Why is blacklist not racist?

[kelly4danny 10]

Because you are not comparing like with like.

 

In the context of the 'chav' debate, 'woodmally' was trying to use the fact that he personally didn't believe the word was an attack on the working classes, to argue that the Guardian writer was wrong to say it was. When you are trying to argue a point, you need to provide reasons and evidence. 'woodmally's argument fails because you cannot extrapolate how millions of people think or feel on the basis of how you do. That's all.

 

In the context of the 'language' debate, I was suggesting that people who couldn't cope with the use of certain words even in an analytical, linguistic context, should consider removing themselves from that debate.

 

Now you explain, please, what bearing these two totally unconnected posts have on each other!

 

OK, and I wont take as long because I dont need to scrutinise it for flaws. They are there to see, in bold, and came from you. You say people have a right to be offended, even if another is not, then you say if people are offended, they should not look????? Its not relevant whether they are related or not. The issue is that you have completely contradicted yourself regarding who should or should not be offended!! :loopy:

Do you not remember writing this???

Do you not believe the things you write???

 

Here it is again;

 

Originally Posted by aliceBB View Post

Two flaws in your argument there. First, just because you consider yourself 'working class' and are not offended by it does not mean that others are not. A majority, even. Second, and more significantly, the writer does not specify that it is a slur on the 'working class' as such (probably more the underclass in our society). What is implied is that such terms are divisive as they lazily and negatively stereotype whole sections of the population. Stereotypes are rarely helpful if you want to get to the root of problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoted By aliceBB

Re: Why is blacklist not racist?

 

Just because 'certain sentences have written' does not mean that words have been exaggerated. You are not making much sense, I'm afraid.

 

If there are people who are genuinely offended and upset by an academic discussion of how language operates in social contexts, then I suggest they are oversensitive and should simply avoid forum threads on the issue. They should also avoid listening to Radio 4 or embarking on an A level English Language course since discussions of this nature feature in those contexts, too.

[aliceBB 10]

kelly4danny, what are you studying?

 

For the last time : you are confused.

 

woodmally and I were not disputing whether or not he was offended, nor whether he had the 'right' to be. I was showing how he could not cite his personal offence-taking as evidnce for the behaviour of an entire socio-economic class.

 

Nor have I said that people who find academic discussions about racist language, offensive, have no right to be offended.

 

Everyone has the right to be offended ; it's what they do about it - in the context in which they find themselves - that matters!

 

If you cannot see why you are barking up the wrong tree here, I cannot help you further. You might like to consider a course in Critical Thinking, as your logic and reasoning skills would benefit from it.

Edited February 18, 2015 by aliceBB

[kelly4danny 10]

kelly4danny, what are you studying?

 

That does not matter.

I feel that everybody has the empathy to choose what they feel about their life, and the world that we all share. It was with this in mind that I chose to object about the words were being bandied about, as if they were regular day to day words, even though it was meant to be a pretty harmless adult discussion. When my feelings were questioned by some, even I thought "Am I being oversensitive here", which is why I discussed it in confidence with a close friend who is not a white person. It was her who wanted to broaden the discussion with others, and the consensus was that the use of these words was offensive, especially for all to see on a public forum. I, and several others complained to SF, and although many posters claimed it was just one persons posts that had been removed, but the post count and the things we all saw show the mods removed a whole lot more, as some posters whom I believed to be regular straight thinking people, had taken it too far, what with rhymes and riddles to mask or poke fun at a persons creed.

But STILL some thought that people didn't have a credible reason to be offended, whereas there are many threads and posts where this thought process falls flat on its face.

I don't wish to jump down someones throat for the fun of it, but I feel that if even one person finds something offensive, then they have every right to express this without fear of being labelled "oversensitive" of having fun poked at them, just because several people dont agree with them at the time.

[aliceBB 10]

That does not matter.

 

I don't wish to jump down someones throat for the fun of it, but I feel that if even one person finds something offensive, then they have every right to express this without fear of being labelled "oversensitive" of having fun poked at them, just because several people dont agree with them at the time.

 

Please justify your comment about fun being poked, as my suggestion was completely serious. I'll explain: people do not have to subject themselves to things on internet forums which they find uncomfortable or upsetting. For example, I am quite squeamish about seeing physical violence; it upsets me. I avoid watching violent films and I would probably choose not to watch a TV debate about the subject, if examples of screen violence were included. In this respect, I am happy to agree that I am oversensitive, (although I would not class an academic discussion about violence as 'offensive'). Anyone who finds a discussion about racist language 'offensive' does not need to expose him or herself to it, hence my suggestion.

 

It is a fundamental of intelligent discussion that all contributors accept that when language use is itself the topic under debate, that language is not aimed at anyone.

 

Now, please explain what on earth all this has to do with the flaws in woodmally's argument about the use of the term 'chav'.

 

Struggling? Thought so!

[kelly4danny 10]

Please justify your comment about fun being poked, as my suggestion was completely serious. I'll explain: people do not have to subject themselves to things on internet forums which they find uncomfortable or upsetting. For example, I am quite squeamish about seeing physical violence; it upsets me. I avoid watching violent films and I would probably choose not to watch a TV debate about the subject, if examples of screen violence were included. In this respect, I am happy to agree that I am oversensitive, (although I would not class an academic discussion about violence as 'offensive'). Anyone who finds a discussion about racist language 'offensive' does not need to expose him or herself to it, hence my suggestion.

 

It is a fundamental of intelligent discussion that all contributors accept that when language use is itself the topic under debate, that language is not aimed at anyone.

 

Now, please explain what on earth all this has to do with the flaws in woodmally's argument about the use of the term 'chav'.

 

Struggling? Thought so!

 

Alice, you are doing it again. It does not matter a jot what you think people should do. Why do you assume that people should do or think as you say, I do not know!!! If people choose to be offended, then they have chosen to be offended, full stop. I haven't suggested that you or others do anything, but I have suggested that I and others were offended by the sickening posts. And that is it. Full stop.

And when you post something that you say people shouldnt be offended about, I will say it again. So not struggling at all!!

[aliceBB 10]

Alice, you are doing it again. It does not matter a jot what you think people should do.

I have not prescribed what people should or should not do. Suggesting a course of action is not the same as saying they should do it.

 

Why do you assume that people should do or think as you say, I do not know!!!

See above.

 

If people choose to be offended, then they have chosen to be offended, full stop. I haven't suggested that you or others do anything, but I have suggested that I and others were offended by the sickening posts. And that is it. Full stop.

But it wasn't, was it? You repeatedly interrupted (some would say derailed) a perfectly valid discussion to tell us how offended you and your friend were by the mere mention of words which you claimed were inappropriate and upsetting, regardless of context. You wanted the debate to stop and the thread removed. Even after people offered you clear explanations as to why the quoting of such terms in that context cannot be conceived as mischievous or malign, you ploughed on, regardless. Some would call that trolling...

 

And when you post something that you say people shouldnt be offended about, I will say it again. So not struggling at all!!

Sadly you have not read my previous post. 'Struggling' referred to your failure to explain the mysterious connection you allege exists between woodmally's lack of debating skills and your taking offence at some words being discussed out of any sensitive context. Anyway, I'm bored now. What you write has anaesthetic effect on my brain. Please learn how to debate, if you want people to take you and your ideas seriously. The reason I asked what you are studying was because I hope for your sake it isn't any subject for which you need to construct a clear argument. Good luck and good night. Edited February 18, 2015 by aliceBB

[Cyclone 10]

What I was saying is that its not acceptable to use the word he did

 

It does not matter a jot what you think people should do.

 

Ironic, no?

[kelly4danny 10]

Ironic, no?

 

No Cyclone. Its not. You were appalled at the use of the word Chinky, in relation to a takeaway, were you not? I agreed with you. Its a horrible word to use, and i'm ashamed of saying it, and I apologise for using it to make a point. and I apologise to your partner, whom you said was in fact of Chinese origin.

I was offended by your public exhilaration of having no trouble with shouting the word "Wog", regardless of your freedom to shout it, without fear of being arrested. And once again, I apologise for being compelled to use the word myself. However, now that I have used the words, I am sickened by it, and also the very fact that people can be so shallow as to not realise that some people are offended by the use of these words, not so much in the context of a general discussion as such, but in the context of people blurting them out to prove a point of how it might be perceived by others. In any case, these words are clearly derogatory to a section of society.

The clearly offensive terms i've used in this comment are not from my mouth, as they are facsimiles of what you said and what others said. If I had written them borne from my mind, then I would be as guilty as the authors.

So no. Not ironic at all Cyclone, and to be fair your perception of irony is misplaced as I never actually told anybody to do anything, other than respect peoples right to be offended.

[Cyclone 10]

I wasn't appalled, I made the point that it was offensive, something that a few posters denied.

 

Seems ironic to me.

[Halibut 12]

No Cyclone. Its not. You were appalled at the use of the word Chinky, in relation to a takeaway, were you not? I agreed with you. Its a horrible word to use, and i'm ashamed of saying it, and I apologise for using it to make a point. and I apologise to your partner, whom you said was in fact of Chinese origin.

I was offended by your public exhilaration of having no trouble with shouting the word "Wog", regardless of your freedom to shout it, without fear of being arrested. And once again, I apologise for being compelled to use the word myself. However, now that I have used the words, I am sickened by it, and also the very fact that people can be so shallow as to not realise that some people are offended by the use of these words, not so much in the context of a general discussion as such, but in the context of people blurting them out to prove a point of how it might be perceived by others. In any case, these words are clearly derogatory to a section of society.

The clearly offensive terms i've used in this comment are not from my mouth, as they are facsimiles of what you said and what others said. If I had written them borne from my mind, then I would be as guilty as the authors.

So no. Not ironic at all Cyclone, and to be fair your perception of irony is misplaced as I never actually told anybody to do anything, other than respect peoples right to be offended.

 

Is this a good time to say 'Darky'?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Halibut

[aliceBB 10]

Is this a good time to say 'Darky'?

 

As long as it is completely out of context

[kelly4danny 10]

Is this a good time to say 'Darky'?

 

Very amusing. Are you not standing against racism on another thread at the moment Halibut? :suspect:

 

You are a complete wonder of the modern world.

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2015 at 19:23 ----------

 

As long as it is completely out of context

 

And you are on the next bus.