I don't care what he is allowed to do in his own country, I don't care what he might say here because it is not offensive in his country, hi is here and it is UK and FA law he has to adhere to, if he does not know those rules/laws then the backroom boys at Liverpool have failed him, his own managerial staff has failed him, his football coach has failed him and Liverpool FC has failed him, my original post was about the reaction of his teamates, and his football club not him, he "owned up and took his punishment" Liverpool have finally decided that this was the best way to react, I actually feel sorry for the guy who I believe has been let down by those that should have made him aware of the way things are in British Football, by those that should have supported him quietly and not made the situation worse by what actions they did do and by.
I think an 8 match ban was quite severe, Cantonna only got a 9 match ban for kicking a guy (who was a white man being racist)
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Shame on you Liverpool FC
this is a statement that liverpool fc put out yesterday in responce to accepting the 8 match ban.
not once in there is there an apology. they cleerly say " Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act. Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his team-mates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant ".
they also say " It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated ".
:thumbup:
but this damning statement says it all for me.
" In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one of the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season. This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation ".
now this has been wrapped up and liverpool fc acepting to just get on with things now,even though they have not issued any statement with the sorry word in it, the peeple who fight for justice on the racism front, have now got there claws out and turn there attention to the john terry case. claws at the ready, and sharpened.
for what it is worth midscouple24 i beleeve that the backroom boys,the managerial staff, his coach and liverpool fc, have not failed him for one single second. they should and are currently being applauded by the peeple who can see this for what it is. a stitch up against liverpool fc by the fa and manchester utd fc.
i await any punishment for evras disgraceful behaviour on that day with suaez. there will not be a single charge brought against him. what a cop out.
not once in there is there an apology. they cleerly say " Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act. Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his team-mates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant ".
they also say " It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated ".
:thumbup:
but this damning statement says it all for me.
" In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one of the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season. This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation ".
now this has been wrapped up and liverpool fc acepting to just get on with things now,even though they have not issued any statement with the sorry word in it, the peeple who fight for justice on the racism front, have now got there claws out and turn there attention to the john terry case. claws at the ready, and sharpened.
for what it is worth midscouple24 i beleeve that the backroom boys,the managerial staff, his coach and liverpool fc, have not failed him for one single second. they should and are currently being applauded by the peeple who can see this for what it is. a stitch up against liverpool fc by the fa and manchester utd fc.
i await any punishment for evras disgraceful behaviour on that day with suaez. there will not be a single charge brought against him. what a cop out.
Sex God
Liverpool could damage their reputation if they continue to insist Luis Suarez is not guilty of racist abuse, says Blackburn striker Jason Roberts.
The Professional Footballers' Association have welcomed Liverpool's decision to accept the eight-match ban imposed on striker Luis Suarez for racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra.
PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor said in a statement that Liverpool had acted wisely, and urged the club to make their players fully aware of what is acceptable on the pitch.
Gordon Taylor believes the punishment meted out to Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra sends a warning that racism in the game will not be tolerated.
"It's a lesson to all of us...that all players coming into our game from different countries understand and accept what we are about - equality and diversity. We have got probably the most multi-cultural game in the world so it's important to set the right example."
"We don't want him (Evra) feeling a victim. We want our black players to feel comfortable that racism can be dealt with in football terms, as well as the law of the land."
"Some issues are bigger than a player, the club or the game and racism is one of those. We have to learn from it and there should be no misunderstanding or ambiguity in the future"
"You don't want such issues to divide clubs or society. We're all in a football family but we're all under the law of the land."
"Once a penalty has been paid and carried out we move on in a positive manner to make sure the penalty acts as a deterrent. The educational process continues."
This from the leader of the Players own Trade Union, the PFA
The Professional Footballers' Association have welcomed Liverpool's decision to accept the eight-match ban imposed on striker Luis Suarez for racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra.
PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor said in a statement that Liverpool had acted wisely, and urged the club to make their players fully aware of what is acceptable on the pitch.
Gordon Taylor believes the punishment meted out to Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra sends a warning that racism in the game will not be tolerated.
"It's a lesson to all of us...that all players coming into our game from different countries understand and accept what we are about - equality and diversity. We have got probably the most multi-cultural game in the world so it's important to set the right example."
"We don't want him (Evra) feeling a victim. We want our black players to feel comfortable that racism can be dealt with in football terms, as well as the law of the land."
"Some issues are bigger than a player, the club or the game and racism is one of those. We have to learn from it and there should be no misunderstanding or ambiguity in the future"
"You don't want such issues to divide clubs or society. We're all in a football family but we're all under the law of the land."
