More censorship.

[Himaginn]

However, you like to act like you do have the monopoly on it..

Your opinion.
I'm just as fallible as anyone else in making mistakes.
The difference is, when it is pointed out to me, that I have inadvertently offended someone, and I then accept it, I would unhesitatingly apologise, and determine not to use the particular offensive phrase/comment again.

When some, like transam, foxtrot (perhaps as F&I, Corgicrouch etc), et al make spurious and fatuous allegations, I may ask for them to explain how it was considered offensive.
I may refute them.
There may be a discussion about it.
Often I'll simply ignore the spurious, fatuous allegation for what is.
I'm referring to such spurious and fatuous allegations as the expression "Pot, Kettle, Black, etc is racially offensive. Such allegations as use of "imbecilic" as offensive to disabled, etc. Such allegations as me being sexist, etc.
Such allegations as these try to trivialise genuine incidents of offensive behaviour, and demonstrate the true nature of the individuals making spurious and fatuous allegations.

Additionally, I, almost unconsciously, give some thought to the comments I'm about to make.
If I consider my comments have the potential to offend, I'll think of another way of expressing myself, rather than wantonly disregarding that possibility of offending.

Dan used an idiom and you called him racist on the back of it when he meant no harm.

Dan used an expression, which he thought, or did not think at all, that it was not racially offensive. Alternatively it might have crossed his mind, but he used the expression anyway.
He asked me for an explanation, I advised him to seek his own counsel because I knew he wouldn't accept my explanation.
He insisted on my explanation. I eventually provided him with an explanation, supported by real incidents and opinions.
He then still refuted my explanation, and as far as we know, he has still not sought his own counsel.
Furthermore, he hasn't accepted that he wouldn't use that expression again, now knowing that it is racially offensive.

I did explain this earlier this morning. I also asked you which of the four scenarios, I presented, best fitted the events?

You often accuse me of dodging the issue. Here's your chance to demonstrate that you don't.

 

[EFLImpudence]

A black person can discriminate against another black person simply because of his colour. For instance a black employer can select an all white work force from a selection of mixed (black and white) people and be accused of racial discrimination if he has selected them based upon colour rather than merit.

Ah. That's interesting.
You have now introduced the correct legal term for the offence - 'Racial Discrimination'.
That doesn't mean the boss is actually racist, does it? He may have a reason for wanting a white workforce - or vice versa.

I suppose it is possible that the black boss just hates black people but would that be racist in a true sense?
Do some white people just hate white people? Would that be racist?
I don't suppose it happens very often.

Black on black racism exists.

Still not sure if it can be described as true racism.

If you hate me, no one would describe it a racism, would they?

Take your head out of the sand EFLI and educate yourself.

Quite willing to be educated but, as usual, you are confusing or deliberately ignoring the main intent of my posts.
They are more concerned with the true meaning and use of the words rather than what happens.

 

[noseall]

They are more concerned with the true meaning and use of the words

Yes, I've seen your selective 'best definition' of the word.

The best definition I could find of the word in question.

"A word that everyone else is afraid to define except in utter seriousness, for fear of being branded a rascist, in total ignorance of the colloquial usage of the word, its characterization in popular culture, and the populations of people it is used most by."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=******

Black people can be racist. The 'n' word IS extremely offensive and racist. These are the facts. Care to prove me wrong?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I've seen your selective 'best definition' of the word.

I was pertaining to the fact that it is virtually forbidden to discuss the matter .
I couldn't find one which did define what the word actually meant.

Black people can be racist.

Obviously, but not against other black people - as you cannot be 'racist' against white people.

The 'n' word IS extremely offensive and racist.

Black people do not seem to think so when using it themselves.
Some people are racist. How can a word be racist?

These are the facts.

No, they are not.

Care to prove me wrong?

Yes. I disagree therefore you are wrong.

 

[Himaginn]

He may have a reason for wanting a white workforce - or vice versa.

If there is a genuine and legitimate reason for wanting, advertising for and employing a person of a specific gender, race, religion, etc, it is perfectly legal and understandable.
For instance, you wouldn't advertise for a priest, and accept anyone of not the designated faith. You wouldn't advertise for any attendant to attend to ladies, in stages of undress. You can, and it is done for the advert to be addressed to females only.
For instance, in a doctor's surgery, a notice may be placed not guaranteeing the gender of a duty doctor, along with a note that if patients want to see a doctor of a specific gender, they should request it. Obviously, if that surgery does not have a mix of gender of doctors, they'd be fully justified in specifying the gender of the applicants in adverts for a new doctor.

 

[Himaginn]

How can a word be racist?

You're being characteristically pedantic. A word is racially offensive, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[blightymam]

Your opinion.
I'm just as fallible as anyone else in making mistakes.
The difference is, when it is pointed out to me, that I have inadvertently offended someone, and I then accept it, I would unhesitatingly apologise, and determine not to use the particular offensive phrase/comment again.

When some, like transam, foxtrot (perhaps as F&I, Corgicrouch etc), et al make spurious and fatuous allegations, I may ask for them to explain how it was considered offensive.
I may refute them.
There may be a discussion about it.
Often I'll simply ignore the spurious, fatuous allegation for what is.
I'm referring to such spurious and fatuous allegations as the expression "Pot, Kettle, Black, etc is racially offensive. Such allegations as use of "imbecilic" as offensive to disabled, etc. Such allegations as me being sexist, etc.
Such allegations as these try to trivialise genuine incidents of offensive behaviour, and demonstrate the true nature of the individuals making spurious and fatuous allegations.

Additionally, I, almost unconsciously, give some thought to the comments I'm about to make.
If I consider my comments have the potential to offend, I'll think of another way of expressing myself, rather than wantonly disregarding that possibility of offending.


Dan used an expression, which he thought, or did not think at all, that it was not racially offensive. Alternatively it might have crossed his mind, but he used the expression anyway.
He asked me for an explanation, I advised him to seek his own counsel because I knew he wouldn't accept my explanation.
He insisted on my explanation. I eventually provided him with an explanation, supported by real incidents and opinions.
He then still refuted my explanation, and as far as we know, he has still not sought his own counsel.
Furthermore, he hasn't accepted that he wouldn't use that expression again, now knowing that it is racially offensive.

I did explain this earlier this morning. I also asked you which of the four scenarios, I presented, best fitted the events?

You often accuse me of dodging the issue. Here's your chance to demonstrate that you don't.

My response to you hasn't changed.

However, you like to act like you do have the monopoly on it. Dan used an idiom and you called him racist on the back of it when he meant no harm. You act like you are judge jury and executioner.

I don't think you even really care about the issue. You've been argumentative for a long time, banned for it and is someone who loves to stir the pot in your history here on DIYnot. This 'racist' thing is just the latest topic for you to grasp.. I think you care much more about getting a rise out of people than you do about what is right and wrong.

Btw, this is more bull from you Himmy.

You may recall that I also said, but maybe not at the same time, when I accuse anyone of being racially offensive, it is advisory,

'Advisory' - chortle.

 

[noseall]

I disagree therefore you are wrong.

In other words, no you can't.

 

[noseall]

as you cannot be 'racist' against white people

Yes you can. The Nazis were racist against white people. Black on black racism exists. The (use of) the 'n' word can be racist and offensive.

 

[JohnD]

You can use the term "neofascist" if you like. Curiously, people who are abusive and prejudiced and use offensive terms like to argue about what they themselves should or shouldn't be called.

Perhaps they do it to put a smokescreen over their offensive words and behaviour, and get a thrill out of repeating it.

If you are a Tottenham Hotspurs fan, or a black Briton, or a homosexual, or a person with a physical defect, you are entitled to take the word that the nfs throw at you, and claim it for your own use. This has the two advantages of removing the power of the insult, and annoying your abusers. Sometimes people will not realise you are claiming the word in this way and are unaware of your position. This can be regrettable. For example, Dan might wear a turban, and might call his turban-wearing chums by a derogatory term, they will, with luck, understand he is being playful and take it in good part. If he uses the same term in public to people who do not know him, are not turban-wearers and are not his chums, he will cause offense.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes you can.

I meant YOU, personally. You cannot, by definition, be racist against a fellow white person of the same race.

The Nazis were racist against white people.

Only if Jewish people are a different race. Are they?

Black on black racism exists.

Not if they are the same race.

The (use of) the 'n' word can be racist and offensive.

You have inserted 'use of' now. I shall class that as a point won.

 

[transam]

Well as noseall considers that "we" are all guilty of racism at one time or another ? & I assume he includes him self in the statement/word "we" than

he should be able to explain how "He" has been guilty of racism

 

[Himaginn]

Well as noseall considers that "we" are all guilty of racism at one time or another ? & I assume he includes him self in the statement/word "we" than

he should be able to explain how "He" has been guilty of racism

Why don't you start?
We could go for a record number of pages!

 

[transam]

Why don't you start?
We could go for a record number of pages!

I assume the word "We" also included you.

So I will let u start

Or perhaps when he used the word "we" he meant every one else except you ?

 

[transam]

black lives matter campaign / protest?

perhaps or may be this protest should be taken to president obamas home town of Chicago ? were up until 2 or 3 weeks ago (?)

there were a total of 500 deaths (this year) by shooting 76% were afro americans 16% were Hispanics.

on the day of the report (BBC) two children under 10 (afaik) & a pregnant woman had been shot in drive by shootings.

perhaps these deaths do not matter , to the campaign ????? as the majority of the 76% (or all ?) were not killed /shot by white people ??