Ban The Racists
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Racism is the lowest form of human behaviour. Racism is Racism. Buddy was attacked because of his skin colour thats racism there are no percentages no degrees no levels, I find the words BLACK C highly offensive, infact extremely offensive,Im actually embarrassed We have so much work to do on this issue..
Two years ago i was in the local service station in Coburg with my part indigenous grand son Simon..He was labelled a lil boong with big lips..The people making the comment thought it was funny it created laughs amongst themselves..Simon wanted to know what a Boong was and what it meant when i told him he was heartbroken..I was heart broken for him..Inside i was shattered for him, I kinda told him you will be judged by some people on how you look and its best to ignore and walk on basically for your own safety..Thats racism Thats offensive... just as the term BLACK C is.
Argue all you like, Disect the issue all you want become internet lawyers on the issue but attacking someone because or race and or colour is Racism full stop!!
Im out of this topic now because i dont want to become any angrier and hurt anyone..
Cheers have fun discussing 
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sq3 wrote: | Deadly serious mate.
I spent over 12 months in New Orleans (70% black population) and a lot of my friends in the USA are black - and they all refer to themselves as Black and so do I.
I trained at World Gym there and you would refer to someone else there as that White Dude, The Asian Dude, The Black Dude - even the Hispanic Dude - not even a hint of racism - and no one at all was offended.
They will refer to me in public as their 'White Buddy' and I refer to them as my 'Black Mates'.
No racism anywhere at all - not even a hint.
The only bad word there is the N word and they use it for less than desirable Black people - and that is what the N word is meant to describe.
Black people will get offended if you do call them the N word as you are referring to them as a less than desirable Black person.
One of my best mates in MI is white and has a black wife and she even refers to herself as his Black Wife.
Had to laugh at a St Mary's (lots of aussie players) basketball game this year - there was a time out and one of the guys yelled out Technical Foul - and one of the refs said - Why ? - he said Too many white guys on the court.
No racism at all - everyone laughed like hell.
Why should it be seen as so different over here ? |
You've just written paragraphs about the word "black" when the phrase under discussion is "bc".
What do you think of the phrase "bc" within the Australian context?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
sq3
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Location: Gold Coast/Tampa
|
| Post subject: | |
|
PTD - I do think it is naturally offensive to be sworn at - no doubt.
Would it be any different if they call him a 'Stupid C' instead ??
I think there is far too much concern about being Politically Correct about what to say and what not to say.
As soon as the word 'Black' is used anywhere - out comes the Racism police.
Where were the police at the game ?
Why wasn't the guy thrown out or at least beaten by the police ?
Someone yelling the C word is offensive enough - don't make it a racism issue as well.
_________________
Coaches give you direction but skills win you matches. |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger 
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| joffa corfe wrote: | Racism is the lowest form of human behaviour. Racism is Racism. Buddy was attacked because of his skin colour thats racism there are no percentages no degrees no levels, I find the words BLACK C highly offensive, infact extremely offensive,Im actually embarrassed We have so much work to do on this issue..
Two years ago i was in the local service station in Coburg with my part indigenous grand son Simon..He was labelled a lil boong with big lips..The people making the comment thought it was funny it created laughs amongst themselves..Simon wanted to know what a Boong was and what it meant when i told him he was heartbroken..I was heart broken for him..Inside i was shattered for him, I kinda told him you will be judged by some people on how you look and its best to ignore and walk on basically for your own safety..Thats racism Thats offensive... just as the term BLACK C is.
Argue all you like, Disect the issue all you want become internet lawyers on the issue but attacking someone because or race and or colour is Racism full stop!!
Im out of this topic now because i dont want to become any angrier and hurt anyone..
Cheers have fun discussing |
Wow, you start the Thread, encourage comment, fill paragraphs yourself, then you pull-out when it suits 
And this ... how about explaining things to your little grandson when he's ready ... and not a moment before.
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: |
What do you think of the phrase "bc" within the Australian context? |
What are your thoughts on the matter ptid? I think this is a fascinating discussion - particularly considering the (arguably) most offensive and well-known racial slur is a word simply meaning 'black'.