"Once a penalty has been paid and carried out we move on in a positive manner to make sure the penalty acts as a deterrent. The educational process continues."
This from the leader of the Players own Trade Union, the PFA
Sex God
Quote by HnS
Liverpool could damage their reputation if they continue to insist Luis Suarez is not guilty of racist abuse, says Blackburn striker Jason Roberts.
This is the kind of statement I have grown to hate :mad:
Quote by Bluefish2009
Liverpool could damage their reputation if they continue to insist Luis Suarez is not guilty of racist abuse, says Blackburn striker Jason Roberts.
This is the kind of statement I have grown to hate :mad:
collymore, luther blissett now jason roberts. :doh: the clues are there :notes:
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Liverpool could damage their reputation if they continue to insist Luis Suarez is not guilty of racist abuse, says Blackburn striker Jason Roberts.
This is the kind of statement I have grown to hate :mad:
the comon denominator is?
That one must comply with "A way of thinking or else"
well....let me say that I actually don't think Suarez is a racist. However I do think he deliberatly used racist language in an attempt to cause offence. I must admit an 8 game ban does seem extreme...I would have gone for say double a red card at 6 games...but in the end thats the decision of the authorities.
However what I would say, is that we have made great strides against racism in this country.....and it can be seen no where better than at the football. At one time black players had bananas thrown at them, and people were always useing racist chants against them. I am a season ticket at the Wolves ( for my sins ) and players get abuse from the crowd....but critically it is the same abuse black or white !! This ruling will mean that players will think twice before using any langauge that could be deemed racialy abusive. And that has to be a step in the right direction.
However what I would say, is that we have made great strides against racism in this country.....and it can be seen no where better than at the football. At one time black players had bananas thrown at them, and people were always useing racist chants against them. I am a season ticket at the Wolves ( for my sins ) and players get abuse from the crowd....but critically it is the same abuse black or white !! This ruling will mean that players will think twice before using any langauge that could be deemed racialy abusive. And that has to be a step in the right direction.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
I don't care what he is allowed to do in his own country, I don't care what he might say here because it is not offensive in his country,
i must admit thee most racist and offensive word on the planet is
and its also insulting to think that the word is freely available to the black community to use but i would face arrest if i was to use it. and that word that is accepted in this country when used by certain people could not possibly be in the same context when it was used by Suarez :doh:
mountains and molehills spring to mind
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
I don't care what he is allowed to do in his own country, I don't care what he might say here because it is not offensive in his country,
i must admit thee most racist and offensive word on the planet is
and its also insulting to think that the word is freely available to the black community to use but i would face arrest if i was to use it. and that word that is accepted in this country when used by certain people could not possibly be in the same context when it was used by Suarez :doh:
mountains and molehills spring to mind
Really Rob?
Why do people see this word as being so offensive? Is it not just short for some one who's roots originate from Nigeria? Used by some as an affectionate greeting between them selves. Just as I could be referred to as a Britt!
What I do see as racist is the double standards in our current law. We currently have a law where some groups within this country can use a word while others are not aloud to use this word. That surely is racist!
Quote by Bluefish2009
What I do see as racist is the double standards in our current law. We currently have a law where some groups within this country can use a word while others are not aloud to use this word. That surely is racist!
yes agree bluefish.
also another example of bollocks and one sided laws is the story of alan hansen, on match of the day. He unwittingly called black players "coloured", and he was then forced to appologise because a few white middle class numpties complained.
there were also a few black peeple that moaned and whinged about him using that word. WTF ?
what is fucking offensive about being called coloured? am i reely missing something here?
yes rob is offensive to mant peeple, and if it was so offensive why do so many blacks use it against one another? they can use that word because they are black, but we cannot use it because we are white
it is ether offensive or it is not. you cannot have words that some can use and others cannot. but it seems we can. as i have said many times over a few yeers, it seems you can only be called a racist if you are white. yes a few examples on here have been given about black peeple being called racist, but the small amount of those that are are superficial figures used by the likes of the guardian to appease there readership.
if a black guy can use the word then i do not see any reeson why any other colour or creed cant also.
double standards bluefish? what in britain in 2012? no surely not.
also bluefish i am waiting for the fa to issue charges against evra for his comments. i am sure bringing the game into disrepute can be used to charge evra? yeah right.
Sex God
Thread seems to have drifted right off Liverpool FC?
The use of the N word in this country is simply unacceptable - whatever AMERICAN rappers choose to say about it. I would have to ask why anyone of any race or creed would want to use that word when it is known to be so offensive to so many people.
To the people on this thread asking why it is wrong for a white person to use it and not for a black person - I ask you - in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
The use of the N word in this country is simply unacceptable - whatever AMERICAN rappers choose to say about it. I would have to ask why anyone of any race or creed would want to use that word when it is known to be so offensive to so many people.
To the people on this thread asking why it is wrong for a white person to use it and not for a black person - I ask you - in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Thread seems to have drifted right off Liverpool FC?
The use of the N word in this country is simply unacceptable - whatever AMERICAN rappers choose to say about it. I would have to ask why anyone of any race or creed would want to use that word when it is known to be so offensive to so many people.
To the people on this thread asking why it is wrong for a white person to use it and not for a black person - I ask you - in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
I have no use for the word as I have no friends from a Nigerian background.
However,
I would rather ask, why I am excluded from using a word that other can
We see many offensive words used, even on these very pages we can see the Pope called a cunt!
Quote by Bluefish2009
However,
I would rather ask, why I am excluded from using a word that other can
We see many offensive words used, even on these very pages we can see the Pope called a cunt!
:thumbup:
over my many yeers on this planet blue without any doubt the most offensive word from a white persons view is the word " cunt ". women in particular hate that word with a passion and if someone comes into your face with a snarl and calls you a " cunt " is there anything more offensive other than being hit of course?
yet what could be done about it? as you rightly have said and myself about calling the pope a " cunt ", and yet not a single thing was done about it. for me that is as bad as john terry calling ferdinand " a black cunt " apparently and yet to be proved, but that is what is being if he is found guilty of this, what will his punishment be? loss of the england captains job? jail possibly? a 50 match ban?
this is where i am finding things hard to understand.
i am just looking for things to be more even based than they obviusly are at the moment, with one law for one and one for another based on the colour of someones skin bluefish. i always thought that this country strived for equality? for all to be equal no matter the colour of your skin, but that is not the case.
as it said in my paper this morning the fa are not looking to pursue justice, instead they were trying to prove that they are more politically correct than anyone else.
horrible though he might be suarez has been the victim of a politically motivated stitch up, where everyone attempts to prove they are holier than thou. oh yes the holier than thou white middle class liberals according to an article i read today.prove me wrong.
Quote by too hot
in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
i could ask the same question too hot if someone calls someone else a " cunt ". why is that any less offensive? :notes: because it does not have the black word attatched? no i would find being called that just as offensive as evra apparently did.
starlight.....
yes I also find the word CUNT offensive...and if was as a description of me, I would find it insulting. But it is not a racially motivated word. If you wish to be offensive towards someone and call them a CUNT....go ahead and do so. However you have no need to call them a black/white/brown/yellow/ ....CUNT do you? At least by calling them a CUNT you are treating them the same, whatever race they are.
Moving away from the word CUNT....lets accept there are times we all may wish to say something to be offensive towards someone. All I am saying is whatever word or phrase you use, why would you need to preface it with a word that depicts the pigment of their skin. Unless ofcause you want to be racially offensive at the same time !!!
yes I also find the word CUNT offensive...and if was as a description of me, I would find it insulting. But it is not a racially motivated word. If you wish to be offensive towards someone and call them a CUNT....go ahead and do so. However you have no need to call them a black/white/brown/yellow/ ....CUNT do you? At least by calling them a CUNT you are treating them the same, whatever race they are.
Moving away from the word CUNT....lets accept there are times we all may wish to say something to be offensive towards someone. All I am saying is whatever word or phrase you use, why would you need to preface it with a word that depicts the pigment of their skin. Unless ofcause you want to be racially offensive at the same time !!!
Sex God
Quote by deancannock
starlight.....
yes I also find the word CUNT offensive...and if was as a description of me, I would find it insulting. But it is not a racially motivated word. If you wish to be offensive towards someone and call them a CUNT....go ahead and do so. However you have no need to call them a black/white/brown/yellow/ ....CUNT do you? At least by calling them a CUNT you are treating them the same, whatever race they are.
Moving away from the word CUNT....lets accept there are times we all may wish to say something to be offensive towards someone. All I am saying is whatever word or phrase you use, why would you need to preface it with a word that depicts the pigment of their skin. Unless ofcause you want to be racially offensive at the same time !!!
I could not disagree more
Why is racial offensiveness worse than other offensiveness?
I do not see why it is worse to preface an offensive word with skin colour, than it is to preface it with say, a reference to there height, amount of hair on there head, size of nose, colour of hair, disfigurement, or the wearing of glasses perhaps.
The bullying of people with words is wrong, the colour of that persons skin is irrelevant
How can one be so much worse than the other? Some words, in my view are being given to much power.
Quote by Bluefish2009
The bullying of people with words is wrong, the colour of that persons skin is irrelevant
if irrelavant...then why need to do it ? If you wish to be offensive call someone a CUNT/TWAT or whatever word you choose. No need to refer to colour of their skin.
Do however totally agree that Bullying is wrong. But offensive words are sometimes used in anger rather than in bullying way. When someone cuts me up on the road...I may indeed say "stupid bloody twat".
Sex God
Quote by deancannock
The bullying of people with words is wrong, the colour of that persons skin is irrelevant
if irrelavant...then why need to do it ? If you wish to be offensive call someone a CUNT/TWAT or whatever word you choose. No need to refer to colour of their skin.
Do however totally agree that Bullying is wrong. But offensive words are sometimes used in anger rather than in bullying way. When someone cuts me up on the road...I may indeed say "stupid bloody twat".
That was not my point, but I think you new that, my point was why is racially abusing some one any worse that other abuse?
Sex God
Why is offensive in the mouth of a white person when directed towards someone who's black? Does it really need explaining? Can't believe the question has even come up. It is offensive because historically it has been used as a derogatory term of abuse by white people, asserting their priveleged position in a society that saw black people as inferior, sub-human, useful only as slaves so long as they remained productive, or as a cheap labour force kept in its place by institutionalised psychological and physical violence. You cannot seperate the word from its historical context: it is too loaded with cultural baggage. If blacks choose to use the word themselves by way of redefining its meaning, reclaiming it for themselves, or for shock value that's one thing, but it's another thing altogether in the mouth of a white person in a society that still massively discriminates against none-caucasians on a daily basis at a personal and institutional level. How hard can it be to understand that?
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly, or a bit of a cunt, did they? No one ever went halfway round the globe to round up gingers en masse to be transported to the New World as slaves. It is different, and race is directly relevant because of the history of the inreraction between western caucasians and blacks.
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly, or a bit of a cunt, did they? No one ever went halfway round the globe to round up gingers en masse to be transported to the New World as slaves. It is different, and race is directly relevant because of the history of the inreraction between western caucasians and blacks.
Sex God
is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people (generally people of Sub-Saharan African descent), and it is a common ethnic slur.
Writing in 1904, American journalist Clifton Johnson documented the "opprobrious" character of the word , emphasizing that it was chosen in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "colored".
Whilst in Britain, In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), H. W. Fowler states that applying the word to "others than full or partial negroes" is "felt as an insult by the person described, & betrays in the speaker, if not deliberate insolence, at least a very arrogant inhumanity"
As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the variants "nig-nog" and "golliwog".
The United Nations use the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life
The 1976 Race Relations Act : An Act to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds and relations between people of different racial groups.
© Crown Copyright 1998
In the UK the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, covers the Racial aspect of crime. provides a definition of "racially aggravated" crime thus;
"28. - (1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if-
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group."
© Crown Copyright 1998
Whilst in 2001, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:
"Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality."
The Equality Act came into force on 1 October 2010, with Racist abuse and harassment being forms of direct discrimination as defined within this Act,. Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act.The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003to comply with the EC Race Directive.
It's also worth noting the definition of harassment introduced by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 applies when a person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
* violating that other persons dignity; or
* creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
Whilst all this may have strayed slightly from the original thread concerning Liverpool FC it should be worth remembering that football is a sport governed in the England by the FA, which like all other sports frames it's rules so as to abide by both any international governing bodies rules and policies, e.g. FIFA, but also more importantly so as to abide by relevant Legislation within the country that it operates, i.e English Law (accepting the separate Scottish legal process that exists).
Writing in 1904, American journalist Clifton Johnson documented the "opprobrious" character of the word , emphasizing that it was chosen in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "colored".
Whilst in Britain, In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), H. W. Fowler states that applying the word to "others than full or partial negroes" is "felt as an insult by the person described, & betrays in the speaker, if not deliberate insolence, at least a very arrogant inhumanity"
As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the variants "nig-nog" and "golliwog".
The United Nations use the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life
The 1976 Race Relations Act : An Act to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds and relations between people of different racial groups.
© Crown Copyright 1998
In the UK the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, covers the Racial aspect of crime. provides a definition of "racially aggravated" crime thus;
"28. - (1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if-
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group."
