Which political Party -

[fugtifino]

"Here" is from my perspective.

 

My "stance", if ever I had one, is that the appearance of such phrases mark the users as stereotypical, Little England, spittle flecked Daily Wailers. And the list is growing thanks to posters here.

 

Sorry to say, but there's not much substance to speak of around here.

 

is the clue in your name?

 

Well done: lame as the joke is, I think you're the only one who's got it.

[Bazj]

 

Well done: lame as the joke is, I think you're the only one who's got it.

 

But is Peter the only one who has got it?

 

fugtifino

[wolfie]

Dusany1elsno Ding a Ling

[LymmParent]

If I was to call someone a white bar steward, would that be deemed racist?

 

Erm, well, it would be a racist remark, wouldn't it, if you were speaking to a human being? It would be a reference to their ethnic origin as part of an insult.

[Bazj]

If I was to call someone a white bar steward, would that be deemed racist?

 

Erm, well, it would be a racist remark, wouldn't it, if you were speaking to a human being? It would be a reference to their ethnic origin as part of an insult.

 

Unless he was addressing a white guy who was serving him a drink in a bar perhaps?

[observer]

Apparently it's OK within races to be racially insulting; in the US, blacks can use the "N" word for one another, but if "whitey" uses it, it's beyond the pale - so even more confusion.

[LymmParent]

If someone within a racial group uses a racist term, it is still racist. It may not cause the same degree of offence, it may even be regarded as acceptable, ironic or even funny, but that does not alter the fact it's racist. It's like swear words - even if everyone thinks it's hilarious in a joke and nobody is offended, it's still swearing. Definitions don't change just because nobody minds. You're mixing up the technical definition of a thing with the degree of acceptability to those present.

[observer]

Isn't that the basis of our laws - "acceptability" or otherwise; and doesn't that lead to discrimination by the Police and Courts?

[fugtifino]

Apparently it's OK within races to be racially insulting; in the US, blacks can use the "N" word for one another, but if "whitey" uses it, it's beyond the pale - so even more confusion

 

Unless you have, for some unknown godforsaken irresistible reason for being confused about whether or not it might be appropriate and socially and morally acceptable to use the "N" word or not, in ANY given situation, play on the safe side and don't use it.

 

Like I said Obs, it's easy.

[LymmParent]

Isn't that the basis of our laws - "acceptability" or otherwise; and doesn't that lead to discrimination by the Police and Courts?

 

No, Obs, it's not. If everybody in the Bank thinks it's fine for the bloke with the sawn-off to be given a million quid to leave, it is still technically armed robbery. If everyone thinks that Uncle Herbert deserved to be brained with a shovel, it is still technically murder. There are a few grey areas where "reasonable force" has a small margin for discussion and there are occasions where mitigating circumstances affect sentencing, but the definitions of offences are fixed.

[observer]

Isn't it the case, that the police (and courts) turn a blind eye to some forms of crime depending on origins of the perpetrator or their current stats? And is it the case that you can get justice IF you can afford it.

[fugtifino]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red Arrows>>>>>>>>>>

[observer]

[Bazj]

 

fugtifino either

[observer]

[LymmParent]

Isn't it the case, that the police (and courts) turn a blind eye to some forms of crime depending on origins of the perpetrator or their current stats? And is it the case that you can get justice IF you can afford it.

 

Yes, but they are STILL CRIMES. Similarly, if you turn a blind eye to a racist term, it is still a racist term. And if you pay a fiver to use a racist term, it is still a racist term. I don't quite understand your difficulty with this. If I call my dog a donkey, he's still a dog. If everyone says I'm right, he's still a dog. If the judge rules he's a donkey, he's still a dog. If he eats carrots, brays and works on Blackpool beach, he's still a flaming dog!

[observer]

Fairly obvious observations LP; but the point and purpose of "laws" are to control behaviour.

[LymmParent]

What's that got to do with anything? We were discussing whether a racist term is still a racist term if used between people of the same race. Short answer, yes.

 

Your observations on the law being applied unevenly may well be true, but the germane fact is that the definitions of offences are set in stone.

[observer]

Not quite, they are set by the legislature of a Country (or in some cases by Brussels nowadays); the legislature being (theoretically) elected by a majority of the populace on the basis of their legislative programme. So, NOT "set in stone".