Personally, I find the word 'f----t' far more offensive, due to what it actually refers to. But then, the origins of words are only a small part of their problematic nature; as such, it's interesting that words like n----r are banned at all, instead of being assessed on context.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh yes, and to apply transparency and further context ... whose watching The Footy Show tonight?
Yep! the very program that has a history of supporting suspect racist skits.
So, whilst calling for lifetime bans, why not apply it to 'celebs', and the shows that employ them, maybe ban the lot of them too? And the entire tv station??
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This Thread is about to die.
But in disappearing, pity it won't take the racists and the knee-jerkers with it. Now there's an idea.
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: |
What do you think of the phrase "bc" within the Australian context? |
What are your thoughts on the matter ptid? I think this is a fascinating discussion - particularly considering the (arguably) most offensive and well-known racial slur is a word simply meaning 'black'.
Personally, I find the word 'f----t' far more offensive, due to what it actually refers to. But then, the origins of words are only a small part of their problematic nature; as such, it's interesting that words like n----r are banned at all, instead of being assessed on context. |
The term is very obviously a grotesquely racist insult (surely this is not in doubt?), but it's childish and crass, too. But arguing degrees at that level of offensiveness is no doubt missing the point. Actually, I feel silly even writing this now because the only people whose opinions matter are probably not being heard at all. Hmm.
Anyhow, I hope this somehow helps tease out the depth of the insult.
WARNING! PSEUDO-ACADEMIC DRIVEL AHEAD  
This is very rough as I haven't studied it for a long time, but see if you think it has any merit:
1. "Black cat" is a noun phrase consisting of a noun which is modified by an attributive adjective.
2. Attributive adjectives are called such because they describe attributes of the noun.
>> "black" is an attribute of "cat" in the phrase "black cat"
>> "cat" is not an attribute of "black" in the phrase "black cat"
3. Attributes of entities are usually consistent with what we know of that entity.
>> black cat [sensible]
>> fluffy cat [sensible]
>> feral cat [sensible]
>> spherical cat [nonsensical]
>> gaseous cat [nonsensical]
>> Protestant cat [nonsensical]
4. When epithets (insulting names) take an attributive adjective, the adjective often does not describe some sensible attribute of the noun because in this case the noun is a very abstract metaphor not a simple entity. Instead, the attributive adjective mostly intensifies the insult.
>> f*ing ar*ehole [stronger than just "ar*ehole" alone]
>> dirty cheap rotten motherf*ing ho [stronger than just "ho" alone]
>> sleazy dirtbag [stronger than just "dirtbag" alone]
5. However, even epithets demand that attributive adjectives which partner them are consistent with them in respect to their category as an insult.
>> f*ing ar*ehole [sensible]
>> dirty cheap rotten motherf*ing ar*ehole [sensible]
>> cheating lying stinking ar*ehole [sensible]
>> generous ar*ehole [nonsensical]
>> responsible ar*ehole [nonsensical]
>> sincere ar*ehole [nonsensical]
6. When the noun "c*nt" is is used as an epithet, normal conditions apply and any attributive adjectives which partner it are once again expected to sensibly reflect its category as an insult.
>> stupid c*nt [sensible]
>> ugly c*nt [sensible]
>> cheating c*nt [sensible]
>> generous c*nt [nonsensical]
>> responsible c*nt [nonsensical]
>> sincere c*nt [nonsensical]
7. Apart from ironic or artistic uses, the only time the word "c*nt" takes a complimentary attributive adjective is in fact when it doesn't mean "c*nt" at all but rather something more like "bloke".
>> funny c*nt [sensible]
>> tough c*nt [sensible]
>> sick c*nt [sensible]
8. Thus, unless "c*nt" is being used in the sense of (7) or some other ironic form, any attributive adjective which accompanies it is assumed to be of the same insulting class.
In other words, this is no arbitrary combination of words. The word "black" in this particular context is not being used neutrally at all, not because it can't be used neutrally as an attributive adjective (e.g., black community), but in this case the speaker didn't believe it was neutral and hence used it to intensify the epithet "c*nt". This seems to provide some clue as to just how insulting the phrase is, and even worse, what is possibly going on in the head of the speaker.