© Crown Copyright 1998
Whilst in 2001, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:
"Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality."
The Equality Act came into force on 1 October 2010, with Racist abuse and harassment being forms of direct discrimination as defined within this Act,. Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act.The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003to comply with the EC Race Directive.
It's also worth noting the definition of harassment introduced by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 applies when a person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
* violating that other persons dignity; or
* creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
Whilst all this may have strayed slightly from the original thread concerning Liverpool FC it should be worth remembering that football is a sport governed in the England by the FA, which like all other sports frames it's rules so as to abide by both any international governing bodies rules and policies, e.g. FIFA, but also more importantly so as to abide by relevant Legislation within the country that it operates, i.e English Law (accepting the separate Scottish legal process that exists).
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly, or a bit of a cunt, did they? No one ever went halfway round the globe to round up gingers en masse to be transported to the New World as slaves. It is different, and race is directly relevant because of the history of the inreraction between western caucasians and blacks.
That does still not make the use of racial abuse any worse than any other verbal abuse in my mind.
But to answer your pacific point, I think those who are verbally abused feel just as unhappy as those racially abused, never mind the history.
Protect us from abuse, says woman beaten for being fat. Overweight people in London have launched a campaign to make the capital more fat-friendly.
It comes after one woman was beaten up on a train for being fat. A group of women want to persuade Boris Johnson to make London more like San Francisco, where discriminating against fat people is banned by law.
Quote by neilinleeds
Why is offensive in the mouth of a white person when directed towards someone who's black? Does it really need explaining? Can't believe the question has even come up. It is offensive because historically it has been used as a derogatory term of abuse by white people, asserting their priveleged position in a society that saw black people as inferior, sub-human, useful only as slaves so long as they remained productive, or as a cheap labour force kept in its place by institutionalised psychological and physical violence.
do you reely beleeve that neil?
Quote by neilinleeds
You cannot seperate the word from its historical context: it is too loaded with cultural baggage. If blacks choose to use the word themselves by way of redefining its meaning, reclaiming it for themselves, or for shock value that's one thing, but it's another thing altogether in the mouth of a white person in a society that still massively discriminates against none-caucasians on a daily basis at a personal and institutional level. How hard can it be to understand that?
the bit highlighted is a million per cent spot on :thumbup:
the reeson i say that is i was praying this would come up and now it has been said. i spoke this afternoon with a friend of mine who is very black, who thankfully answered this question for me. what a load of shite he said. he beleeves that it is much much worse for another black person to call him a , than it is for a white person. the reeson he gave is that another black person would understand through there own history what the significance of that word ment. so he said for him it would be much more offensive for a fellow black person to call him a . he could almost ignore a white person saying it to him because of there ignorance, but another black person saying it is the worst thing he could imagine. he also stated that none of his friends would dare say that to another black person.
he said that only another white person would make such a offensive coment, and funnily enough the person who made that coment is indeed white.
he said the word is offensive no matter what the colour of a persons skin is, if it is not directed at him. if it is the thought of a black person saying it to him fills him with disgust.
i wonder how many white peeple would dare to argue with that?>
Sex God
I believe that the following terms and conditions of this Site have been breached in this thread:
"Refrain from all expressions of bigotry, racism, and homophobia."
The N word is not acceptable in this country and any attempt to justify its use is racist.
What started in this thread as a debate about the actions of a football Club has descended into people questioning the context and use of a word that is universally accepted as a racist and unacceptable to use in this country. I feel sickened and disgusted that anyone could even think that it is any way acceptable.
Starlight - your last post was the final straw for me. I ignored your comments about the black footballers and (the clues being there) but making up stories to justify the continued use of a word that will never again in history be acceptable is outrageous. Neil (who I don't normally agree with) posted a rational and factual reason why the word is universally agreed to be unacceptable.
Not sure where this thread can go now. Hopefully nowhere.
"Refrain from all expressions of bigotry, racism, and homophobia."
The N word is not acceptable in this country and any attempt to justify its use is racist.
What started in this thread as a debate about the actions of a football Club has descended into people questioning the context and use of a word that is universally accepted as a racist and unacceptable to use in this country. I feel sickened and disgusted that anyone could even think that it is any way acceptable.
Starlight - your last post was the final straw for me. I ignored your comments about the black footballers and (the clues being there) but making up stories to justify the continued use of a word that will never again in history be acceptable is outrageous. Neil (who I don't normally agree with) posted a rational and factual reason why the word is universally agreed to be unacceptable.
