Black Lives Matter

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Think of the word queer.The word that the gay fraternity took for their own and used..How is it different for black youths to use the N word in the same way?

You can't claim to be traumatised by somebody saying it, if you and your mates regularly say it. Common sense. As I said, it's all about having power and control over people.
Link

The City of Seattle held a racially segregated employee training session aimed at White staffers and instructing them on "undoing your own whiteness" in order to be held accountable by people of color, according to documents obtained by a public records request.
The session took place on June 12, as protesters took part in the so-called "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" in the Capitol Hill district.
One handout distributed in the session reportedly declared how “racism is not our fault but we are responsible." Another said White staffers must give up “the land” and their “guaranteed physical safety” in order to be an “accomplice” for racial justice.

...
In order to be considered “accomplices,” White employees must give up “comfort,” “guaranteed physical safety,” “expectations or presumptions of emotional safety,” “control over other people and over the land,” and “relationships with some other white people.”
White employees were also urged to give up “niceties from neighbors and colleagues,” “the certainty of your job,” and “accepting jobs and promotions when we are not qualified, including racial equity jobs.”

If giving up "guaranteed physical safety" means mixing more with Black people, isn't that implying that Black people are the actual problem?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Use of the N word is a prime example of this. Routinely used by black youths to each other, but deemed extremely offensive if others use the term.

It is either offensive, or it isn't, regardless of who uses the term.

Context is everything. Much as we might crave simplicity, it's not a binary yes it is, no it isn't here.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Context is everything. Much as we might crave simplicity, it's not a binary yes it is, no it isn't here.

Got it

so . . . an Irishman can tell jokes about the Irish, a Jew can tell jokes about Jews, a black person can tell jokes about black people . . . and a white person can't laugh if he hears them

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Got it

so . . . an Irishman can tell jokes about the Irish, a Jew can tell jokes about Jews, a black person can tell jokes about black people . . . and a white person can't laugh if he hears them

The first two people could well be white and laughing at the jokes.
If you wanted to simplify it, it's more in the person telling the joke than the person laughing at it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Context is everything. Much as we might crave simplicity, it's not a binary yes it is, no it isn't here.

What about when it's in the SAME context? Eg Singing a song written by a Black person? Black people do use the N word in a derogatory way. If it's about context, then the word used is irrelevant. It is just a label. If it's used in a derogatory context, then whatever words are used are still derogatory. If the word was replaced with the word "Apple", would it make whatever was said, less derogatory? Remember it's derived from a scientific anthropological term.


The very definition of not being "racist", means that you have to treat all races in the same manner, in the same circumstances. Different treatment = racist?

Originally Posted by Carth

Got it

so . . . an Irishman can tell jokes about the Irish, a Jew can tell jokes about Jews, a black person can tell jokes about black people . . . and a white person can't laugh if he hears them

Context is all...

as Charles M. Blow wrote

MY father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of my paternal grandmother would call my father Billy. Were I to ever call my father Billy, we would probably have a different conversation.

I have never called my father Billy. I understand, like most people, that words take on meaning within a context. It might be true that you refer to your spouse as Baby. But were I to take this as license to do the same, you would most likely protest. Right names depend on right relationships, a fact so basic to human speech that without it, human language might well collapse...

...A few summers ago one of my best friends invited me up to what he affectionately called his “white-trash cabin” in the Adirondacks. This was not how I described the outing to my family. Two of my Jewish acquaintances once joked that I’d “make a good Jew.” My retort was not, “Yeah, I certainly am good with money.” Gay men sometimes laughingly refer to one another as “******s.” My wife and her friends sometimes, when having a good time, will refer to one another with the word “bitch.” I am certain that should I decide to join in, I would invite the same hard conversation that would greet me, should I ever call my father Billy.

You seem to imply either a word is acceptable or it isn't, but that's a very simplistic view - you would never have been called the N word or Queer as an insult (or probably in any way) as you are neither, so who are you to tell someone who has had it used against them how they should use it - I know lots of Yorkshiremen who call each their Yorkshire friends "you tight barsteward", but if someone who they didn't know from London said it, they might take offence.

As I said, context is all, and like life, not black and white - ymmv.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The first two people could well be white and laughing at the jokes.
If you wanted to simplify it, it's more in the person telling the joke than the person laughing at it.

It's also about who else is around to overhear. Eg " Irishmen telling an "Irish" joke to each other, and somebody else who is not Irish overhears, then that person is allowed to take "offence". Just a perverted mechanism for allowing the maximum number of people to make a bogus complaint.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Eg Singing a song written by a Black person?