To argue as some are implying that "black c*nt" simply means "a black (person) who happens to be a c*nt at the same time" is like arguing that a "black cat" is "a black (something) which happens to be a cat at the same time". This is a complete misunderstanding of how the phrase structure under consideration actually works.
Why then does "black c*nt" seem less offensive than say the "n" word? A few possible answers include: (a) the word "c*nt" is excluded from public discourse, so no one ever uses it within a context of political power (words which have weight behind them matter more, and it's a very teenage term as it is), (b) the phrase is low in the rankings and has "preferred" offensive terms ahead of it, (c) our racism is embedded so deep we can't detect the offensiveness of the insult sufficiently, (d) Americans don't use it and therefore it is not a mass media subject, and (e) black people in Australia so completely lack representation in the public sphere that they haven't been able to voice their protest or opinion so no one knows just how insulting the phrase is (in contrast to say the US where black people have representation and standing and thus can resist such insult vocally and publicly).
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Hiss 
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: Geelong
|
| Post subject: Agree | |
|
| joffa corfe wrote: | Racism is the lowest form of human behaviour. Racism is Racism. Buddy was attacked because of his skin colour thats racism there are no percentages no degrees no levels, I find the words BLACK C highly offensive, infact extremely offensive,Im actually embarrassed We have so much work to do on this issue..
Two years ago i was in the local service station in Coburg with my part indigenous grand son Simon..He was labelled a lil boong with big lips..The people making the comment thought it was funny it created laughs amongst themselves..Simon wanted to know what a Boong was and what it meant when i told him he was heartbroken..I was heart broken for him..Inside i was shattered for him, I kinda told him you will be judged by some people on how you look and its best to ignore and walk on basically for your own safety..Thats racism Thats offensive... just as the term BLACK C is.
Argue all you like, Disect the issue all you want become internet lawyers on the issue but attacking someone because or race and or colour is Racism full stop!!
Im out of this topic now because i dont want to become any angrier and hurt anyone..
Cheers have fun discussing |
Joffa,
Whilst I agree that racism is a low act and the refuge of the intellectually handicapped, I do not agree with the social engineers telling us what we can and can't say! Let us have the guts to stand up to people who call anyone foul racist comments with a 'shut up jerk'. Australia does not need more rules by these Marxist Governments' and their fans. I support the American model of free speech. The AFL is already a hypocritical institution that applauds greedy overpaid capitalism, yet pretends to care about decent standards for our grandkids. I was called 'a skippy' in school by wogs who laughed when I replied with that word. No harm done. I think it is about time the thug Franklin got over it and gave that pig in the crowd a mouth full in return.
I don't like your attempts at social engineering Joffa!
_________________
I love this club and I hold anyone in contempt who does not think it is worth fighting for. |
|
|
|
|
GlovemanGayfer
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Location: East Bentleigh
|
| Post subject: Re: Agree | |
|
I support the American model of free speech. [/quote]
Great example. This is a country that holds without arrest people suspected of possibly once having spoken with the cousin of the neighbour of a muslim toddler. American free speech is a media and patriotic beat up. They didn't love the wikileaks version of free speech did they?
Free speech is only free if it is works within the context of it's original purpose which was to self affirm and stand up for your right to your faith, your politics etc. Free speech was not a tool to allow discrimination rather the opposite. The modern version of free speech lets anything through as ok because it is a right which is legally and morally untrue.
This whole discussion comes down to right and wrong. No matter what view you take then it still comes down to right and wrong. There is no shaded area here. It can't be a little wrong or a little right. |
|
|
|
|
GlovemanGayfer
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Location: East Bentleigh
|
| Post subject: Re: Agree | |
|
[/quote] I support the American model of free speech. [/quote]
Great example. This is a country that holds without arrest people suspected of possibly once having spoken with the cousin of the neighbour of a muslim toddler. American free speech is a media and patriotic beat up. They didn't love the wikileaks version of free speech did they?
Free speech is only free if it is works within the context of it's original purpose which was to self affirm and stand up for your right to your faith, your politics etc. Free speech was not a tool to allow discrimination rather the opposite. The modern version of free speech lets anything through as ok because it is a right which is legally and morally untrue.
This whole discussion comes down to right and wrong. No matter what view you take then it still comes down to right and wrong. There is no shaded area here. It can't be a little wrong or a little right. |
|
|
|
|
Hiss
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: Geelong
|
| Post subject: Wrong | |
|
| GlovemanGayfer wrote: | | I support the American model of free speech. |
Great example. This is a country that holds without arrest people suspected of possibly once having spoken with the cousin of the neighbour of a muslim toddler. American free speech is a media and patriotic beat up. They didn't love the wikileaks version of free speech did they?
Free speech is only free if it is works within the context of it's original purpose which was to self affirm and stand up for your right to your faith, your politics etc. Free speech was not a tool to allow discrimination rather the opposite. The modern version of free speech lets anything through as ok because it is a right which is legally and morally untrue.
This whole discussion comes down to right and wrong. No matter what view you take then it still comes down to right and wrong. There is no shaded area here. It can't be a little wrong or a little right.[/quote]
The utter flaw in your argument is the use of the terms 'right' and 'wrong'. What some people regard as 'right', others regard as 'wrong'. It is entirely subjective. I couldn't care less if someone exercises free speech, if I disagree with it, I will exercise my free speech to tell them to 'Shut Up'. There are many White people who find the offensive racist comments by some Aboriginals! Yet we don't ever call for big brother government to legislate to stop it. Only a Marxist State and its supporters want big brother Government to regulate speech.
By the way, I disagree with your unfounded attacks on the USA. Would you prefer the Taliban alternative turning up to football games and watching our team? No women would be allowed I suspect. Please remember what the USA has done for your right to go to the footy. Short Memory!
_________________
I love this club and I hold anyone in contempt who does not think it is worth fighting for. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: Re: Agree | |
|
| GlovemanGayfer wrote: | | Hiss wrote: | | I support the American model of free speech. |
Great example. This is a country that holds without arrest people suspected of possibly once having spoken with the cousin of the neighbour of a muslim toddler. American free speech is a media and patriotic beat up. They didn't love the wikileaks version of free speech did they?
Free speech is only free if it is works within the context of it's original purpose which was to self affirm and stand up for your right to your faith, your politics etc. Free speech was not a tool to allow discrimination rather the opposite. The modern version of free speech lets anything through as ok because it is a right which is legally and morally untrue.
This whole discussion comes down to right and wrong. No matter what view you take then it still comes down to right and wrong. There is no shaded area here. It can't be a little wrong or a little right. |
Great post, except for the last paragraph. It's precisely because there are so many shades of 'right' and 'wrong' (so many, in fact, that I would be happy to throw the words out the window right now) that this is such a difficult case to assess.
I think pietillidie's post is very illuminating and what I was hoping to read, but I'm not sure it explains fully why the term 'black c---' should be considered horribly offensive. It's an insult, definitely, and it's racist because it refers to the colour of someone's skin in a derogatory way, but to me it still seems fairly mild as racial epithets go. I can't help but wonder if Hiss of all people is the closest to the truth in this thread.
| Hiss wrote: | | Whilst I agree that racism is a low act and the refuge of the intellectually handicapped, I do not agree with the social engineers telling us what we can and can't say! Let us have the guts to stand up to people who call anyone foul racist comments with a 'shut up jerk'. |
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
mel_kay39
PIES PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Location: www.webs.com/mel_y_kay
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Scotch wrote: | | Hopefully the name gets leaked out somewhere. Good on Franklin for having a massive game with this going on though. |
Agreed. Makes the idiot calling him names look even stupider - if that's a word. Does anyone know if stupider is actually a word? Don't have my dictionary on me at present.
I'm not a big fan of Franklin's normally but the fact that he didn't have a dummy spit speaks volumes for him as a player and a person. Just knuckled down and got the job done. Actions speak louder than words.
_________________
A Pie for Life. |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This Thread has jumped to a whole new level, how 
So much being said with merit ... the way Franklin handled himself, free speech, and whether or not there are limitations around that concept, and whether there are shades of right & wrong.
And wow ptd, he's come back in a Big way! Had to read his post a couple of times, but that's finally sunk-in too ... next time I look at my cat, I'll know what to say!
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