Not sure where this thread can go now. Hopefully nowhere.
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
I believe that the following terms and conditions of this Site have been breached in this thread:
"Refrain from all expressions of bigotry, racism, and homophobia."
The N word is not acceptable in this country and any attempt to justify its use is racist.
What started in this thread as a debate about the actions of a football Club has descended into people questioning the context and use of a word that is universally accepted as a racist and unacceptable to use in this country. I feel sickened and disgusted that anyone could even think that it is any way acceptable.
Starlight - your last post was the final straw for me. I ignored your comments about the black footballers and (the clues being there) but making up stories to justify the continued use of a word that will never again in history be acceptable is outrageous. Neil (who I don't normally agree with) posted a rational and factual reason why the word is universally agreed to be unacceptable.
Not sure where this thread can go now. Hopefully nowhere.
:thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
Why is offensive in the mouth of a white person when directed towards someone who's black? Does it really need explaining? Can't believe the question has even come up. It is offensive because historically it has been used as a derogatory term of abuse by white people, asserting their priveleged position in a society that saw black people as inferior, sub-human, useful only as slaves so long as they remained productive, or as a cheap labour force kept in its place by institutionalised psychological and physical violence. You cannot seperate the word from its historical context: it is too loaded with cultural baggage. If blacks choose to use the word themselves by way of redefining its meaning, reclaiming it for themselves, or for shock value that's one thing, but it's another thing altogether in the mouth of a white person in a society that still massively discriminates against none-caucasians on a daily basis at a personal and institutional level. How hard can it be to understand that?
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly, or a bit of a cunt, did they? No one ever went halfway round the globe to round up gingers en masse to be transported to the New World as slaves. It is different, and race is directly relevant because of the history of the inreraction between western caucasians and blacks.
thank you Neil in that case Suarez was indeed correct in his terminology
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
I believe that the following terms and conditions of this Site have been breached in this thread:
"Refrain from all expressions of bigotry, racism, and homophobia."
The N word is not acceptable in this country and any attempt to justify its use is racist.
What started in this thread as a debate about the actions of a football Club has descended into people questioning the context and use of a word that is universally accepted as a racist and unacceptable to use in this country. I feel sickened and disgusted that anyone could even think that it is any way acceptable.
Starlight - your last post was the final straw for me. I ignored your comments about the black footballers and (the clues being there) but making up stories to justify the continued use of a word that will never again in history be acceptable is outrageous. Neil (who I don't normally agree with) posted a rational and factual reason why the word is universally agreed to be unacceptable.
Not sure where this thread can go now. Hopefully nowhere.
but your wrong and thanks to neils well put point it proves it
sorry hot but your just wrong wrong wrong
and if you think im not i have a pic taken today of a number plate on a mercedes ml that id happily share with you if you care
its N16Ger
go figure that
i appologise if my coments offended anyone but no story was made up at all.
i may not be able to express myself sometimes in the way that i would like, so for that i appologise. it certainly was not my intention to offend, only to try and give another point of view on things.
i still beleeve that there are two laws in this country and i will not stop thinking that.
the n word is not a word that is illegal to say, it is i thought only wrong when it is aimed at somebody?
as my inability to express myself in the way that i would like, and obviusly have offended peeple here i will quit this thred.
i may not be able to express myself sometimes in the way that i would like, so for that i appologise. it certainly was not my intention to offend, only to try and give another point of view on things.
i still beleeve that there are two laws in this country and i will not stop thinking that.
the n word is not a word that is illegal to say, it is i thought only wrong when it is aimed at somebody?
as my inability to express myself in the way that i would like, and obviusly have offended peeple here i will quit this thred.
Sex God
As far as I am aware, no one word is , neither is it, by its self, offensive.
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc
Words only become offensive when put in the wrong context, aimed at some one, or used in inappropriate manor or company
I do so hate this,
You must conform to this way of thinking or you are racist
You must agree with global warming or you are a denier
Etc
Quote by Too Hot
in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
When used as the name of the dog owned by Guy Gibson, and was the mascot of 617 Squadron, who gained the nickname 'Dambusters' after raids on various dams in Germany. The dog died the day before the raids, and it's name was used to confirm the breach of the Dam Guy Gibson had bombed.
So in that context, I feel the word is acceptable, it is a part of the history of the 617 Squadron.
However, when the word is used in a racially derogatory way, then there is no place for it, and I see no reason why a person shouldn't be punished for it.
Quote by neilinleeds
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly
If that were to happen, Mick Hucknall would be shitting himself.
