attitude and argument, then that is intended to be insulting and provocative, which is exactly the effect it had.
Notice, no-one defended the woman, but several people joined in to castigate her for her remarks.
"Big difference."
No - negligible difference - the intention was exactly the same - to insult someone the woman was already angry with. By all means take issue over seating - if that was what started the row, we don't know, it's not on the recording, but leave out inflamatory observations about the person you are arguing with in respect of your uninformed perceptions of him based on the colour of his skin. That's called racism.
AH, you said she started an argument with him. Why would you say that? You also claim she is angry.
He might have accidentally trod on her toe or been talking to those girls at the end of the carriage and had his *** shoved in her face. I don't know, I wasn't there and neither were you.
All we know for sure is she asked him to move 3 feet and sit in the empty seat he was sitting in.
Possibly because of the chip on his shoulder and/or not being used to whitey asking him to do something, he's the one starting an argument and he's the angry one.
Would you talk to a young girl like that? I know I wouldn't. But then perhaps he has a special dispensation that I can't see.
He might have accidentally trod on her toe or been talking to those girls at the end of the carriage and had his *** shoved in her face. I don't know, I wasn't there and neither were you.
All we know for sure is she asked him to move 3 feet and sit in the empty seat he was sitting in.
Possibly because of the chip on his shoulder and/or not being used to whitey asking him to do something, he's the one starting an argument and he's the angry one.
Would you talk to a young girl like that? I know I wouldn't. But then perhaps he has a special dispensation that I can't see.
Well , two of us at least were watching the same video, Svejk.
What I saw was a quite reasonable, controlled young white woman being shouted at by a black chav.
This behaviour is, I presume, approved of by Matthew Hopkins and Zwarte Piet. But you might think the other five people on Scowie's list might have hesitated (for at least a second) before siding with the bully.
How many years of modern English education do you think it takes to so totally distort the norms of human decency? Over to you, Jim.
What I saw was a quite reasonable, controlled young white woman being shouted at by a black chav.
This behaviour is, I presume, approved of by Matthew Hopkins and Zwarte Piet. But you might think the other five people on Scowie's list might have hesitated (for at least a second) before siding with the bully.
How many years of modern English education do you think it takes to so totally distort the norms of human decency? Over to you, Jim.
ok andy, i'll spell it out for you. The difference between saying "you guys have a problem" and "you have a problem", is that with the former she would be suggesting the guy's behaviour was typical of his race, thereby tarring all black people with the arrogant bevahiour of this one man - that would be racist language. But with the latter (the words she actually used) she is insulting him and him alone and accusing him of using the history of some of his race as an excuse for his arrogant behaviour towards herself, a white woman. Politically incorrect language, but not racist.