I've explained that it's not binary and you would have to examine the context. For example, if a record producer sang it the singer to emphasise a different way of singing a verse, then that would not be offensive. However, if a known white racist sang it then that would likely be offensive. It's about empathy and putting yourself in another's shoes - not looking for a binary answer to nuanced issues.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Context is all...

as Charles M. Blow wrote

You seem to imply either a word is acceptable or it isn't, but that's a very simplistic view - you would never have been called the N word or Queer as an insult (or probably in any way) as you are neither, so who are you to tell someone who has had it used against them how they should use it - I know lots of Yorkshiremen who call each their Yorkshire friends "you tight barsteward", but if someone who they didn't know from London said it, they might take offence.

As I said, context is all, and like life, not black and white - ymmv.

Nothing to do with context, but how much control of others, you're trying to impose. The offending words ARE used by the groups, to and about, complete strangers. People can easily choose to brush things off.
Eg A recent TV programme about Liverpool FC, had Black footballer Howard Gayle commenting on abuse from the opposing fans(Bayern Munich). He said that it "inspired him". The aim of the chants was to try and put him off. White players have also been taunted, but they are just expected to put up with it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's also about who else is around to overhear. Eg " Irishmen telling an "Irish" joke to each other, and somebody else who is not Irish overhears, then that person is allowed to take "offence". Just a perverted mechanism for allowing the maximum number of people to make a bogus complaint.

That sounds like an urban myth to me.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've explained that it's not binary and you would have to examine the context. For example, if a record producer sang it the singer to emphasise a different way of singing a verse, then that would not be offensive. However, if a known white racist sang it then that would likely be offensive. It's about empathy and putting yourself in another's shoes - not looking for a binary answer to nuanced issues.

Still nothing to do with context. Repeating the words DOESN'T make it racist. If anything, quite the opposite as they have listened to the song and know the words. So the only people that have been criticised, sacked, forced to resign, etc. for repeating certain song lyrics have all been racist?
There was a case where it was a discussion/meeting/lecture about use of offensive words, which common sense means that those words are likely to be used. Can't remember what happened to the guy, whether he was sacked or merely heavily criticised, but the context was valid, and not aimed at anybody in particular or in general. It's just that somebody else at the meeting wanted to impose control. What else could it be? The context was valid, so according to you, that would make it ok.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing to do with context, but how much control of others, you're trying to impose. The offending words ARE used by the groups, to and about, complete strangers. People can easily choose to brush things off.
Eg A recent TV programme about Liverpool FC, had Black footballer Howard Gayle commenting on abuse from the opposing fans(Bayern Munich). He said that it "inspired him". The aim of the chants was to try and put him off. White players have also been taunted, but they are just expected to put up with it.

Football's a tough environment with coin-throwing, abusive shouting and previously, banana-throwing. And racist chants are rife in some countries still.
But I'm sure you're not suggesting that black players get an easy ride but white players are expected to just grin and bear it?

[Carth]

I see we're all still going round in those wonderful circles that make discussions so amusing . . . isn't it great how one single post can cause so much angst and general whataboutery


*checks the latest from Yellowstone & NASA

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've explained that it's not binary and you would have to examine the context. For example, if a record producer sang it the singer to emphasise a different way of singing a verse, then that would not be offensive. However, if a known white racist sang it then that would likely be offensive. It's about empathy and putting yourself in another's shoes - not looking for a binary answer to nuanced issues.

Originally posted by Carth:
so . . . an Irishman can tell jokes about the Irish, a Jew can tell jokes about Jews, a black person can tell jokes about black people . . . and a white person can't laugh if he hears them

Response by Andrew:
The first two people could well be white and laughing at the jokes.
If you wanted to simplify it, it's more in the person telling the joke than the person laughing at it.

Carth gave a spot on example of what's so absurd about PC and woke-ism. So, what about the empathy of the listener (second higlights sentence)? It don't think you're being consistent.

Exactly what are you advocating? No queer jokes? No ethnic jokes? No emulating foreign accents (of which I'm expert)?

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I see we're all still going round in those wonderful circles that make discussions so amusing . . . isn't it great how one single post can cause so much angst and general whataboutery


*checks the latest from Yellowstone & NASA

I wrote in this thread yonks ago that it had run its course and was heading nowhere. I was told, basically, that this viewpoint is the prerogative of those running the forum.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That sounds like an urban myth to me.

Urban myth or Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986?
Again, people have actually been sacked, forced to resign, heavily criticised, etc for having a private conversation that was overheard by a uninvolved third party. Are you really saying that there have been no examples of that happening? Can't remember specific details.

Link

Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.

"Thought" as in imagined or falsely claimed. It means certain groups can bully people, if they choose to.