Ooooh, What happened to the KFC thread?

MentalMinnie

How do you get from KFC to racism?!?

esuhl

The problem is, all of this is completely arbitrary. In our era, some people have linked some noises with an intention to offend, whether or not such an intention exists.

Give it 50 years, and no doubt there will be someone trying to argue that a newly-defined utterance is objectively unacceptable.

Why can't everyone just accept that it makes no difference what words you use, so long as you try (genuinely) not to cause unwarranted offence? This seems simple enough to me, and avoids daft generalisations such as "The term 'Aussie' was invented by Australians, therefore no Australian can object to it." or "Historically this word was acceptable/unacceptable, which justifies my present usage." or even "The OED says this word is/isn't offensive." - meanings change over time.

The noise that comes out of someone's mouth when they make a the noise "paki" has no objective definition and no objective degree of offence associated with it. If someone uses that term to cause offence, then... what they want is to offend you. If you choose to take offence, then (in a way) the racist has won. If you did not intend to cause offence, then it seems childish for the listener to choose to be offended on the basis of an arbitrary sound that is neither implicitly offensive nor was intended to offend.

So just be nice to people. If someone happens not to have read the latest edition of "Political Correctness Weekly" and refers to a person with dark skin as "coloured" (gasp!) instead of "black", then is it really a big deal to ask that one term be used in preference to another for the sake of your sensitivities? And is it really a big deal to just placate people with whatever language they find "palatable"? The use or omission of such words is rarely required in order to convey a particular message.

You can never use the "right" terminology anyway. "Black" might be widely acceptable in the UK, but I've heard that some Americans consider that racist and opt for clunky euphemisms like, "of Afro-American appearance" or "a person of colour".

No doubt the debate will continue with no progress for another hundred years, though... Human nature, eh?

System

MentalMinnie wrote: »

How do you get from KFC to racism?!?

The post was deleted. Basically someone kicked off because his local KFC sold only halal meat. It escalated to the p word being used and the whole thread disappeared!

tommyknocker

esuhl wrote: »

The problem is, all of this is completely arbitrary. In our era, some people have linked some noises with an intention to offend, whether or not such an intention exists.

Give it 50 years, and no doubt there will be someone trying to argue that a newly-defined utterance is objectively unacceptable.

Why can't everyone just accept that it makes no difference what words you use, so long as you try (genuinely) not to cause unwarranted offence? This seems simple enough to me, and avoids daft generalisations such as "The term 'Aussie' was invented by Australians, therefore no Australian can object to it." or "Historically this word was acceptable/unacceptable, which justifies my present usage." or even "The OED says this word is/isn't offensive." - meanings change over time.

The noise that comes out of someone's mouth when they make a the noise "paki" has no objective definition and no objective degree of offence associated with it. If someone uses that term to cause offence, then... what they want is to offend you. If you choose to take offence, then (in a way) the racist has won. If you did not intend to cause offence, then it seems childish for the listener to choose to be offended on the basis of an arbitrary sound that is neither implicitly offensive nor was intended to offend.

So just be nice to people. If someone happens not to have read the latest edition of "Political Correctness Weekly" and refers to a person with dark skin as "coloured" (gasp!) instead of "black", then is it really a big deal to ask that one term be used in preference to another for the sake of your sensitivities? And is it really a big deal to just placate people with whatever language they find "palatable"? The use or omission of such words is rarely required in order to convey a particular message.

You can never use the "right" terminology anyway. "Black" might be widely acceptable in the UK, but I've heard that some Americans consider that racist and opt for clunky euphemisms like, "of Afro-American appearance" or "a person of colour".

No doubt the debate will continue with no progress for another hundred years, though... Human nature, eh?

Exactly.

Can we now get back to KFC's and the halal enigma!

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

I may have misread this but it sounds like you wouldn't call a Japanese person a 'jap' to there face, however behind there back you are happy to use the term? If this is true you really want to have more courage in your (racist) convictions.

I said that as a matter of courtesy I would generally tend to use the full name of a race (or adjective derived from it) if someone of that race were present.

You really are the sort of person who sets back the cause of anti-racism by being an obnoxious prat who insists on ramming his own definitions down everyone else's throat.

Azari

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

Truth is though, no-one (as in pressure groups, agencies, etc) takes anti-white racism seriously though, do they?

They would if it were deemed to be causing upset to people.

If, for example, the inmates of a school whose main intake was black started racially abusing a white minority.

But as whites have not, in the main, historically, been oppressed by black majorities, then, no, no one with any intelligence is going to take a few people calling whites 'whitey' or 'ghost' to be a matter for serious action.

System

Azari wrote: »

I said that as a matter of courtesy I would generally tend to use the full name of a race (or adjective derived from it) if someone of that race were present.

You really are the sort of person who sets back the cause of anti-racism by being an obnoxious prat who insists on ramming his own definitions down everyone else's throat.

Yes in your mind I am worse than a racist, because I am not a racist....,

vax2002

What I do find odd is people who are offended on behalf of someone else, often the someone else does not actually exists so they are offended on behalf of fictitious friends ?
Now that is a mental illness in my book.

System

vax2002 wrote: »

What I do find odd is people who are offended on behalf of someone else, often the someone else does not actually exists so they are offended on behalf of fictitious friends ?
Now that is a mental illness in my book.

So what your saying is if you're white. Then you shouldn't be offended by people who use racist language about people who aren't white. Hmm not 100% convinced about this argument.....

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

Yes in your mind I am worse than a racist, because I am not a racist....,

ROFLMAO. :rotfl:

Nice attempt to play the martyr card.

I did not say you were worse than a racist.

What I was getting at is that you, with your smug, self-righteous claptrap and dogmatic instance that your opinion is correct and everyone that disagrees with you is a racist, are the exact sort of person who makes it harder for those of us who try to fight racism by gentle enlightenment to achieve our objectives.

But, go ahead and wallow in your conceited, egoistic, self satisfaction. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind.